Danger! Danger!

On 2/11/2020 3:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 8:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

O.K. I saw the complaints about Special Order 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_40

But read the text http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf:

HI. DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS SECTION�RESPONSIBILITIES. The Headquarters Section Desk Officer, Detective Headquarters Division,
upon notification that an undocumented alien has been arrested for multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense, or has been arrested for
the same offense a second time, shall:
• Record the information provided in the DHD Undocumented Alien Log.
• Notify the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service via teletype of
the arrest of the individual.
• Forward daily all Arrest Reports marked "Undocumented Alien" to the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Felons get reported -- major and repeat misdemeanors, too.

I wonder how Tom would feel if the San Leandro police decided to crack-down on illegal Croatians and kept pulling him over to check his papers. He'd scream like its Nazi Germany. "Let me zee your papers, old man!"

California was full of Mexicans before USians arrived. Imagine some surely cop making some tenth generation citizen produce his papers because he has brown skin. I'd be pretty ****ed off, personally. No free pass for criminals, though. Go go down the street shooting people willy-nilly, you go to jail for a long time -- and probably back to your country of origin.

-- Jay Beattie.


Meanwhile, in the finest tradition of North Carolina, May
1861, some States and localities have chosen nullification,
the blatant refusal to 'take care that the laws are
faithfully executed'.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...torney-general

Finally, someone has taken the stance of Lincoln that the
Union ought to be preserved.

There is an alternate remedy. If both houses and some
President want to join together to repeal whole sections of
US code, we could indeed achieve open borders and anarchy.

I don't think New Jersey is seceding is it?


Oddly, nullification is okey-dokey if it involves guns. E.g. Printz v. United States (federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.)

Oregon police officers aren't arresting the locals for smoking marijuana. It is a federal offense. "Out of my cold dead hands!" [shaking joint in the air]. I guess we're nullifiers with reefers instead of rifles.

Wisconsin has a long history of refusing to follow federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableman_v._Booth How could you not return other folk's property? Bad! Bad Wisconsin!

Open borders is a conservative boogeyman. Nobody serious is proposing a wholesale repeal of our immigration laws. We love to get worked up about it though. It mobilizes the base.

We'll always have illegals. I was jumping over the US/Canadian border up in Washington, back and forth, and nobody stopped me. Legal, illegal, legal, illegal. It's not hard to do. https://tinyurl.com/spgc8h4 (Whatcom Co. Washington).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...RDER.jpg?w=620 I was looking to start up a gang in Canada -- "hey hosers, say we start a hockey gang!" Build that wall, eh? What's that aboot?

-- Jay Beattie.




We'll just have to disagree - your opinion vs mine and Ms
Fuertes':

https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/ice-di...womans-murder/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 4:41:32 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/11/2020 3:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 8:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

O.K. I saw the complaints about Special Order 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_40

But read the text http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf:

HI. DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS SECTION RESPONSIBILITIES. The Headquarters Section Desk Officer, Detective Headquarters Division,
upon notification that an undocumented alien has been arrested for multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense, or has been arrested for
the same offense a second time, shall:
• Record the information provided in the DHD Undocumented Alien Log.
• Notify the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service via teletype of
the arrest of the individual.
• Forward daily all Arrest Reports marked "Undocumented Alien" to the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Felons get reported -- major and repeat misdemeanors, too.

I wonder how Tom would feel if the San Leandro police decided to crack-down on illegal Croatians and kept pulling him over to check his papers. He'd scream like its Nazi Germany. "Let me zee your papers, old man!"

California was full of Mexicans before USians arrived. Imagine some surely cop making some tenth generation citizen produce his papers because he has brown skin. I'd be pretty ****ed off, personally. No free pass for criminals, though. Go go down the street shooting people willy-nilly, you go to jail for a long time -- and probably back to your country of origin.

-- Jay Beattie.


Meanwhile, in the finest tradition of North Carolina, May
1861, some States and localities have chosen nullification,
the blatant refusal to 'take care that the laws are
faithfully executed'.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...torney-general

Finally, someone has taken the stance of Lincoln that the
Union ought to be preserved.

There is an alternate remedy. If both houses and some
President want to join together to repeal whole sections of
US code, we could indeed achieve open borders and anarchy.

I don't think New Jersey is seceding is it?


Oddly, nullification is okey-dokey if it involves guns. E.g. Printz v. United States (federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.)

Oregon police officers aren't arresting the locals for smoking marijuana. It is a federal offense. "Out of my cold dead hands!" [shaking joint in the air]. I guess we're nullifiers with reefers instead of rifles.

Wisconsin has a long history of refusing to follow federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableman_v._Booth How could you not return other folk's property? Bad! Bad Wisconsin!

Open borders is a conservative boogeyman. Nobody serious is proposing a wholesale repeal of our immigration laws. We love to get worked up about it though. It mobilizes the base.

We'll always have illegals. I was jumping over the US/Canadian border up in Washington, back and forth, and nobody stopped me. Legal, illegal, legal, illegal. It's not hard to do. https://tinyurl.com/spgc8h4 (Whatcom Co. Washington).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...RDER.jpg?w=620 I was looking to start up a gang in Canada -- "hey hosers, say we start a hockey gang!" Build that wall, eh? What's that aboot?

-- Jay Beattie.




We'll just have to disagree - your opinion vs mine and Ms
Fuertes':

https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/ice-di...womans-murder/

Yes, I'll call your Maria Fuentes and raise you 57 victims. https://tinyurl..com/vdvl6nh Trump will never talk about that because it doesn't roil the base -- make fodder for Fox news or vanquish his enemies. Just some well meaning citizen with a bump-stock.

If you want to promote cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE, there are ways to do it. States don't have to enforce immigration laws and, in fact, aren't authorized to enforce immigration laws. Holding people beyond an arraignment requires probable cause -- and an ICE detainer request is just a two-liner saying "hold this person." It isn't probable cause.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/immigrat...uide-perplexed Right here in Ory-gun, the Clackamas County Sheriffs got sued successfully for holding a suspect on an ICE detainer:

Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County: The court granted partial summary judgment on Miranda-Olivares’s Section 1983 claim against Clackamas County Jail for violating her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The magistrate judge found that Miranda-Olivares, who was arrested on a state criminal charge but denied release on bail because of an ICE detainer, had been subjected to a “new seizure[] independent of the initial finding of probable cause for violating state law.� “[A]bsent probable cause� of a new violation, Miranda-Olivares’ detention constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. But because the detainer only asserted that an immigration investigation “has been initiated� regarding Miranda-Olivares, “the ICE detainer alone did not demonstrate probable cause.�

Here is the MSJ opinion. https://media.oregonlive.com/clackam...ion.140411.pdf I've known Janice Stewart for decades, and she is not a dope or a bleeding heart liberal.[side story, once I woke her up in the middle of the night and got her to sign an order to release a vessel from arrest -- signing occurred in her living room. I was working on London time].

If ICE knows that someone is in custody, it can go pick them up -- be there after the arraignment and exercise its own authority to take custody. It could have done that in the Fuentes case. It knew where Reeaz Khan was, and if it knew the NYPD wouldn't hold him, then it should have gone and gotten him.

Think of it like an unfunded federal mandate, which conservatives hate. Without compensation, state and local law enforcement are "asked" to hold suspected violators of federal immigration statutes. 48 hours. That's probably $200 in costs and exposure to a 1983 action if the two line hold order is not supported by probable cause. For that ask, you pay and indemnify the state in the event that the hold is unconstitutional. And you ask nicely and don't let the Orange Overlord bloviate and cause the locals to dig-in.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/11/2020 8:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 4:41:32 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/11/2020 3:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 8:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

O.K. I saw the complaints about Special Order 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_40

But read the text http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf:

HI. DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS SECTION RESPONSIBILITIES. The Headquarters Section Desk Officer, Detective Headquarters Division,
upon notification that an undocumented alien has been arrested for multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense, or has been arrested for
the same offense a second time, shall:
• Record the information provided in the DHD Undocumented Alien Log.
• Notify the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service via teletype of
the arrest of the individual.
• Forward daily all Arrest Reports marked "Undocumented Alien" to the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Felons get reported -- major and repeat misdemeanors, too.

I wonder how Tom would feel if the San Leandro police decided to crack-down on illegal Croatians and kept pulling him over to check his papers. He'd scream like its Nazi Germany. "Let me zee your papers, old man!"

California was full of Mexicans before USians arrived. Imagine some surely cop making some tenth generation citizen produce his papers because he has brown skin. I'd be pretty ****ed off, personally. No free pass for criminals, though. Go go down the street shooting people willy-nilly, you go to jail for a long time -- and probably back to your country of origin.

-- Jay Beattie.


Meanwhile, in the finest tradition of North Carolina, May
1861, some States and localities have chosen nullification,
the blatant refusal to 'take care that the laws are
faithfully executed'.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...torney-general

Finally, someone has taken the stance of Lincoln that the
Union ought to be preserved.

There is an alternate remedy. If both houses and some
President want to join together to repeal whole sections of
US code, we could indeed achieve open borders and anarchy.

I don't think New Jersey is seceding is it?


Oddly, nullification is okey-dokey if it involves guns. E.g. Printz v. United States (federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.)

Oregon police officers aren't arresting the locals for smoking marijuana. It is a federal offense. "Out of my cold dead hands!" [shaking joint in the air]. I guess we're nullifiers with reefers instead of rifles.

Wisconsin has a long history of refusing to follow federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableman_v._Booth How could you not return other folk's property? Bad! Bad Wisconsin!

Open borders is a conservative boogeyman. Nobody serious is proposing a wholesale repeal of our immigration laws. We love to get worked up about it though. It mobilizes the base.

We'll always have illegals. I was jumping over the US/Canadian border up in Washington, back and forth, and nobody stopped me. Legal, illegal, legal, illegal. It's not hard to do. https://tinyurl.com/spgc8h4 (Whatcom Co. Washington).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...RDER.jpg?w=620 I was looking to start up a gang in Canada -- "hey hosers, say we start a hockey gang!" Build that wall, eh? What's that aboot?

-- Jay Beattie.




We'll just have to disagree - your opinion vs mine and Ms
Fuertes':

https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/ice-di...womans-murder/

Yes, I'll call your Maria Fuentes and raise you 57 victims. https://tinyurl.com/vdvl6nh Trump will never talk about that because it doesn't roil the base -- make fodder for Fox news or vanquish his enemies. Just some well meaning citizen with a bump-stock.

If you want to promote cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE, there are ways to do it. States don't have to enforce immigration laws and, in fact, aren't authorized to enforce immigration laws. Holding people beyond an arraignment requires probable cause -- and an ICE detainer request is just a two-liner saying "hold this person." It isn't probable cause.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/immigrat...uide-perplexed Right here in Ory-gun, the Clackamas County Sheriffs got sued successfully for holding a suspect on an ICE detainer:

Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County: The court granted partial summary judgment on Miranda-Olivares’s Section 1983 claim against Clackamas County Jail for violating her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The magistrate judge found that Miranda-Olivares, who was arrested on a state criminal charge but denied release on bail because of an ICE detainer, had been subjected to a “new seizure[] independent of the initial finding of probable cause for violating state law.� “[A]bsent probable cause� of a new violation, Miranda-Olivares’ detention constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. But because the detainer only asserted that an immigration investigation “has been initiated� regarding Miranda-Olivares, “the ICE detainer alone did not demonstrate probable cause.�

Here is the MSJ opinion. https://media.oregonlive.com/clackam...ion.140411.pdf I've known Janice Stewart for decades, and she is not a dope or a bleeding heart liberal.[side story, once I woke her up in the middle of the night and got her to sign an order to release a vessel from arrest -- signing occurred in her living room. I was working on London time].

If ICE knows that someone is in custody, it can go pick them up -- be there after the arraignment and exercise its own authority to take custody. It could have done that in the Fuentes case. It knew where Reeaz Khan was, and if it knew the NYPD wouldn't hold him, then it should have gone and gotten him.

Think of it like an unfunded federal mandate, which conservatives hate. Without compensation, state and local law enforcement are "asked" to hold suspected violators of federal immigration statutes. 48 hours. That's probably $200 in costs and exposure to a 1983 action if the two line hold order is not supported by probable cause. For that ask, you pay and indemnify the state in the event that the hold is unconstitutional. And you ask nicely and don't let the Orange Overlord bloviate and cause the locals to dig-in.

-- Jay Beattie.


I know a good many firearms owners all of whom think
bump-stocks and trigger cranks are dippy gimmicks - as do I
[1].
Be that as it may, the GWB and BHO ATF approved them for
sale. the DJT administration banned them.

[1] I don't see this as a critical 2d Amendment issue
although some nutjobs do make the claim.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/11/2020 7:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 06:57:14 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:16:59 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

To me, at least, this seems very strange.

To date I have resided in six foreign countries and not only has every
one of them had a national identification card but refusal to show it
if asked by an authority would be deemed at least a misdemeanor. I am
not exactly sure what the "crime" would be as I have never heard of
anyone refusing to show their I.D. card.

In fact in many, probably most, it would be common to have to prove
your citizenship, by presenting your I.D. card, to be accepted into a
school, open a bank account, buy property, rent a house, or have
almost any contact with a government office.

As an aside, when you are in a bar and a lovely young thing tells you
that "I'm only 16 years old" you can ask her to produce her I.D. card
which, of course, has her date of birth :-)

Why is there such a hullabaloo about such a simple thing?

Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account.

-- Jay Beattie.

No you are correct, it has to do with an individual being in the
country legally.

I might point out that foreigners who wish to enter the U.S. legally
must present proof of identity... and (I believe) have fingerprints
and a photo recorded.

But it is unconstitutional to then check someone's identity inside
the U.S.?

But perhaps more to the point, the U.S. is the only country that I've
lived in that makes such a loud noise about "illegal immigrants". and
yes, there are some here in Thailand but no government to date has run
for election based on keeping them out as the police and immigration
authority do a pretty good job of it. Probably because there is a
national identification card law here, and people must present it if
requested :-)

I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to institute a U.S. national
identification card, there would be millions of people protesting it as
government overreach, a first step toward a police state confiscating
guns and other property. Many of those people would be the same ones who
rage about illegal immigrants.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:41:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/11/2020 3:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 8:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

O.K. I saw the complaints about Special Order 40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_40

But read the text http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf:

HI. DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS SECTION�RESPONSIBILITIES. The Headquarters Section Desk Officer, Detective Headquarters Division,
upon notification that an undocumented alien has been arrested for multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense, or has been arrested for
the same offense a second time, shall:
Record the information provided in the DHD Undocumented Alien Log.
Notify the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service via teletype of
the arrest of the individual.
Forward daily all Arrest Reports marked "Undocumented Alien" to the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Felons get reported -- major and repeat misdemeanors, too.

I wonder how Tom would feel if the San Leandro police decided to crack-down on illegal Croatians and kept pulling him over to check his papers. He'd scream like its Nazi Germany. "Let me zee your papers, old man!"

California was full of Mexicans before USians arrived. Imagine some surely cop making some tenth generation citizen produce his papers because he has brown skin. I'd be pretty ****ed off, personally. No free pass for criminals, though. Go go down the street shooting people willy-nilly, you go to jail for a long time -- and probably back to your country of origin.

-- Jay Beattie.


Meanwhile, in the finest tradition of North Carolina, May
1861, some States and localities have chosen nullification,
the blatant refusal to 'take care that the laws are
faithfully executed'.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...torney-general

Finally, someone has taken the stance of Lincoln that the
Union ought to be preserved.

There is an alternate remedy. If both houses and some
President want to join together to repeal whole sections of
US code, we could indeed achieve open borders and anarchy.

I don't think New Jersey is seceding is it?


Oddly, nullification is okey-dokey if it involves guns. E.g. Printz v. United States (federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.)

Oregon police officers aren't arresting the locals for smoking marijuana. It is a federal offense. "Out of my cold dead hands!" [shaking joint in the air]. I guess we're nullifiers with reefers instead of rifles.

Wisconsin has a long history of refusing to follow federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableman_v._Booth How could you not return other folk's property? Bad! Bad Wisconsin!

Open borders is a conservative boogeyman. Nobody serious is proposing a wholesale repeal of our immigration laws. We love to get worked up about it though. It mobilizes the base.

We'll always have illegals. I was jumping over the US/Canadian border up in Washington, back and forth, and nobody stopped me. Legal, illegal, legal, illegal. It's not hard to do. https://tinyurl.com/spgc8h4 (Whatcom Co. Washington).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...RDER.jpg?w=620 I was looking to start up a gang in Canada -- "hey hosers, say we start a hockey gang!" Build that wall, eh? What's that aboot?

-- Jay Beattie.




We'll just have to disagree - your opinion vs mine and Ms
Fuertes':

https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/ice-di...womans-murder/


It seems to be a bit more than one individual. The quoted report also
states"

The ICE chief... said the city last year complied with just 10 of
more than 7,500 detainer requests for illegal immigrants charged with
or convicted of various crimes.
The cases involved more than 200 homicides, 500 robberies, 1,000
sexual offenses, 1,000 weapons offenses and 3,500 assaults, he said.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:09:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to institute a U.S. national
identification card, there would be millions of people protesting it as
government overreach, a first step toward a police state confiscating
guns and other property. Many of those people would be the same ones who
rage about illegal immigrants.

I take it that you have never heard of "Real ID".

The U.S. has had "papers, please" for some time, and I never leave
home without my certificate of human status.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:09:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 7:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 06:57:14 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:16:59 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

To me, at least, this seems very strange.

To date I have resided in six foreign countries and not only has every
one of them had a national identification card but refusal to show it
if asked by an authority would be deemed at least a misdemeanor. I am
not exactly sure what the "crime" would be as I have never heard of
anyone refusing to show their I.D. card.

In fact in many, probably most, it would be common to have to prove
your citizenship, by presenting your I.D. card, to be accepted into a
school, open a bank account, buy property, rent a house, or have
almost any contact with a government office.

As an aside, when you are in a bar and a lovely young thing tells you
that "I'm only 16 years old" you can ask her to produce her I.D. card
which, of course, has her date of birth :-)

Why is there such a hullabaloo about such a simple thing?

Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account.

-- Jay Beattie.

No you are correct, it has to do with an individual being in the
country legally.

I might point out that foreigners who wish to enter the U.S. legally
must present proof of identity... and (I believe) have fingerprints
and a photo recorded.

But it is unconstitutional to then check someone's identity inside
the U.S.?

But perhaps more to the point, the U.S. is the only country that I've
lived in that makes such a loud noise about "illegal immigrants". and
yes, there are some here in Thailand but no government to date has run
for election based on keeping them out as the police and immigration
authority do a pretty good job of it. Probably because there is a
national identification card law here, and people must present it if
requested :-)

I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to institute a U.S. national
identification card, there would be millions of people protesting it as
government overreach, a first step toward a police state confiscating
guns and other property. Many of those people would be the same ones who
rage about illegal immigrants.

You are probably correct.... but of course everyone that works has a
Social Security number, practically everyone has a government tax
record, practically everyone has a driver's license... didn't
California issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants so that they
would have an I.D. with a picture on it. U.S. citizens have either a
birth certificate or a "naturalization" record. Federal employees have
records stored at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), anyone that has been in the Service has a record on file.
Super markets have "memberships" airlines keep records of frequent
fliers. Some people have a police record...

Anyone that actually believes that they are invisible, in this day and
age, is a fool.

But of course that doesn't stop the rank and file from complaining.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:34:04 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:09:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to institute a U.S. national
identification card, there would be millions of people protesting it as
government overreach, a first step toward a police state confiscating
guns and other property. Many of those people would be the same ones who
rage about illegal immigrants.

I take it that you have never heard of "Real ID".

The U.S. has had "papers, please" for some time, and I never leave
home without my certificate of human status.

Goodness, you've already got a government I.D. card, just that it
isn't issued by the central government, only certified by the central
government. Sort of an end run...I guess that if the state issues you
a driver's license with a gold star everything is hunky dory but if
the federal government was issuing it would be an infringement of your
constitutional rights :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 2/11/2020 11:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:09:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 7:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 06:57:14 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:16:59 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2020 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.

No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country.

Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order.

-- Jay Beattie.

I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town.

At my exit is the merging with 580 which also merges with 680 that is the road that is the San Mateo Bridge and with which you can get to by going through Hayward. So usually cars will take the Freeway exit to 880 and go that way to 680 rather than continue through the city of Hayward. Many times the bridge traffic is going well over 80 mph and I was pulled over for going 65 and since he didn't discover I was drunk, he issued me a license sticker ticket. Turned out that I had sent off the payment for it but I never received it and with my memory simply didn't remember the sticker.

The cop was shocked to discover that I am a handicapped person but felt obliged to issue me a ticket instead of warning me to get the license tab. I was the only one on the Freeway going under 75. I told that to my brother as I was taking him to the eye doctor, since after they dialate his eyes he can't see to drive. He said that you're supposed to go the same speed as traffic. At the same time in the fast lane traffic was all doing 90 mph and one of them pulled across 5 lanes of traffic, cut in too close to a car who slammed on his brakes and the car behind him smashed into the back of him. The perpetrator of course was long gone.

Ahh, wonderful California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

What the illegals did in LA was to drive through neighborhoods randomly shooting people until everyone but the illegal most out of entire sections of LA. The quiet nice little towns of San Bernadino and Riverside are now overfilled dumps where you don't even want to pull off the freeway.

Now they are going it in the bay area. I suppose this is why the Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote.


In case you discount Tom's analysis, go search the death of
Jamiel Shaw.

To me, at least, this seems very strange.

To date I have resided in six foreign countries and not only has every
one of them had a national identification card but refusal to show it
if asked by an authority would be deemed at least a misdemeanor. I am
not exactly sure what the "crime" would be as I have never heard of
anyone refusing to show their I.D. card.

In fact in many, probably most, it would be common to have to prove
your citizenship, by presenting your I.D. card, to be accepted into a
school, open a bank account, buy property, rent a house, or have
almost any contact with a government office.

As an aside, when you are in a bar and a lovely young thing tells you
that "I'm only 16 years old" you can ask her to produce her I.D. card
which, of course, has her date of birth :-)

Why is there such a hullabaloo about such a simple thing?

Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account.

-- Jay Beattie.

No you are correct, it has to do with an individual being in the
country legally.

I might point out that foreigners who wish to enter the U.S. legally
must present proof of identity... and (I believe) have fingerprints
and a photo recorded.

But it is unconstitutional to then check someone's identity inside
the U.S.?

But perhaps more to the point, the U.S. is the only country that I've
lived in that makes such a loud noise about "illegal immigrants". and
yes, there are some here in Thailand but no government to date has run
for election based on keeping them out as the police and immigration
authority do a pretty good job of it. Probably because there is a
national identification card law here, and people must present it if
requested :-)

I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to institute a U.S. national
identification card, there would be millions of people protesting it as
government overreach, a first step toward a police state confiscating
guns and other property. Many of those people would be the same ones who
rage about illegal immigrants.

You are probably correct.... but of course everyone that works has a
Social Security number, practically everyone has a government tax
record, practically everyone has a driver's license... didn't
California issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants so that they
would have an I.D. with a picture on it. U.S. citizens have either a
birth certificate or a "naturalization" record. Federal employees have
records stored at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), anyone that has been in the Service has a record on file.
Super markets have "memberships" airlines keep records of frequent
fliers. Some people have a police record...

Anyone that actually believes that they are invisible, in this day and
age, is a fool.

But of course that doesn't stop the rank and file from complaining.

The U.S. doesn't have a card that every citizen must carry to prove they
are a citizen when stopped by police. We are not required to carry our
Social Security card (and originally, a SSN was not supposed to be used
for identification). Even if you have a driver's license, you're
required to carry it only when driving. (And not, BTW, when bicycling.)
Nobody carries birth certificates.

And BTW, "Real ID" noted by Joy is also optional and needed only rarely
- like, entering a military base, or a commercial airliner.

I know one person who just renewed a driver's license and opted to not
jump through the Real ID hoops. It's going to be needed for airline
flying, but that person rarely flies and said "I'll just take my passport."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/11/2020 8:34 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:09:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to institute a U.S. national
identification card, there would be millions of people protesting it as
government overreach, a first step toward a police state confiscating
guns and other property. Many of those people would be the same ones who
rage about illegal immigrants.

I take it that you have never heard of "Real ID".

"Real ID" is not mandatory. Some sort of ID beyond a driver's license
will be necessary to board airplanes, but a passport or passport card
will work equally well.

Rarely do I agree with Frank, but what he said this time is true. If a
national ID card were required you'd have the same people complaining
about a government conspiracy to take their guns extremely upset.

Now you can leave your house without any ID at all. If you're cited or
arrested then you have to provide your information. This is actually
very relevant to cycling because often when you go on a ride you'll take
minimal stuff with you. Some cash and maybe a credit card. We've had
incidents in my area where a sheriff will start citing cyclists that
make a right turn at a tee intersection without coming to a full stop
(even though motor vehicles do the same thing without any issue) and the
cyclists don't have ID with them. But no driver's license is necessary
to ride a bicycle.