Posted on 05/05/2006 7:21:22 AM PDT by churchillbuff
If youy do not have a national ID then you are not here legally and thus should be detained for such time to establish that indeed you do not have one and are not here legally and then you shall be deported.
Sanctuary cities stop law enforcment from asking for proof of legal presence and some even go so far as to prohibit law enforcement from notifying ICE about a known illegal in current custody or temporary detention.
Outlaws would not have a national ID and would be detained...and prosecuted.
A national ID card would establish a CLEAR line between legal law abiding citizens and illegals. Thus removing that excuse NOT to enforce the law pertaining to illegal immigration.
So then you are sying that when scotus makes a ruling they are changing the meaning of the constitution? CMON NOW
What they are doing is applying that to today's context.
You can live in a world where context ( in this case time) can be omitted, but I will not do so.
The utter "sovietness" of that post is absolutely disgusting.
Illegal aliens are already illegal, the national ID card does nothing to change that. The laws that are already on the books are not being enforced. If ICE wanted to go into these sanctuary cities and start arresting illegal aliens there is nothing stopping them from doing so. A national ID card is not going to make laws that are already not being enforced by choice start to be enforced.
I called UPS the other day to tell them I would come to their office and pick up my shipment. I was told to bring my "government issued I.D.". I said in a somewhat sarcastic tone "would my driver's license be sufficient?" Which they said would be fine.
Your right was not violated because you were not drafted.
So what are you complaining about again? Your own choice?
((((((Identification purposes alone are a fine use for an ID card. ))))))
I have been saying that al along and have been called a whole host of things for saying it, I am left wondering if you will be attacked the same way.......But my guess is you won't be because your nickname does not draw such kneejerk reactions ;)
In a time of war I have ZERO problem with tracking military movements and actions.
I do not advocate a policy of abuse with a Real ID. I do advocate a policy of indentifying true identity in order to hold people accountable for the actions they take under the rule of law. I believe that to be as patriotic as it gets and the very fabric of this nation.
If the government was to abuse such an entity then by all means I am all for prosecuting them for those actions. That fits with my position just fine. Criminal actions are criminal actions no matter who or what group of who's take those actions.
Yes they are already Illegal and a REAL ID proves it! Of course it doesn't change it.
I agree current laws are not being enforced and I give you two examples why.....lack of proper ID and means of gaining it....and states overstepping their constitutional suthority. Yet you disagree?????
A Real ID would remove the some of the main opposition to enforcing laws today.
EVER hear a guy named ASA say "we don't know where they are"?????? A Real ID would eliminate such foolishness....THEN we can work on the little phrase " just doing jobs Americans won't do"..... ;) and also then we can address anchor babies too.... OH WAIT....
NO Real ID when you come to deliver a baby....GUESS what....no citizenship and as soon as medically able..DEPROTATION.
You sir oppose a tool that will facilitate something you want. Amazing.
OK folks....fun debate and sparring today but I have to go now...ill check this thread for any responses later on.
Laters Freepers!
This is 652. The Beast lives seven doors down.
Perhaps, it will prove to be the mark of sanity in the world we are now living in (but I sincerely doubt it...)!
A microchip in the back of everyones neck would make it even easier to enforce, no need to ask someone for their ID, just scan it from the UAV in that area.
I am against this "tool" because it's patently un-American, in fact it is exactly the same as the "tools" used by our enemies during the cold war.
I did not complain about my military ID, I was simply stating that the civilian population would not be to keen on this type of ID. This type of ID place on the civilian population would be a violation of their rights. The government has no right to track its citizens without just cause, for instance, if they are suspected of a crime. That is an individual issue. On a national level, they cannot generally make every citizen a suspect under the guise of security...
Why was the 4th Amendment created if we were not to have personal privacy?
It's is impossible to have a reliable ID. Try to come up with an idea for one.
However, if people believe that an ID is reliable, then it becomes much more profitable to produce fakes and copies.
Of course, having such ID's will make it much easier for reporters, divorce lawyers, and private eyes to check up on their subjects.
Welcome to Future Felons of America by Claire Wolfe
(I wrote this as the introduction to Clive Sharp's book "How to Survive Federal Prison Camp" (Loompanics, 1997). This is its first appearance outside the book.) Welcome to FFA. No, not Future Farmers of America, that pleasant little relic of the days when America was the land of the free.
I'm talking about Future Felons of America, the club to which millions of us now belong. Our membership is growing by leaps, bounds and midnight kicks on our doors. You may not want to be part of this contemporary American FFA. (Who in their right mind would?) But it's best to face facts; in a country where would-be rulers, elected and unelected, are desperate to regulate every activity, we are all law breakers or soon to become so.
You and I, friends, are likely to end up in prison.
Worse, we're increasingly likely to end up in the custody of the federal prison system.
Activities that were once the business of the states-or nobody's business but your own-are being taken over by control freaks in Washington, DC whose favorite masturbatory fantasy is that they can micro-manage every human activity 24 hours a day and punish everyone who deviates from their desires.
That means your chances of going to federal prison-or a federal prison camp like the ones described in this book-are getting "better" every day.
No. A national ID card would establish aline between those who possess cards and those who don't.
Lookie here...a new variation of the "If you're not guilty, then you should have nothing to hide" canard.
I'm surprised the totaliatrians still use that one.
Just heard recently where "Better Red than Dead" Teddy Kennedy and a few of his friends from the ADL and homo lobby are trying to slip in S1145......which is a new hate crimes bill which I'm sure chocked full of lots of new and improved definitions of hate/thought crimes. I found some of this info on www.truthtellers.org (Rev. Ted Pike)........some of the info may make some folks in the "amen corner" a little testy but it is what it is.
THE SUPREME COURT AND OUR CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the citizens of this country and their government. Like any contract, the terms within it are meant to be concrete and inflexible, unless the parties bound by its terms mutually agree to modify it at a later date. Nobody in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with another party if the terms of that agreement could be changed after the fact by a judge. The whole point of creating a contract is to show that there is a meeting of the minds between the parties who agree to abide by its terms, and whenever there is a dispute between those parties over some aspect of the contract once it's been entered into, a judge is charged with figuring out what the parties actually agreed to in the first place.
Initially the judge does this by reading the contract and considering the literal meaning of the words within it. If he should come across a passage that uses an ambiguous term like "excessive", he then must determine what the parties involved understood the term to mean when the contract was written. He can accomplish this task in several different ways, but what he should never do is simply make up a definition out of whole cloth. This, however, is exactly what activist judges do on a regular basis.
You see, ORIGINALIST judges attempt to figure out what the original intent of the people who created our most important contract was, so that the parties currently bound by it (aka the citizenry and the government) are dealt with fairly and reasonably. Activist judges, on the other hand, seek to change the terms of the original agreement and force upon everyone involved their own personal opinions of what that contract SHOULD say. This practice is grossly unfair, because it forces one of the parties to the contract (whichever one is ruled against at any given time) to accept terms that they did not agree to, and that is precisely why activists should never be allowed to preside over any court which deals with Constitutional issues.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607742/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.