1. dusty - 10/20/2001 3:18:03 PM
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
Yes, you've seen it many times, but this quote is the perfect introduction to this subject. As the nation grapples with terrorism in its borders, the Congress works on legislation to give government more power to combat the threat.
This thread is not to discuss the attack itself—there is a thread dedicated to that subject, but to discuss civil liberties in light of the attack:
2. dusty - 10/20/2001 3:21:15 PM
We've already had some discussion of civil liberties in the Attack thread. I created a "conversation"—a thread containing the 29 posts in the Attack thread mentioning "civil liberties".
Click here: Civil liberty posts in the attack thread
to see what people have said so far.
The first link on the butterscotch bar is a link to this conversation.
3. CalGal - 10/20/2001 3:25:53 PM
Did our relatively open society make it easier for terrorists to attack?
Our government's disastrous dismissal of its own procedures and requirements, as well as the states' deliberate and overt non-compliance with them, made it easier. It's impossible to say whether our open society properly managed would have enabled the attack, since we've never really followed our own laws.
Can we stop future terrorist attacks without restricting civil liberties
Stop future non-citizen terrorist attacks? I believe we can radically reduce the risk. Of citizen terrorism? Much tougher.
If we must restrictions civil liberties, should it be across the board, or can we differentiate between citizens and non-citizens?
Non-citizens have no right to most civil liberties. Oddly enough, the one civil liberty Ashcroft is shitting all over is the one that I would most preserve--if they come into the bounds of our criminal justice system, they should have full protection. The caveat is that we can boot them out without cause. What we can't do (in the perfect world I'd rule) is imprison them under terms that wouldn't be allowed for our own citizens.
Is ethnic profiling acceptable?
I don't know about acceptable; it's just not particularly effective. Do it long enough and they'll just work around it. They aren't black, it's much easier for them to "pass".
Are our law enforcement tools inadequate in this electronic/online age?
No, not really.
There, I've answered them all. You can end the thread now.
4. CalGal - 10/20/2001 3:27:45 PM
Dusty, that link hangs.
5. Toenails - 10/20/2001 3:33:45 PM
I've been an ACLU-er for decades.
But I'm parting company with Mother on a major issue--identity cards. I think our society is sufficiently overpopulated, overburdened and diverse to justify the mandatory use of high-tech ID cards for everyone -- citizen and alien alike -- who is legally here.
No ID card and no valid excuse for its absence, and you're outahere.
I'm ready to have electronic accountability for the whole bloody lot of us. And I'm ready for the Government to employ those devices to find, not only terrorists, but tax cheats, deadbeat dads, and any other form of fugitive from justice you can think up.
6. dusty - 10/20/2001 3:58:28 PM
Dusty, that link hangs.
Which one?
I just checked all three links, all worked. The first one take a few seconds to load; I'm guessing because it has to identify 29 entries in another thread, but it loads for me fine.
7. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 3:59:18 PM
* Did our relatively open society make it easier for terrorists to attack?
Of course not. Closing society will increase the number of terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks are determined entirely by who you piss off and how much you piss them off by. There are potentially a hundred McVeighs or Unibombers out there for every Bin Laden agent.
* Can we stop future terrorist attacks without restricting civil liberties.
Since restricting civil liberties won't provide any but results inverse to what we want to achieve, this is a moot question.
* If we must restrictions civil liberties, should it be across the board, or can we differentiate between citizens and non-citizens?
What Cal-Gal said.
* Is ethnic profiling acceptable?
Perhaps in China or Iraq or Afghanistan.... Not here. Perhaps it's advocates have never heard of the 14th amendment. But since it isn't even useful, the question is moot.
* Are our law enforcement tools inadequate in this electronic/online age?
Why is it, that when through gross incompetence, dereliction to duty and complacency we fail to use the tools we have, the call always goes out to create new tools which will be promptly ignored and/or abused?
8. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 3:59:39 PM
Not much discussion left, is there? I have yet to hear of one single proposed infringment of civil liberties that would have prevented or stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Reinforced cockpit doors, video monitoring of the cabin, the ability of ground control to take over flight of an aircraft in trouble, adequate communication between flight controlers and NORAD, taser armed pilots, sky marshalls and competent baggage screeners do not constitute violations of anyone's civil liberties, yet would all have been effective in stopping the attacks. What I see in addition to effectiveness based approaches is a bunch of ideologically driven agendas being proposed as anti-terrorism measures simply because the climate might allow for any old rubbish to be enacted in the name of security. Everything from national IDs to gun control to curtailment of the rights of defendents to ethnic profiling and a host of other crap is being pursued without any real concept of effectiveness, let alone constitutional permisability.
We must be careful else we will have met the enemy and he will have become us.
9. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:00:09 PM
Dusty, that link hangs.
Which one?
I just checked all three links, all worked. The first one take a few seconds to load; I'm guessing because it has to identify 29 entries in another thread, but it loads for me fine.
10. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:00:54 PM
May I suggest we include the ACLU in your suggested links for study?
11. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:02:19 PM
"No ID card and no valid excuse for its absence, and you're outahere."
A sure recipie for our own religious civil war. Think before you propose.
12. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:05:17 PM
AuNaturel
Not much discussion left, is there?
Actually, we are just getting warmed up.
Congress is working on a bill referred to as an anti-terrorism bill; early drafts contained provisions that enraged civil libertarians. While some of those provisions have been modified, the current proposal still upsets many people. See the EFF link for some examples; I will provide more explicit links shortly.
13. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:08:08 PM
In the wake of the tragic events in the United States, there are reports that many countries are now considering adopting national id cards. These include the United States, United Kingdom, the Philippines, and the Netherlands.
14. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:10:39 PM
In the US, Larry Ellison is one of the more vocal proponents of a national ID card system, although one should consider his possible vested interest:
CEO Larry Ellison is calling for the United States to create a national identification card system -- and offering to donate the software to make it possible.
Oracle boss urges national ID cards, offers free software
15. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:17:41 PM
Not much discussion left, is there?
Meant rhetorically, similar to Cal's determination that the discussion need go no further after she'd answered your qusetions. Should've put a smiley after it.
16. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:36:36 PM
Per EFF, Singapore introduced a state-of-the-art ID card system recently. Within a month and a half a conterfeiting industry had spung up.
EFF is not on record as opposing National ID in principle but argues our large, diverse and very dynamic population makes it a practical impossibility to implement. I oppose any such ID in principle. I counter that:
It will create another underground economy that will mutually reinforce the already massive undergound economies in illegal immigrants, drugs, sex work, tax avoidance and so on.
The fundamentalist Christian communities will not tolerate it to the point of massive civil disobediance. They take this "Number of the Beast" thing quite literally and very seriously. The fringe will take this as a call to war against the federal agents of Satan. Oklahoma City may well be seen many times over. Sound familiar?
There is no possible construction of the Constitution that would allow The Federal government to implement such a card. Any such attempt would bring philosphical libertarians and many nonreligious conservatives and well as liberal civil libertarians into the civilly disobediant camps. Ain't enough jails to hold all of us.
17. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 4:55:14 PM
I agree with Au
Ethnic profiling to prevent terrorism is unacceptable.
As long as my invocation of this pristine sentiment does not deter professionals from actually training extra security and attention upon those who fit the profile (including their ethnicity), I'm certainly glad to mouth it. And no pretty words are going to make retards out of those charged to secure various facilities (i.e., a man of Middle-Eastern ethnicity and Jerry Seinfeld show up at the airport, and with limited resources, both are investigated with equal vigor).
18. CalGal - 10/20/2001 5:20:14 PM
It may seem obvious to you, but if you actually think about it as a solution, it might occur to you--yes, even you--that it wouldn't be effective.
But of course, you can rebut this with the numbers of Arab terrorists we've captured since 9/11 by increased scrutiny.
19. CalGal - 10/20/2001 5:21:32 PM
And if you notice, even Au, who made the civil liberties appeal (which I did not), stressed the ineffectiveness of it. So in your response try, if you can, to address that aspect rather than mock the easy part that no one is relying on--or perhaps you didn't understand that.
20. dusty - 10/20/2001 5:46:47 PM
From—Will the War Kill the Bill of Rights?
But there are also provisions that seriously infringe privacy, while offering little in the way of counter-terrorism. For example, the bill allows the government, without a warrant, to monitor every e-mail that a person sends and receives. Content access would, however, require a search warrant - although in practice the government would be on the honor system not to read content. Any state, local, or federal law enforcement officer could use the e-mail surveillance. And there is no requirement that this surveillance be connected to a terrorism investigation...
(emphasis added)
The House bill also allows surveillance of a person's Internet surfing. The government can capture the web address of every page that a person views-without a search warrant. This allows any law officer to find out intimate details about a person's politics, hobbies, and even sexual orientation. There is no requirement that this surveillance be related to counter-terrorism.
Do these fall into the category of "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide"?
Or are these developments worthy of concern?
21. CalGal - 10/20/2001 5:50:33 PM
I am extremely bothered by email surveillance. I am also bothered by the ability to monitor every URL clicked. That is not the same as LUDs.
22. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 5:54:23 PM
Cal
I was not addressing you (hence, the "I agree with Au" in the beginning of my post), so nothing in my post was designed to address whatever "appeal" you made (I had not read your posts in this infant thread, being stirred by the words of Au). I was addressing Au's "civil liberties appeal". To the extent I have led you to believe otherwise, you have my second apology of the week. To the extent this problem appears to be recurrent, I will henceforth start my posts with "Cal" to indicate that I am addressing your prior words. To the extent you are hostile and personal, thereby bruising my frail ego, I will address you infrequently.
23. CalGal - 10/20/2001 6:12:19 PM
Francis,
I don't require an apology, you didn't hurt my feelings. To the extent that I have bruised your frail ego, please believe that I am sorry.
I believe it is incumbent upon you to accept responses from others, even if you don't directly address them. Yesterday, you said "everybody is wailing about Do more, do more!" (inexact quote) and when I took issue with that, given that all of us at the time were discussing various issues, you hastened to say that you were only referring to Janjon and thoughtful. I can only plead that I thought you were serious in saying "everybody".
Today, while you did indeed address Au, you also completely ignored the meat of his remark--namely, that while he found it unacceptable, the question is moot because it wouldn't work. You were scathing on the civil liberties issue, saying that you were perfectly okay with hypocritical lip service so long as actual extra attention was given.
Thus you were taking a cheap shot and yet ignoring what Au and I (hence my response) were saying about effectiveness and in fact were instead claiming that it was effective, without offering any proof or substance. I dislike cheap mockery, and since you were completely missing the point, I responded. I believe that this is acceptable forum debate behavior, and am reasonably sure that many other people--including you--have responded to posts that were not addressed to them. I will be happy to provide you with cites of your posts should your memory require any assistance.
In the meantime, I would be interested in any numbers you have to support your faith in profiling as an effective way of protecting your frail ego's frame while in flight.
24. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 6:27:26 PM
Cal
You seemed concerned I had not addressed an argument you made, an argument I had not read. I simply wanted to assure you I had not read your argument.
As for the efficacy of profiling post 9/11, I suppose we shall see. You may cite the lack of those arrested as a result of profiling as an argument against. I'll leave it to someone else to counter on par, "Ethnic Profiling works. There have been no hijackings since 9/11!".
But we -civilians and authorities alike - are profiling. For example, we are more suspicious of men.
The dreaded gender profiling. It occurs as we speak. Disability-profiling (or ability profiling) as well. Ageist profiling too. Sure to prove useless once 19 women "of cover" take four planes and slam them into the turf.
Adios.
25. CalGal - 10/20/2001 6:57:28 PM
But we - civilians and authorities alike - are profiling.
You say this as if it is both revelatory and relevant, when it is neither. Have I objected to profiling as discriminatory or unfair?
You seemed concerned I had not addressed an argument you made, an argument I had not read. I simply wanted to assure you I had not read your argument.
The meat of this is inaccurate, but along with that, a nit: I was not concerned. I was scornful and contemptuous--that was, I thought, how your frail ego came to be bruised.
You may cite the lack of those arrested as a result of profiling as an argument against.
I made no cite. It was my notion of what you might consider a cite. It was sarcasm. You might not be familiar with it.
In your response, you spend one paragraph mocking--with considerable inaccuracy--what you foolishly consider my reasoning on ineffective profiling. You offer no reason for your belief that it is effective, even though it is the basis for your original "rebuttal" (for lack of a better word) to Au. And your response is "everyone profiles".
Well, Francis, I know that. I even knew that before you pointed it out. I don't care when civilians do it. I don't even care much when authorities do it, provided they aren't given formal backing to do so. But the issue at hand, and the one that you were directly mocking and hence ought to be able to back up with supporting evidence, is whether or not it is effective to profile as a way of reducing hijacking or other forms of terrorism.
Why is it that you consider profiling to be an effective means of reducing terrorism? I await your next feint. Although I always hope for the surprise of an actual answer.
26. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:04:31 PM
Dusty,
LadyC and I had a conversation about the civil liberties of illegal aliens--she seems to think they have a lot--and I built a conversation for it here
27. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:07:17 PM
Also, it occurs to me that I asked francis a question about the effectiveness of profiling, which may be off topic. If so, please refer me to another thread, Dusty. In general, I'm not sure where to draw the line--do you justify violations by their effectiveness, or does the fact that they are ineffective make the violations worse?
28. amax - 10/20/2001 7:07:36 PM
I agreed w/calgal on the bogosity of scapegoating of airport security, but I fear that I am not with her on the issue of attempting to crack down on our immigrants or the monitoring of the same.
The reason why is the larger context of how immigration works in this country. We have long open borders with both mexico and canada. Each of those borders deserves a couple of pages of posts in themselves, because the issues are so different, but I'll try to boil down the analysis so as to not bore everyone to death.
Mexico/Latin America:
It is a first prinicple that we are going to continue to have massive migration across the border no matter what legal edifices we construct or how much we fund the INS. We're talking millions of immigrants, legal or illegal, and its not really possible to monitor them in any realistic way. The economy means that immigration north will probably increase.
Canada: industrialized country with whom we conduct most of our trade, and much of that trade is in bulk items. Our borders with them are unfortified, and mostly run through vast uninhabited areas.
From both countries we have probably millions of immigrants, and we have millions more from other countries from tourism, etc. Calgal had mentioned earlier how 'all we had to do' was enforce presumably throwing these people out of the country. Even if you passed the necessary laws, the ability to actually track where people are in order to pick them up would require the creation of a police state. You would probably have to have a system of internal passports, and constant monitoring of the location of people, at all times -- esp. when you consider the scale of the task, the size of the country,and the fragmented political jurisdictions.
29. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:10:32 PM
I believe the software te FBI wants to implement to do this is called "Carnivore". EFF has done battle with this particular creature for some time now.
The governent that can with ease determine the social interests, private activities and political inclinations of its citizens and incorporate them into an easilly accessable (to government) data base is a very dangerous creature indeed.
Does anyone doubt for a moment that an unprincipled President or other crooked official would abuse this power with gusto? Think of all the times the IRS has been socked onto political enemies. How much easier to retain power when you can identify with precision EVERY politcal opponent and their vulnerabilities in the entire country from the privacy of one's keyboard! J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon would have had a ball with that kind of power. The civil rights and antiwar movements would have been shut down and Watergate never heard of.
One of the prices of political freedom is that you have to limit the power and scope of government, regardless of what promises of good it makes.
30. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:14:07 PM
Yeah, and what Cal said too. Moot, moot, moot!
31. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:21:54 PM
"Ethnic Profiling
works. There have been no hijackings since 9/11!"
There were no hijackings in the equivalent time frame prior to 9/11 either....
32. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:28:21 PM
"the civil liberties of illegal aliens"
If you want to get picky about it, if illegal aliens fall under the jurisdiction of the government then the 14A applies to them as well. If they don't then the government has no power over them, not a situation most of us would want to see. SCOTUS has ruled recently that they may not be detained indefinitely without cause nor may they be denied habeus corpus.
33. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:40:44 PM
It is a first prinicple that we are going to continue to have massive migration across the border no matter what legal edifices we construct or how much we fund the INS.
Your "first principle" doesn't meet the definition. It is derived from something prior--namely, Even if you passed the necessary laws, the ability to actually track where people are in order to pick them up would require the creation of a police state. You would probably have to have a system of internal passports, and constant monitoring of the location of people, at all times -- esp. when you consider the scale of the task, the size of the country,and the fragmented political jurisdictions.
Buzz. Thanks for playing. Your first principle is thrown out. It most certainly can't be accepted as a given.
Second, your caveat "even if you passed the necessary laws" is amusing as hell because dude, we have passed the necessary laws. Hence the term "illegal".
34. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:41:56 PM
As far as throwing out illegal aliens, it would be easy enough to do and we don't have to "track where people are in order to pick them up". Heck, if we're ever at the point where there are few enough people to track them down to pick them up, yay us. In the meantime, we just go to various barrios and start asking for papers. We demand the driver's license records of every state and compare them against our student and business visas, pulling all the many, many duplicates and lo! we've tracked them down, too.
Then, as I said before, we just make it mandatory for certain basic activities: renting or buying a home, renting or buying a car, any sort of travel, getting a drivers license, insurance of any sort, and of course, holding down a job, to require documentation. Oh, and guess what? Social security identification won't do any more. Neither will driver's licenses, unless it has been recently verified by the DMV to be matched to a valid birth certificate. Only thing that will work is a passport, birth certificate, or a valid visa.
Now, I think there will be ways of simplifying this. I still think the DMV is a solid way to do it--the one thing they manage rather well is tracking people. But the newer licenses can be managed differently--citizens get one type of license, that clearly identifies them as a citizen. Legal aliens here as students or on work visas get a different license, must be renewed every year or until the visa expires, whichever comes first. You can't get a driver's license if you are visiting the country.
Fraud is, of course, the main problem. But making the penalties a lot stiffer will help--jail time for knowingly hiring an illegal, jail time before deportation if you are here illegally, and so on. Civil libertarians should be delighted--we'll need to end the war on drugs in order to make room in the jails!
35. Absensia - 10/20/2001 7:43:57 PM
I don't think the government needs new laws or even better electronic equipment to watch aliens or us. By the government's own admission, it had information about the terrorist long before 9-11, but,they whined, there was just too much information, and it was in pieces. Likewise, there has always been empire building and turn wars between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. I think the home security office should have control over all of them, coordinate actions, and especially how to gather, collate, and analyze information received.
And, there have been instances when officials, as named by AU that had a ball with existing laws.
I think profiling is untenable and would result mostly in the officals looking like racist morons.
I don't think it would work and as Francis said, we have it already. The papers are full of cops doing it and looking like fools.
Cal, I read the case Lady Chaos cites and some of the regs. and she is right. Aliens, even illegal ones, do have rights.
Ashcroft frightens me. He would love to have those laws and use them as he wishes. Look at his background. He even exaggerated to Congress and his aides had to make amends for him. "Oh he's new here" blah blah. He looks like a petty and vindictive man. I would not want him to be able to have any more ways to snoop...and I have nothing to hide, sadly.
National identity cards? I too think they could easily be counterfeited. And, we almost have them now...we are required to get social security cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses, voter registration if we want to vote, passports if we go abroad. All that info gets stored someplace. I know that both IRS and SSA have access to that information, once it all goes to the data banks in Baltimore.
36. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:45:06 PM
If you want to get picky about it, if illegal aliens fall under the jurisdiction of the government then the 14A applies to them as well.
Is this what LadyC refers to, that they said "people" instead of "citizens"? We cover that in the conversation, if you note. LadyC feels that illegal aliens are due the same rights as legal aliens. I think this is nonsense, because if that was so then we couldn't make immigration laws and we couldn't throw illegal aliens out. We can do both, so by definition they don't have the same rights. I think the due process we have been giving illegal aliens is disgusting, frankly. There is no reason to keep them in jail prior to finding the right to deport them. If they can't prove that they have the right to be in this country, they get their asses kicked out. Makes sense to me that they can't languish in our jails. Why should we spend the money? Kick them out.
37. Absensia - 10/20/2001 7:49:46 PM
Cal,
If just visiting here, no driver's license? Even students who are allowed to work? Well, that will cut down on traffic problems that's for sure.
As a rule, illegals who are caught don't spend too much time languishing in jails. Usually, as I recall, they have about a week to prove they are legal, or petition, or it's involuntary departure time for them.
38. Absensia - 10/20/2001 7:51:45 PM
Lady C was saying that if some illegal aliens had ties to the community, and perhaps a child born here who was, of course, a US citizen, then that illegal had a right for a hearing and had a right for the child to petition for a visa for it's parent. That was what the USSC help.
39. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:53:54 PM
Aliens, even illegal ones, do have rights.
Actually, I said they have no rights to most civil liberties. Which is quite different from saying they have no rights at all. I specifically said they should have all rights if they enter our justice system.
But they don't have plenty of rights. They don't have the right to work here without permission. They don't have the right to stay here unless we allow them to. We can change or alter their right to stay here at any time, we can decide not to grant any more visas to countries, we can do whatever the hell we want. Now, I grant you that we'd have to pass laws to do these things, but they have no guaranteed rights save those we give them.
If we have the ability to deny them the ability to work without the right type of visa--and we do--then we have the ability to deny non-citizens the ability to travel or rent or buy without proving that they have the right to do so.
That's just legal aliens. Illegal aliens have no right to stay in this country, which gives them almost no rights at all, unless they are in the justice system.
Even the cite that LadyC gave could be worked around. But then, it'd be a moot point because the parents couldn't give a legal residence to prove that they qualified for a school district, since they wouldn't be allowed to rent. But in any event, the rationale was that kids who are living here have the right to go to school. The point of the Texas law was not to get illegals out of the country, but to deny their children the right to go to school. Any law that had as its purpose the goal of removing illegals from the country would probably be able to argue, quite effectively, that the intent of the law is to remove the children and their parents from the country, not deny them an education while they are living here.
40. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:57:08 PM
Even students who are allowed to work? Well, that will cut down on traffic problems that's for sure.
No, students and H1Bs could have licenses. Renewed once a year and set to expire when their visa was. Schools and businesses would notify the DMV when they left, and their license would be suspended, insurance company notified, etc.
41. amax - 10/20/2001 7:58:21 PM
The problem with the measures that you laid out, Calgal, is that it assumes that there would be no counter measures taken by immigrants and the people who stand to lose from a crackdown. Even if you made your legal system and your checks airtight, the most likely thing to happen would be that that part of the economy would simply go underground -- a system would evolve where employers simply paid cash to illegals in exchange for work and took measures that would make it difficult for the feds to prove that the illegal was in fact working for them. The existing subeconomy that manufactures identities would simply grow, and become more profitable.
42. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:01:47 PM
As a rule, illegals who are caught don't spend too much time languishing in jails.
A week is too long, and way the hell too much money for us to bother with. They either have a visa or they don't. There will be a record somewhere or there won't. They have 24 hours to produce or they are booted--although if it turns out they were here legally and just couldn't come up with the goods they can come back.
ady C was saying that if some illegal aliens had ties to the community, and perhaps a child born here who was, of course, a US citizen, then that illegal had a right for a hearing and had a right for the child to petition for a visa for it's parent.
The "ties" issue is fucking bullshit and makes a mockery of the laws. Besides, since my rules will make it impossible for them to legally rent an apartment, get a job, get a license, get insurance, or send their kids to school, they won't have any ties. As for the kids, I am nearly sure there is a restriction on that, because otherwise every Mexican mama would be running up here in the 9th month. I mean, talk about a fucking law that gives illegals a reason to go forth and multiply. I really don't think so.
For that matter, the terrorists could use that law very easily to become legal.
43. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:05:48 PM
Amax,
Um. Your #41 is nothing more than what we have now. My restrictions are far more stringent and requires the cooperation not only of employers, but apartment owners, the DMV, and a host of other agencies.
Besides, you have to remember that the only reason the situation has been allowed to get as bad as it is is because the INS had funding cut and spent all their time focusing on the border. My plan, of course, calls for near total neglect of the border--who cares, after all, if they get in?--and constant information scanning to ensure no fraudulent attempts to bypass the laws and rent apartments, give jobs, etc.
44. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:05:56 PM
Cal, Point taken re rights vs. civil liberties. But, if the child is born in the US, it is an American citizen. Generally a US citizen cannot be deported. I know of only one situation where both parents were aliens, legal, living here in this state. Child was born here. Father took child and moved back to Mexico. Refused to return, even though he had violated a temporary order giving the mother custody during an impending divorce.
After a lot of social service investigating the court held it was in the best interest of the child to be with the father. The state supremes upheld the decision and emphasized the child was still an American and had all US rights but as a small child, his welfare came first.
I know what the Texas case said, but there was a lot of language more than just about charging the parents tuition if they put their kids in US schools.
We "could" change some exisiting laws, and even supreme court decisions. With this administration and this USSC I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. I don't like it. And face it...that's not going to stop terrorists. Terrorists don't show up with their kids, put them in schools, etc., at least as far as I know.
If an alien is in the country legally, then I think they would have civil liberties and to take away things like driving, et al, would probably be illegal and a violation of equal protection.
45. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:07:18 PM
Oh, Abs, I meant to say that I know a parent used to be able to file for AFDC for a citizen child even if they were illegal, but that was only because they didn't check. Don't know what happened to that after welfare reform.
46. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:10:20 PM
If an alien is in the country legally, then I think they would have civil liberties and to take away things like driving, et al, would probably be illegal and a violation of equal protection.
But I am not taking it away from legal aliens. However, they don't have the same civil liberties and we can put an additional requirement on them to get things like apartments, driver's licenses, and so on--for starters, proof that they are in the country legally and agreement that they will lose the right the minute their status changes.
I am not saying that children born to illegal parents should be denied citizenship--although frankly, I am tempted to. I think a better solution would be to put the parent in jail for ten years and adopt the kid.
All I'm saying is that the parent is not granted legal status to be in this country just because they had a baby here. I am pretty sure that is true now.
47. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 8:12:50 PM
Hey all. Been in an AP workshop the past two days, but wanted to pop in on the thread. Nice going, Dusty!
48. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:12:52 PM
And I think the notion that we can't deport an illegal alien because of "undue hardship" is as laughable a notion as I've ever heard. Proof that no one in government is really serious about taking our immigration laws seriously.
49. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:15:36 PM
No call...there are not that many Mexican mothers running up here to have kids here. The number who have US born babies is not dramatic. Most have their kids when they move here.
Cal, a citizen kid can get AFDC, but what we did when I was working at Legal Services, and what they are doing now is have someone, on behalf of the child, file a petition for the mother, and then apply for AFDC. The petitions and the AFDC went through.
Even if all your laws went through, there's no way this could all be checked. Even when agenices were not doing a lot of checking, it was because they didn't have enough people and they didn't have enough people because the state and federal governments didn't have enough money to fully fund these agencies. Where will we get it now?
50. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:18:16 PM
It isn't just hardship, it's also "asylum" though that's hard to prove.
Hi Arky!
Amax is right. It's true we already have a lot of illegals working underground, but we would have more. And, there are humanity issues...their lives
are often dangerous, they live below even the poverty standard and are often mistreated.
51. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:32:19 PM
Abs, I don't think anymore it can happen. I believe welfare reform made it impossible for illegal aliens to get TANF (the new AFDC). And if any individual assists an illegal alien by filing on the mother's behalf, why isn't that illegal as well? Isn't that fraud?
Even when agenices were not doing a lot of checking, it was because they didn't have enough people and they didn't have enough people because the state and federal governments didn't have enough money to fully fund these agencies.
You know, that's not really true. I agree that there isn't a lot of money to fund the agencies, but to say that this is why illegal aliens got benefits is simply not true. The reason is that the identification process became watered down, because various groups on behalf of illegal aliens and Hispanics that were here legally but "profiled" complained that the proofs were onerous.
Tell an illegal alien that she must produce three forms of identification--a valid driver's license, proof of residence (utility bill), and a birth certificate--in order to file for support or do anything, and you have just radically increased the burden to get benefits, and you haven't significantly increased the time needed to process the request.
More than that, though, there needs to be agents actively tracking employers who hire illegals and do "roustings". Offer an illegal a work visa if they turn in an employer of illegals--only the first one gets the prize. Raid the place, and toss everyone out of the country.
It will be ugly, but do that for a year or two--as well as send everyone, especially rich people hiring illegals as maids and gardeners--to jail, and watch what happens. Especially if we couple it with a campaign reminding people that support of any illegal alien is support of terrorism and the environment that supports it.
52. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 8:32:35 PM
Cal, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to deny even an illegal alien freedom of religion and speech for the time it takes to try and deport them. Particularly since until they've had a hearing, the presumption the prosecution has to disprove is that they are indeed here legally.
It is that presumption that gives an illegal his/her rights. Once guilt (lack of citizenship or legal status in this case) has been established one may be deprived of one's constitutional guarentees.
The presumtion has to be in favor of the accused in immigration cases. Otherwise we can snatch you off the beach before you can get to your identity documents, declare you an illegal alien because you can't prove you aren't, and ship you back to Afghanistan where you obviously came from.
53. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:32:45 PM
Now, I doubt we'll do any of this. Because we're far more interested, as a country, in the cheap, stupid, and profoundly ineffective feel-good shit that Francis supports--oooo, look, that guy has a turban, he must be a terrorist! But the public support for illegal aliens has always been dismal--it's employers, Hispanic lobbying groups, and an inept, poorly funded INS that has caused us to focus on the borders and give everyone who gets past the gate a Get Out Of Jail Free pass. Still, I hope we can get past the defeatist nonsense that is spouted by the pro-illegal alien groups and realize that there are several solutions--including giving out work visas--that allow us to track aliens more effectively and stop the black hole of ignorance that caused 9/11.
54. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 8:39:52 PM
The policies that impact mostly Mexican illegals aren't the same ones which caused the terrorists of 9/11 to slip under the radar.
55. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 8:42:54 PM
ark:
Quite correct. Nothing we could do to stop illegal aliens from coming here would have any effect on them. They were here legally, pursuing legal ends as far as anyone could prove.
56. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:43:35 PM
Particularly since until they've had a hearing, the presumption the prosecution has to disprove is that they are indeed here legally.
No, they get no hearing (in my scenario). They can prove they are in the country legally in 24 hours, or they are gone. There is no "prosecution". That's nonsense. We don't have to demonstrate that they are here illegally, there is no "reasonable doubt".
Otherwise we can snatch you off the beach before you can get to your identity documents, declare you an illegal alien because you can't prove you aren't, and ship you back to Afghanistan where you obviously came from.
Add in 24 hours and that's fine by me--also, if they were in the country legally and just couldn't prove it in 24 hours, they can come back.
We don't owe illegal aliens--or even legal ones--the cost that we now bear. If there are Supreme Court decisions explicitly giving us the responsibility to establish their illegal status beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can just challenge them and see what the SC says. If the cost is causing us to avoid prosecutions and allow illegals, which is causing the states to ignore laws requiring citizenship to make their lives easier, then we need to reduce the cost--and I really don't see why we owe them anything.
Otherwise, we can just change the definition of a legal visa to include the agreement to leave the country if they can't produce the visa within 24 hours of being asked. Then anyone who couldn't prove they were a citizen would either be a legal or illegal alien, and could be tossed in 24 hours regardless.
57. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:43:54 PM
See, the real issue isn't the aliens civil rights. Provided that the end result is them being forced to leave the country, all we have to do is construct laws that allow it. It's not our standing as Americans that are threatened, since we aren't changing the rights of Americans. The real issue is if we ever make being an alien here so onerous that people stop coming here because we aren't friendly to them. I think we have a long way to go before that becomes a risk.
58. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:44:38 PM
The policies that impact mostly Mexican illegals aren't the same ones which caused the terrorists of 9/11 to slip under the radar.
Yes, they are.
59. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:45:57 PM
Cal, some policies were relaxed in welfare, but only because of the large numbers of recipients and the small number of workers. The agencies are still understaffed. And need more money. The welform act has been applied somewhat differently in different states. It's not illegal for an attorney to apply, on behalf of a child, to have it's mother's status changed.
Arky is right. We get rid of all the illegal Mexicans, so what? If a terrorist, or a group of them want in, they will get in, unless the feds get their act together, learn to share their info with one another, and for that matter, learn to read what info they have.
60. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 8:47:12 PM
Elaborate with evidence, please. These people had expired student or tourist visas, lived in nicer neighborhoods with money and credit cards, some were here legally, some had aliases--their means in general of avoiding detection were more sophisticated and better funded than a simple border-crossing migrant worker.
61. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 8:52:57 PM
The simple solution to the illegal alien "problem" is to allow anyone to come here who wants to. We issue a work permit to everyone who is not demonstrably a criminal. End of illegal alien "problem". Illegal aliens are only a problem because they are illegal and hence not able to take advantage of the legal protection the rest of us have. (Same reason 90% of the social damage caused by illegal drugs occurs. No legal avenues for handling disputes, no FDA QC regs on the substances and a huge resulting underground economy.)
Xenophobes will not approve of my solution.
62. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:59:58 PM
The reason the visa situation isn't tightened down on hard is because no one can make a peep about illegal aliens without opening the can of worms that says half of them are from Mexico. So once it became clear that people were violating visas and just hanging out here and working, no one could do anything about it because there wasn't the political will to address Mexican and other Hispanic illegal workers. Hence, the lax visa policies can be laid at the door of illegal Mexican immigrants.
But it goes beyond that root cause into specifics. Why were the terrorists able to rent a car? Because they had a driver's license. Why did they have a driver's license? Because many states--including the ones where all or most of them had licenses (Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio)--are incredibly lax about getting meaningful identification for driver's licenses. Why? Because they were having so much trouble with unlicensed, uninsured illegal Mexican drivers that they figured it would be easier to let them get licensed and insured than fuss about their status--after all, it was a fed problem.
Why were they able to have bank accounts and credit cards? A lot of the same reasons. The police were tired of all the thefts that were caused by illegals keeping their money in mattresses, so they loosened the restrictions on opening bank accounts, to encourage illegals to put their money in banks and spare the infrastructure the hassle.
They didn't leave these accounts open for more than a day or two, I bet. Not in the states plan, but there you have it.
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. Just because the states only meant to help simple border-crossing migrant workers, they inadvertently made life easier for sophisticated money laundering terrorists--as well as a fair amount of Europeans who live here illegally as well.
63. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:02:03 PM
We issue a work permit to everyone who is not demonstrably a criminal.
And we boot them out when they aren't working? What about the ones who just want to live here, have the money to support themselves, but don't want to work?
Incidentally, this solution is fine by me. It will never fly, but the issue is tracking who is here. Mind you, the same requirements I have--renting, etc--should still apply.
64. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 9:08:58 PM
"Why
were the terrorists able to rent a car?"
Because they were clever people and would have gotten a car regardless. You delude yourself to think that these people weren't as bright as you or I.
65. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 9:14:07 PM
"What
about the ones who just want to live here, have the
money to support themselves, but don't want to work?"
They stay and contribute to the economy by simply spending. The only thing I ask is that they not be able to receive direct financial assistance. I have yet to meet an illegal immigrant who came here for reasons other than work and I have met more than a couple. If the jobs weren't here they wouldn't come.
66. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 9:20:22 PM
We don't have to demonstrate that they are here illegally, there is no "reasonable doubt".
Of course we do. Of course there has to be "reasonable doubt". Your plan holds every person of the United States guilty of illegal immigration unless they can prove otherwise. The fact is that you cannot "prove" that you aren't here illegally. Your CDL might have been obtained fraudulently. Your birth certificate as well. You've got 24 hours to prove they weren't.
Oh by the way, you've got to prove it from jail. And your assets have been seized since they don't have to prove you guilty of anything to do that as well. Good luck.
67. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 9:29:00 PM
Cal,
Message # 62
I don't see the cause and effect there. What is the specific evidence that policies regarding Mexican illegals affected policies in dealing with these terrorists? For one thing, the drivers' licenses came from VA illegally because of corruption and problems in that particular state's system which had nothing to do with illegal immigrant workers.
We share a long and difficult to monitor southern border with a nation who's northern border has a lot of poverty. I don't and have never seen a fuss made about that fact. If anything bothers the government, state or federal, about addressing that problem it's the people who are using these workers for cheap labor they don't have in any way to account for.
Why in the world would feds care if illegals had their money stolen from mattresses? What hassles to the infrastructure would that cause? Are they known to report theft to the police being here illegally? I wouldn't think I'd want the attention. Are they generally known to have bank accounts and credit cards as a result of federal changes in policy due to that? As for the ones the terrorists had, some were used after 9/11.
And illegal migrant workers are widely owning and driving cars?
68. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 9:30:43 PM
Got company, gotta go. May be back later, maybe not.
69. amax - 10/20/2001 9:32:44 PM
I wish I could remember where, but I recall reading about the difference between 'Anglo-Saxon' vs. 'Contentental' approaches to the role of the state. It was the author's contention that the British legal system emphasised a small role for the state in regulating the nation, but those laws it did make were strictly enforced. Places with more statism, like France etc, tend to extensively regulate most aspects of daily existence, but because there are so many regulations, regulation itself tends to be ignored in those countries. The overall effect becomes that of the state being able to exercise arbitrary power by selectively prosecuting whomever it wishes once it decides to look into it.
70. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:35:37 PM
The only thing I ask is that they not be able to receive direct financial assistance. I have yet to meet an illegal immigrant who came here for reasons other than work and I have met more than a couple.
As if your personal experience is some sort of evidence. As Abs just pointed out above, they had to form a whole procedure to protect illegal immigrants from deportation in order for them to file for welfare. It's a huge problem, even now.
And since we provide direct financial assistance to citizens, there has to be some way of ensuring that this assistance doesn't go to the people who are here "only to work". So how do you propose to ensure that they don't get welfare? And are they goingn to have to pay into Social Security? Medicare? What if they get disabled over here?
I suspect your plan will just end up being more of the same. I approve of giving all workers a chance to be here, but not without a job. Otherwise, scooch.
71. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:42:49 PM
Your plan holds every person of the United States guilty of illegal immigration unless they can prove otherwise.
The authorities would have a right to ask if they had a reasonable suspicion--just as the cops now have the right to ask for id. But add to that the rule that the various activities I mentioned would be restricted to citizens and legal aliens, so i8t would be harder to avoid reasonable suspicion.
Your CDL might have been obtained fraudulently. Your birth certificate as well.
It is extremely difficult to forge an American passport--cost, about $40? Maybe more, I don't know. Realistically, the only American born people who would need a passport would be those who didn't have American accents. But in any event, it has always been the onus of the citizen to provide identification when asked. No one who is a real citizen will ever be deported and you know it.
I think birth certificates could be made a much sounder means of identification. For example, no copies sent out via mail request. I haven't checked this in a awhile, I think they've closed a lot of the loopholes.
As for legal aliens, it would be much simpler for them to name the embassy where they obtained their visa, or to have their visa number handy, etc. So despite your drama, the logistics aren't that difficult.
And your assets have been seized since they don't have to prove you guilty of anything to do that as well.
Not until after the 24 hours are up. But if you are an illegal alien, you acquired the property illegally. Them's the breaks.
Keep in mind that if you regularly had to provide valid id, there would rapidly be ways of checking it quickly. All Americans now proffer their driver's licenses as a matter of course, and if various states hadn't perverted it--and the Soc Sec system--it would still be useful. In fact, I think it could still be made useful.
72. Absensia - 10/20/2001 9:48:01 PM
Well, from the recent info about the terrorists as brought to us from tv, they won't work here since they have a lot of money; they probably can get drivers' licenses by having a "legal alien" who looks similar to them obtain it, etc. The illegal alien argument as far as Mexicans won't stop terrorists. I don't remember any terrorist activities on the part of illegal alien Mexicans, but maybe I'm wrong.
73. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:50:36 PM
Why in the world would feds care if illegals had their money stolen from mattresses?
Feds don't care. States do. States regularly defy federal regulations on illegal immigrants because it is too much of a hassle. They'd rather take the money for the insurance, and the bank charges, and have less hassle in infrastructure, because after all they are going to have to pay for some of them on welfare despite no id as well.
And why do you suppose Virginia DMV has so much corruption? Because there is a huge demand for driver's licenses without identification. Driven by illegals--of which half are Mexicans. Mexicans created the groundwork for a lax policy on valid identification. Other illegal aliens, generally with more money and better education, then took advantage of it. Including terrorists.
I don't see how you don't follow cause and effect. It is possible that it's something Californians and Texans are more aware of, given that they carry a disproportionate amount of the burden.
And illegal migrant workers are widely owning and driving cars?
Ah. Now I understand. Yes. Illegal migrant workers are widely owning and driving cars. In North Carolina alone, 380,000 drivers licenses are issued with 99-999-9999 as the SocSecNo. Figure that the overwhelming majority of those are illegal aliens, and then figure half of those are Mexicans (North Carolina has a huge illegal alien population and growing fast). And figure that this is just North Carolina.
74. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:58:21 PM
Well, from the recent info about the terrorists as brought to us from tv, they won't work here since they have a lot of money; they probably can get drivers' licenses by having a "legal alien" who looks similar to them obtain it, etc.
Actually, they made most of their money living as petty thieves, stealing laptops and cell phones. If any of them had had to go to the bother of having a legal alien get their driver's license for them, it would be proof that we gave a damn about legal vs. illegal immigrants. The fact is that we don't give a damn, and they didn't have to. Just as their use of boxcutters and small knives validated the fact that our airport security is sufficient, their lack of any hassle in getting id, apartments, and the like demonstrates that our immigration is a joke. Which is why I get so irritated at people fussing over airline security and not over immigration. When anyone mentions immigration on air, they are only talking about the borders--as if they matter.
The illegal alien argument as far as Mexicans won't stop terrorists.
It's not "as far as Mexicans". My point was that the various lobbies for Mexican illegals (labor, hispanics, and agribusiness) have clogged any attempt at real immigration laws, and made it impossibly easy for any one illegal, regardless of where they are from, to live here easily without scrutiny.
That needs to change. Instead of assuming that migrant workers are the only illegals and therefore not dangerous, we have to act as if we actually have an immigration system and that all illegals are created equal. Hence an illegal Swede is equal to an illegal Mexican who is equal to an illegal Arab terrorist. The rules I've proposed will make it equally difficult for all.
It's not so much that it will stop terrorism, but it will make it far more difficult for them to operate, and far easier for us to track them.
75. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 10:00:09 PM
Well, your last paragraph provided what I was wanting--specifics. I'd not heard that about the SSN in North Carolina, or anywhere else, for that matter. I'm amazed they'd allow a duplicate SSN on drivers licenses in any state. Apparently a lot could be done with just tightening down on drivers licenses, since it's used as valid id on so much else that citizens do in America.
I am a Texan who's best friend and neighbor was Mexican-American for the five years I lived in Lubbock from age 7 to 12, but illegal immigrant workers have been here for some time in AR, working in the chicken houses and plants--not generally in my area, but moreso the last few years than before.
76. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 10:00:43 PM
Oops. Last para of #'73, that is.
77. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 10:02:46 PM
IOW, to be clear, my best friend was a citizen. I knew a number of Mexican-Americans, and probably some illegals, though I never knew it.
78. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:03:27 PM
See, I thought you knew all that and were just arguing it didn't make any difference until I saw that question. (btw, I just realized I did the socsec sequence backwards or sideways or something)
79. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:05:59 PM
"As if your personal experience is some sort of evidence."
It is indeed evidence. Perhaps not much, but more evidence than you've presented to the contrary.
80. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:13:28 PM
I beg your pardon? Do you require a cite about illegals on welfare? Are you stupid, or just ignorant? Arky's from Arkansas, she's allowed not to know this stuff. You're from California.
81. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:14:11 PM
And I notice you didn't answer all the other questions. Buzz. Thanks for playing. Buh-bye.
82. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:19:55 PM
"But in any event, it has always been
the onus of the citizen to provide identification when
asked."
Not in America. That is a very recent addition to police power since through most of our history there were no such documents to produce.
If you are asked to produce your "documents" and have none on you, you have violated no particular law and can be tried for no particular crime. At most, if there is probable cause to believe you have comitted a crime you may be detained until your identity can be verified. At this time you will be released.
Driving without a DL is an entirely different creature. But as long as you have one in the DMV records, not having it on your person comes down to an infraction at most.
83. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:22:32 PM
Cal, it is illegal to steal from anyone, including an illegal alien. They are persons under the jurisdiction of the US and per the 14th A, get that equal protection even as they are being deported.
84. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:26:03 PM
"Do you require a cite about illegals
on welfare?"
Cal, It was you who stated the welfare well for illegals has dried up.
85. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:34:30 PM
Aliens who pay into social security should garner any benefits they paid for. It doesn't matter to me whether they were legal or illegal.
Welfare, OTOH is not a right. It isn't even an entitlement any more. No SSN? Then no welfare. Here is your ticket home if you want to leave. If someone doesn't have a job yet doesn't want welfare, you ignore them unless they commit a real crime.
86. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:34:41 PM
Because they were clever people and would have gotten a car regardless. You delude yourself to think that these people weren't as bright as you or I.
I just saw this. I am not deluded. Terrorists are way the fuck smarter than you are. And then, after the de rigeur insult, don't be a fucking moron. I make no such assumptions. Yes, they might still figure out how to rent a car. Or maybe they'll have to figure out some other way. The point is to not make it easy for them to operate under radar.
That is a very recent addition to police power since through most of our history there were no such documents to produce.
In fact, I believe the Supreme Court has limited the rights of the nasty police state you whine about, not the other way round. In any event, you first acted as if it was an outrage beyond the pale, you now admit that it isn't beyond the pale, you just don't like it. Too fucking bad. The issue is whether or not it is possible, and it is eminently possible.
If you are asked to produce your "documents" and have none on you, you have violated no particular law and can be tried for no particular crime.
Actually, you would have violated the law that says you would need to provide identification when asked. And indeed you won't be tried for any particular crime, provided that you are in the country legally. If you weren't in the country legally, you'd be deported. Likewise, if a cop asked you for id because you were acting suspiciously and he then found a bench warrant for you, I believe he'd be able to arrest you.
At most, if there is probable cause to believe you have comitted a crime you may be detained until your identity can be verified. At this time you will be released.
Right. And if you are illegal, you will be deported because it's a crime to be an illegal alien and the punishment is deportation.
87. joezan - 10/20/2001 10:35:25 PM
FWIW: The way these guys got driver's licenses was, they paid some guy who hangs around outside the DMV in Virginia(?) for this specific purpose $100. The guy went in with them (they had nothing but their passports) and vouched for them that they were indeed here legally.
The very next day, the terrorists with the one-day-old licenses brought their buddies to the same DMV office, and vouched for them.
I have resisted entirely the urge to blame any of this shit on Clinton or the Dems, but this one rests solely with them. The only reason DMV requirements are so lax in many states now is because of Motor-Voter.
88. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:36:07 PM
it is illegal to steal from anyone, including an illegal alien
Quit yapping about the 14th, I've acknowledged it already so clearly I think it doesn't apply. You may or may not agree, but it is tedious for you to bring up something that is irrelevant. You know that seizures already happen, you whine about it frequently. So clearly it won't be a problem if the government decides they want to do it. But it was you who brought up seizure. I don't care what happens to the possessions.
If you acquire property illegally, you aren't allowed to keep it. My system says it's illegal for an illegal alien to buy a car, so it's not his.
But really, I don't expect them to have much property because I expect this system to be effective at keeping them from acquiring property.
89. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:40:34 PM
The only reason DMV requirements are so lax
in many states now is because of Motor-Voter.
Wrong. Illegal aliens. Certainly in the case of Virginia and North Carolina, also Florida, I'm pretty sure. Those are considered the worst offenders, along with either Illinois or Ohio (I always getthem mixed up).
It was you who stated the welfare well for illegals has dried up.
No, I said that it was no longer legal. It was technically legal before. Or at least not specifically illegal.
Aliens who pay into social security should garner any benefits they paid for.
That's not how the system works, and you know it. You know, for someone who considers himself a systems person, you are the worst damn systems person I've ever run into.
You either make a distinction between citizen and non-citizen or you don't. The minute you do (and you are) you run into all the problems that we have in the current system. The only issue is how you solve them. You'll still have to deal with all the same issues that I'm dealing with in my solution. You haven't cut through a damn thing, you've just invented a different type of visa.
90. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:41:53 PM
Joe, I thought I copied that from Au's post. I meant to say that yes, you are right about the 100 bucks, though. I was going to mention that but I couldn't remember where I'd read it and if it was Florida or Virginia that had the "let some other driver vouch for you" system.
91. joezan - 10/20/2001 10:44:06 PM
Wrong. Illegal aliens. Certainly in the case of Virginia and North Carolina, also Florida, I'm pretty sure. Those are considered the worst offenders, along with either Illinois or Ohio (I always get them mixed up).
Please elaborate.
I'm re-stating what I heard earlier this week on NPR.
92. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:44:41 PM
If you do not care about what happens to their posessions then they have every reason not to care about yours. So if someone approriates your posessions it will be okay in the moral sense (although not in a legal sense). Since you have already pronounced that property rights mean nothing to you unless the property owner is a legal US citzen, they may, with equal moral certainty pronounce that top them only illegal aliens' property rights count.
Face it Cal, you've disregarded the plain wording of the 14A and all recent court rulings on it and instead taken the cause of the xenophobe and the fascist for your own.
93. Absensia - 10/20/2001 10:46:56 PM
Joe,
Don't know about Virgina, but here it's different. I lost my driver's license somewhere, two years ago. I called Dept of MV and asked what I needed to get a new one. They said "One piece of picture i.d, preferrably your DL, your birth certificate, proof of where you live." Since I didn't have any picure i.d., especially my driver's license I asked if I could bring a friend who had her d.l. and who would vouch for me. They said "No!" Fortunately, I found my old d.l. that I hadn't thrown away when I got my new one, so was able to get the current one replaced.
They certainly didn't allow me to bring a friend to vouch for me.
94. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:48:16 PM
"a distinction between citizen and
non-citizen or you don't"
Not an all or nothing thing at all.
In some cases you can make the distinction and in others you can't. The ones you can't make the distinctions on are pretty clearly defined by the constitution in the body and the amendments.
You really hate to be restrained by those pesky rules, don't you?
95. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:49:20 PM
Goodbye all. I have places to do and things to go.
96. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:51:18 PM
Addendum to #94:
You do not need any kind of visa to enjoy constitutional protections. Including the 14A.
97. joezan - 10/20/2001 11:02:19 PM
AuN:
Same here in MI.
But apparently there are at least a couple of states with very lax requirements.
And, BTW - I would have no problem with a strict, nationwide standard for obtaining a dl, including very sophisticated anti-counterfeiting features.
I mean, come on - it's the fucking 21st century here. Let's all wake up and smell the damn coffee.
98. dusty - 10/20/2001 11:32:11 PM
I've added the Conversation: Civil Liberties for Noncitizens (from the Attack thread) to the butterscotch bar.
99. CalGal - 10/21/2001 12:08:23 AM
Joe,
I was saying that you were wrong about it being the motor voter law that caused the laxness. I'm pretty sure that motor voter caused laxness in voter registration, but not in getting a driver's license. Driver's license is by state, and a few states are notoriously lax; all of them are suspected to be because of the advantages of licensing their illegal aliens.
101. CalGal - 10/21/2001 12:22:41 AM
Oh lordy, this is rich. From the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed piece that spells out to the letter the rationale I hold responsible for 9/11.
Let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses.
Other immigration foes worry about welfare fraud. "It's like giving illegal aliens the equivalent of an ATM card for all our services," Danielle Elliot of Californians for Population Stabilization, told the Los Angeles Times. But the lack of driver's licenses also prevents illegals [and terrorists, says Cal] from buying insurance, opening bank accounts, cashing checks and doing a myriad of other things that don't cost the taxpayer a dime. (emphasis mine) Besides, all of this begs the question: Why did the humble driver's license metamorphose into a kind of national identity card?
....
While state governments should cooperate with federal law-enforcement officials, it's simply not their job to enforce immigration laws. Maintaining the safety of the highways and byways in their jurisdiction, however, is their job. "There's a lot of people who feel like illegal immigrants shouldn't be here at all, much less have a driver's license, but . . . highway safety is our No. 1 concern," a spokesman for the North Carolina Motor Vehicles Department told the Associated Press.
North Carolina, along with Utah and Tennessee, has stopped asking driver's-license applicants to present their Social Security cards. (emphasis mine)
... Robert Olson, police chief of Minneapolis, made the point at a rally advocating driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Mr. Olson noted that his officers would protect noncitizens from murder, rape and robbery--without threatening to report them to the feds. "The Minneapolis police department is not the INS. . . . We are not the Federali," he said.
Look at the date.
103. CalGal - 10/21/2001 12:39:45 AM
Ha! I found a free copy of the first piece I read on driver's license in the NY Times.
Read this piece in light of 9/11:
Some States Move to Issue Driver Licenses to Illegal Immigrants
104. CalGal - 10/21/2001 1:08:39 AM
Another Times article on Ambivalent Immigration attitude in states
105. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 2:54:20 AM
Joezan:
Nationwide minimum standards for DLs might not be a bad idea simply for public safety and might even pass constitutional muster. (Although I have serious reservations about any scheme which impinges on the states' traditional powers.)
Cal doesn't seem to understand the depth of the resistance that a national ID card one must have on one's person at all times and instantly present on demand would generate. It's not just illegals. You will have lost the right wing Christians, civil libertarians and philosphical libertarians all in one swell foop.
I still have not the foggiest idea of how exactly this card is supposed to stop terrorists. I don't consider major incursions on the constitution to be worth the small gain of making a would be terrorist carry his national ID card (real or fake) while he attacked the flight crew of an pasenger jet wth a box cutter.
106. Toenails - 10/21/2001 8:16:22 AM
Identity cards complete with fingerprints, valid address, photograph capable of being computer-matched with the carrier's own facial configuration.
This would be a step in overcoming our many deficiencies in border-control. The card should be ubiquitous, i.e., it should be difficult to function in the society without its constant use.
This isn't tyranny, it is merely using the tools of modern times to afford some semblance of organization to an overcrowded, overcomplicated social structure.
It would actually become a convenience to any law-abiding citizen or legal alien. It would be a royal pain in the ass for illegals and a genuine barrier to their activities. The fact that it wouldn't be a foolproof barrier shouldn't be allowed to detract from its genuine utility in many contexts.
Credit cards should carry the same information as is required on the high-tech identity cards. This could make it much more difficult for terrorists and other would-be criminals to maneuver.
The sweeping statements made on this thread earlier about the supposedly clear unconstitutionality of this proposal are simply untrue. No doubt there would be a raging argument about the proposal's constitutionality, but I see no fatal defect in applying it in this country.
107. arkymalarky - 10/21/2001 9:57:56 AM
All right, I have heard so much about protecting your SSN, and not using it for public id, etc, though you have to provide it for almost everything it seems, so I don't really understand the threat. If we tighten up birth certificate, SS, and driver's license acquisition for native born citizens, and id for international visitors and people from other nations who become citizens here, it seems like that would be the best, broadest hole to close. If you don't have it in your car, you should be required to direct authorities to your house or hotel and produce it on request.
The fact still remains, though, that most of the terrorists at least got here legally, whether they stayed legally or not--and many of them did. We should have known much more about them coming in, and the need someone expressed to share info internationally and use the info we have is crucial to having a chance of stopping these kinds of criminals from coming in, and would probably do a lot toward monitoring our own citizens more closely, for that matter. It was pointed out on a tv program last night that we still haven't found the abortion clinic bomber (forgot his name), and authorities believe he's still hiding in North Carolina.
108. joezan - 10/21/2001 10:09:17 AM
Cal:
The explanation I heard on NPR went something like this:
It is often very difficult, for various reasons, for recent immigrants to obtain a dl. If a particular state is not getting it's immigrants registered to vote because the dl procedures are too confusing/complicated, then they start getting pressured from the feds - who generally (and certainly in the case of the Clinton admin) are a hell of a lot more concerned with who gets to vote than with who gets to drive.
So some states simply relaxed their dl ID requirements in order to comply with Motor/Voter rules.
I mean, look at the states that were mentioned as having lax requirements - NC, Utah, TN... are these states with large illegal populations?
More likely, they figured they had less cause to worry than other states would about illegals obtaining dls.
109. CalGal - 10/21/2001 11:22:40 AM
I mean, look at the states that were mentioned as having lax requirements - NC, Utah, TN... are these states with large illegal populations?
Someone's not reading the many links I just provided. Go read them. Answer: yes, they are states with large, growing illegal populations. Haven't you been reading all the news on the census over the years?
As for the rest, that is wrong. The reason for the loosened requirements are directly related to illegal aliens, and if you heard that on NPR (which I find surprising) then they are wrong--in fact, they have it entirely backwards. The whole objection to motor voter is the lax requirements of driver's licenses, not the other way round.
110. CalGal - 10/21/2001 11:28:43 AM
Au,
I've said nothing of a "national id card", but only identification that everyone already has. And since the only thing the federal government would have to do is require private businesses to get this information before allowing certain transactions--and for the police to be able to ask for id--there's nothing for right wingers, etc, to ask for.
Mind you, I think my requirement for this info prior to renting, purchases, etc, will fuss people and probably wouldn't be passed. But it is not illegal or unconstitutional.
If you don't have the foggiest idea about how this will stop terrorists, then you are a moron. The terrorist wouldn't be in the country legally, therefore he wouldn't be able to buy a plane ticket. Remember, non-citizens wouldn't be able to buy a plane ticket unless they had approval from an authorized business or school to travel.
111. dusty - 10/21/2001 12:08:43 PM
One of the provisions in the anti-terrorism bill is a sunset provision. An early version had a 5 year sunset, the more recent draft has 4 years. While a sunset provision sounds like a reasonable way to make sure any "bad" aspects of the bill automatically expire, unless re-enacted, some people argue that a sunset provision is a bad idea. These people argue that the existence of a sunset provision makes it easier to dump bad ideas into a bill, because the proponents can tell the opponents to back off—after all, the provision sunsets in a few years. These people argue that excluding the sunset provision might actually keep out some of the more egregious aspects of the bill. (Ashcroft is opposed to a sunset provision, but for a different reason.)
I think this argument has a certain intellectual merit, but I don't have experience with legislation procedures, so I don't know whether it applies in practice.
Wrt sunset provisions, I am generally in favor, but I would prefer something much shorter; 90-180 days. If there is a need for new tools immediately, I would advocate passing something quickly with a short sunset, then immediately begin working, with more deliberation, on a long-term bill.
112. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 12:12:58 PM
I see this thread as an excellent place to get in a plug for a good friend's law review article on forfeiture reform.
A lot of people are going to get burned by the stringent anti-money laundering laws being passed, right now.
113. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 12:18:10 PM
dusty,
I agree that the argument against sunset provisions has merit. Once a reactionary measure becomes law, you won't find many legislators willing to oppose renewing it down the line -- too easy to get tagged as "soft on terrorism."
114. Toenails - 10/21/2001 12:30:22 PM
"Sunset" provisions in legislation are frequently an illusory protection, because when sunset-time arrives, extension of the existing legislation is much easier than it ought to be.
True, a law that arouses a heavy negative reaction might be killable by cutting it off at sunset. More likely, however, opposition to the law's extension will be weak and unorganized, and the continuation of the law will be almost automatic.
Clearly, a law that is so oppressive that it is defended on grounds that it is "only temporary" is likely not a law one ought to favor passing in the first instance.
115. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 12:33:20 PM
What we really need is a constitutional provision similar to Florida's, which mandates that every bill passed by the legislature shall be limited to a single subject. This would prevent the many "riders" that congressmen sneak into bills, giving them cover for all sorts of objectionable provisions.
116. dusty - 10/21/2001 1:13:18 PM
LadyChaos
I thought the Congress had some similar rule about legislation, but it clearly doesn't seem to have teeth.
117. dusty - 10/21/2001 1:15:20 PM
LadyChaos
Thanks for that link. The WOSD has helped create some obnoxious legislation—I am concerned that the WOST will have the same results.
118. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 1:53:42 PM
dusty,
Congress may have such a "rule," but what we need is a constitutional amendment. As things are now, the legislative process lacks sufficient transparency for Congress to be held accountable.
119. CalGal - 10/21/2001 1:58:16 PM
I disagree that the argument against sunset provisions has any merit--and that's regardless of what one thinks of a sunset law. If a bad idea is in a bill and some idiot says "oh, not to worry, it will only be around 3 years" the answer is "well, dumbfuck, 3 years is 3 years too long."
120. Toenails - 10/21/2001 2:17:59 PM
I disagree that the argument against sunset provisions has any merit--
...Say what?
121. CalGal - 10/21/2001 2:41:47 PM
Hey, clause it out. (g)
some people argue that a sunset provision is a bad idea. These people argue that the existence of a sunset provision makes it easier to dump bad ideas into a bill, because the proponents can tell the opponents to back off-after all, the provision sunsets in a few years.
I disagree that this argument has merit.
122. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 4:07:38 PM
The argument has merit because it seems to be precisely what happens.
123. CalGal - 10/21/2001 4:41:27 PM
The argument has merit because it seems to be what happens? Did you read that sentence before you posted?
Anyway. The "argument against" sunset provisions is not what the proponents of a particular legislation say to the opposition. It would not matter what they said if they weren't successful in getting legislation passed. Since they are successful, it isn't the argument used, it is the fact that the argument wins support.
The problem with sunset provisions isn't what the proponents say, it is that sufficient people are more likely to accept legislation if it has a time limit. And since it's relatively easy to get the time limit extensions, putting a time limit in is an effective means of getting support for legislation that may ultimately prove permanent. A nice toe in the door.
Thus, the "argument against" sunset provisions is really that they are too persuasive in swaying the foolish herds, who know not what they do. Thus sunset provisions must be done away with, to protect the herds and the civil liberties that are valued by the people who know better.
124. joezan - 10/21/2001 5:36:16 PM
Cal:
I read your links last night. Nowhere do they mention any of those states having large numbers of illegals. I think you may have gotten this impression from these two statements in particular:
For these and hundreds of thousands of other illegal immigrants who have taken advantage of North Carolina's liberal rules for a license...
See - it appears that, just like our terrorist buddies, every other illegal on the east coast is wise to NC's shortcomings.
Then:
The Legislature never formally approved the state's policy, but it began to evolve in the late 1980's when immigrants began arriving in the state in large numbers. Today the state has the nation's fastest- growing Hispanic population, and businesses are eager to see their work force licensed and insured.
It does not say illegal immigrants. If such was the case, I'm sure the distinction would've been made.
As for the other states mentioned - I did not see anything about their numbers of illegals at all.
125. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 7:07:45 PM
"If you don't have it in your car, you should be required to direct authorities to your house or hotel and produce it on request."
There is A BIG DIFFERENCE between this and a national ID card one would find difficult to function without. The last time I used my DL for something was years ago when I hired into my current position. They wanted a valid CDL and my SS number to demonstrate residency.
National ID of the type where it would be difficult to fuction from day today without won't be enacted. The Shrub is a beter man than that. Even if he were stupid enough to go for the idea it would inevitably fail. Tens of millions of people would refuse to cooperate (I'm one) and the next election would throw out the politicians stupid enough to back such a thing.
The only good thing about the current anti-terrorism bill is that it sunsets.
126. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 7:20:49 PM
the answer is "well, dumbfuck, 3 years is 3 years too long."
Of course that is the obvious rational and principled answer. Politicians are not always rational or principled. There are two strong cases to be made for sunset provision:
1) Sometimes it is neccessary to enact a law on an experimental basis because the data do not exist to support or block the proposed law. The effects of the law can then be carefully studied to see if it should be made permanent. I'm inclined to think we should do this more often, rather than claim benefits that cannot possibly be anticipated.
2) Sometimes it is impossible to stop a "bad" law due to political pressure. If it is possible to force a sunset provision under the pretense of 1) above, then the issue can be debated at a later date when emotions are't as high.
127. CalGal - 10/21/2001 7:22:19 PM
Joe,
There is no reason for the rule if legal immigrants were arriving in large numbers. They would have the necessary identification to get a license.
See - it appears that, just like our terrorist buddies, every other illegal on the east coast is wise to NC's shortcomings.
Um. Duh? But NC started it because of their own illegal immigrants. If you read the links, I don't see how you missed picking that up.
Au,
I never said anything of a national id card, and you are backtracking. I said that anyone would have to prove their legal right to be in this country within 24 hours, if asked.
128. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 7:23:10 PM
"I am concerned that the WOST will have the same results."
That's why I am so cynical about the WOST. The WOSD is little more than a war waged by a bureaucracy for perpetual power and funding. The WOST is already shaping up to be the same.
129. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 8:09:27 PM
The reasons for NC's liberal laws on illegal immigrants can be summed up in two words:
Poultry industry.
130. labwabbit - 10/22/2001 12:30:38 PM
Poultry industry.
Same for Maine...as well as apple picking.
Hotel cleaning, crop harvesting, food service...are a few more where the percentages vary according to area.
131. clydefo - 10/22/2001 5:18:27 PM
The rack is back!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27748-2001Oct20.html
132. CalGal - 10/22/2001 5:24:15 PM
I have no problem with sodium pentathol. It's not like we're going to need to prosecute these guys. In fact, why aren't they just considered spies?
133. janjon - 10/22/2001 5:26:28 PM
they should ask joezan what to do. He'll have an answer.
134. CalGal - 10/23/2001 1:19:42 PM
What, no one else objects to sodium pentathol? Okay, dudes, give 'em the needle.
IDs All Around
Man, you know it's bad when Richard Cohen is calling for a national id.
135. labwabbit - 10/23/2001 1:47:07 PM
...don't leave home without it.
136. labwabbit - 10/23/2001 6:04:06 PM
Let's toast the end of Libel Civilities.
137. CalGal - 10/25/2001 3:49:14 PM
Man boards plane with gun
Cracks me up. He walks right on the plane with a gun, notifies the flight attendant (he didn't know the gun was there), the FBI meets him and interviews him after. Like they should be worried?
Fucking ludicrous. Check for intent first, who gives a damn (within reason) what they bring on a plane?
138. Erin R. - 10/25/2001 3:54:45 PM
Did the man say "yes" or "no" when the ticket agent asked that stupid question about whether or not he had left his bags unattended?
139. judithathome - 10/25/2001 4:04:12 PM
What would that matter, Erin?
140. CalGal - 10/25/2001 4:04:25 PM
I'm sure he said no--but it was his gun. He just didn't know it was there. He'd misplaced it a while back and couldn't remember where it was.
141. Erin R. - 10/25/2001 4:06:05 PM
Just a feeble attempt at humor. Carry on.
142. judithathome - 10/25/2001 4:08:52 PM
You make a good point, though, because I'm sure he said no and what good did it do?
143. Erin R. - 10/25/2001 4:11:57 PM
If he could carry on a gun in that manner, I don't see how hard it would be to slip a gun in someone else's belongings, then arrange to be on the same flight, etc.
144. clydefo - 10/25/2001 11:58:53 PM
Did this guy simply want attention?
Since he knew that he was simply
a "good guy" with no intention to commit mayhem, who had been passed through the security system because of some oversight, should he not have kept his mouth shut rather than wasting the time of FBI agents? They don't need him to point out flaws in the system.
145. Shannon - 10/26/2001 2:23:40 AM
Well, for one thing, he was transferring to another plane. In that situation, I certainly wouldn't want to take my chances that I'd get the gun through another security check.
146. dusty - 10/26/2001 5:57:44 PM
Now that the president has passed the anti-terrorism bill, can we get back to discussing whether it was a good thing?
An interesting article on the subject:
First, brand all the children
Excerpts:
Anthrax, Afghanistan, al-Qaida, Ashcroft and anti-terrorism legislation. We aren’t even through the first letter of the geopolitical alphabet before jumping all the way to “S” as in “screwed” as in what’s happening to civil liberties in the online world.
Am I the only one to notice how sick and twisted it is for Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Sun Microsystems’ Scott McNealy to be vocally advocating the establishment of a national ID card system?
Or maybe we should just allow the FBI to tap any and every conversation — spoken or written — that it merely suspects might be related to “suspicious” activity? Because in fact, that is exactly what the new anti-terrorism bill allows.
“This means that law enforcement agencies can enter a person’s home or office, search through the person’s possessions, in some cases seize physical objects or electronic information, without the person knowing that law enforcement agents were there,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote to congressional leaders in a letter outlining their concerns about the bill.
The plan would require all Internet service providers to reconfigure their e-mail systems to better facilitate FBI wiretapping.
147. CalGal - 10/26/2001 6:14:33 PM
I like the mixing and matching there. A "national id" system is nothing like letting the FBI wiretap emails. Not to say that one couldn't oppose both, but they aren't the same risks at all.
We have a defacto national id system, like it or not. The problem is the holes in the system, given how extensive its use.
148. Absensia - 10/26/2001 6:54:13 PM
Here is the cite to download the entire anti-terrorism act. It's in PDF and look for it on the far right of the screen about 1/3rd down.
The US Patriotic Act
149. robertjayb - 10/26/2001 8:15:40 PM
What a good thing we won the cold war. Otherwise, those dirty commies might be forcing us into a police state.
150. Absensia - 10/26/2001 8:23:00 PM
This day has to make old Joe McCarthy proud. Ashcroft probably IS Joe McCarthy.
151. ronski - 10/26/2001 8:46:48 PM
Given my political tendencies, I suppose I would be expected to be really upset about this bill, and about a national ID card, but I'm not about either. As for the latter, I'm still not sure it's necessary, but I have an open mind on the subject. In any case, I don't think it's going to happen, unless there is much more terrorism (specifically, foreign terrorism) on our shores. Too many people are just plain uncomfortable with the idea.
As for the bill, what saves it for me is that authorities are given these powers if they suspect terrorist activity, not if they suspect you for a host of other things. Granted, war is the health of the state and the new powers certainly might be abused. But I would hope we can deal with that later should or when it happens.
This is an initial take on the matter, subject to review. I've been too busy to study the bill closely. (Never stops me from posting, though.)
152. Absensia - 10/26/2001 9:16:20 PM
Never stops me, Ronski, either. But they can do all this stuff...it's not a bill anymore, it's the law, AND if they suspect you or I are in some way "assisting" terrorists, they are free to put wiretaps on your phone(s), read your e-mail, and even search your house without telling you until later. (I'd know, they'd have to clean up this place first.)
A lot of people say: "I have nothing to hide." But, does anyone want the feds or even locals to know "all" about personal business? Calls to your attorney that were once privileged may not be, even based on contracts or partnerships; family calls with your b-i-l, Ali, an American of Lebanese parents, might be suspect and so the feds would learn of your sister's mental health or her desire for an abortion. I don't need to go on. You know the drill.
If it turns out that you weren't involved with terrorism, no worries, the feds will move on, but they've got a list on you now, and will be checking it twice.
153. CalGal - 11/1/2001 7:06:35 PM
Referencing our previous discussion about driver's license and social security numbers:
Terrorist hijackers all had Social Security numbers, most obtained legally
"Obtained legally" doesn't mean they were here legally, but that they applied and were granted one.
Boot them out, dammit.
154. Absensia - 11/1/2001 8:01:41 PM
Have to find them first, Cal. That's hard to do if they have "legall obtained" documents.
155. CalGal - 11/1/2001 8:09:14 PM
Well, for starters, they can start verifying the numbers that they do have.
156. Absensia - 11/1/2001 8:20:13 PM
Who do you mean by "they" in each instance? Those that hold SS cards or drivers' licenses? All who are not citizens?
157. Absensia - 11/1/2001 8:24:20 PM
The article discusses linking agency computers among other things. It sounds good, but I could see a real mess, and delays. These days "intra-government cooperation" seems more of an oxymoron than ever.
158. CalGal - 11/1/2001 9:42:45 PM
"They" is Soc Sec admin. And in verifying them, they have a name and address for everyone. So for starters, they could send off letters to each address. Those that came back "not at this address"--flag the number. Send these numbers out to banks, require them to compare the numbers to their accounts, ditto driver's licenses, TRW, and the like.
159. Absensia - 11/1/2001 10:04:01 PM
Good in theory, but ours is such a mobile society, it would be a problem. I'm all for better security. I am skeptical about the SSA, it takes them 6 months to stop sending out benefit checks to someone deceased, after they've been notified, and on one occasion, told me the person couldn't be deceased because "they," SSA had been sending out checks inspite of my letter of notification in their file.
160. CalGal - 11/1/2001 10:11:29 PM
Of course the SSA is useless--the whole point of this exercise would be in part to stop making them useless. Turn it over to some ruthless bastard. Hey, I'll run it.
As for the "mobile society"--not a problem. For one thing, they could set a flag in the database for "verified". People could come in with their number and acceptable ID (birth certificate, passport, and if necessary visa ONLY) and validate their entry. It could be an act of citizenship. The onus would be on the SSID holder.
Also, we need to have a way to mark an SSID as invalid.
161. Absensia - 11/1/2001 10:27:45 PM
Okay, Charlie, you're in charge!
162. alistairconnor - 11/3/2001 5:27:47 AM
Green Party USA Coordinator Detained at Airport; Prevented by Armed Military Personnel from Flying to Political Meeting in Chicago
CounterPunch Wire
Armed government agents grabbed Nancy Oden, Green Party USA coordinating committee member, Thursday at Bangor International Airport in Bangor Maine, as she attempted to board an American Airlines flight to Chicago.
"An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer," a shaken Oden said. "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan."
Oden, a long-time organic farmer and peace activist in northern Maine, was ordered away from the plane. Military personnel with automatic weapons surrounded Oden and instructed all airlines to deny her passage on any flight.
"I was told that the airport was closed to me until further notice and that my ticket would not be refunded," Oden said.
Oden is scheduled to speak in Chicago Friday night on a panel concerning pesticides as weapons of war. She had helped to coordinate the Green Party USA's antiwar efforts these past few months, and was to report on these to The Greens national committee. "Not only did they stop me at the airport but some mysterious party had called the hotel and cancelled my reservation," Oden said.
The Greens National Committee -- the governing body of the Green Party USA -- is meeting in Chicago Nov. 2-4 to hammer out the details of national campaigns against bio-chemical warfare, the spraying of toxic pesticides, genetic engineering, and the Party's involvement in the burgeoning peace movement.
"I am shocked that US military prevented one of our prominent Green Party members from attending the meeting in Chicago," said Elizabeth Fattah, a GPUSA representative from Pennsylvania who drove to Chicago. "I am outraged at the way the Bill of Rights is being trampled upon."
163. alistairconnor - 11/3/2001 5:28:07 AM
Chicago Green activist Lionel Trepanier concluded, "The attack on the right of association of an opposition political party is chilling. The harassment of peace activists is reprehensible."
164. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 3:55:42 PM
Here's the link to that story
Does anybody in here care? Or is this just more "collateral dmage"
165. Absensia - 11/3/2001 4:03:48 PM
Of course I care. Everyone thinks in terms of "illegal aliens" being stopped. But this is clearly a way to end citizens right to dissent under the first amendment, if in fact the story is true.
166. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 4:22:35 PM
Ordinarily I'd say "Wait for further press reports to come out about this." But that's like asking for U.S. press coverage of the war.
Thank goodness for internet links to european papers. We wouldn't know shit otherwise.
167. Absensia - 11/3/2001 4:24:04 PM
I agree, and I'm not sure why I'm being tentative. I suspect, actually, the story is true. I believe this is just the beginning of what we shall see from John Ashcroft and his thugs.
168. Absensia - 11/3/2001 4:26:28 PM
Wonder what will happen when Ralph Nader, ALCU biggies, and anyone viewed as a "dissent" by Bush, tries to fly to a meeting. "Sorry Mr. Gore, by the airport is closed to you."
169. CalGal - 11/3/2001 5:13:10 PM
If it had been reported in "further press coverage" that you so doubt, they would also have interviewed the airlines, confirmed that the FBI was giving them information--or at least gotten a denial. This looks like a press release.
I will be interested in seeing more responsible coverage. I doubt it's true--does anyone really think our government is that efficient? But genuine journalism, or even the poor stepsister we get here in the US, will confirm it soon enough.
170. CalGal - 11/3/2001 5:14:53 PM
Thus far, people have been flagged for buying one-way tickets--although the bit about the airport being closed to them seems a bit odd.
I wonder if she's not mentioning that she threw a screaming fit when her baggage was searched, or something?
171. wonkers2 - 11/3/2001 5:34:03 PM
I doubt it, don't you?
172. Absensia - 11/3/2001 5:43:49 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if she threw a fit, once she was advised she couldn't go onboard. "Airport being closed to her" sounds like some military type might say.
This sort of thing did happen in late 60's or early 70's to some activists, and later was claimed to be a "mistake."
It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media picks it up.
173. CalGal - 11/3/2001 5:46:14 PM
I find it hard to believe anyone said "the airport is closed".
If they did, btw, I'm all for making a big deal out of it. I just find the whole story unlikely.
But if it is true, the real issue is why are they waiting til someone comes to the airport? If they are serious that some people can't fly--see, doesn't that sound wrong?--then they can notify them at the time of purchase.
174. Absensia - 11/3/2001 6:05:44 PM
Well...if the people got their "orders" not to let her fly until after the ticket was purchased, then it would make sense. And, saying the "aiport is closed" to her, could well mean she would not be allowed onto any flights of any airline and not allowed to hang out at the airport.
175. Absensia - 11/3/2001 6:07:35 PM
And what really had to hurt was that her ticket would not be "refunded."
176. CalGal - 11/3/2001 6:13:29 PM
Then where are the interviews? In every case where a middleastern guy gets booted, the reporter interviews the airline, the gate agent, anyone else they can find. All we have is her word for it, and the notion that we are currently refusing some people the right to fly. Haven't heard that mentioned anywhere. American can come forward and say so--offer the list of people who aren't allowed to fly.
177. Absensia - 11/3/2001 7:05:15 PM
I would think it would have been on CNN by now, and I watch CNN on a regular basis.
178. CalGal - 11/3/2001 7:27:31 PM
Lordy, I love it when I'm right.
The rest of the story
Green Party activist Nancy Oden was grounded at Bangor International Airport on Thursday after reportedly becoming uncooperative when she was targeted for additional screening.
and
Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage. Oden said that she did pull away from a National Guardsman when he grabbed her left arm and asked her if she ?knew what happened on September 11,? she said.
While acknowledging that Oden was singled out for added extensive screening, authorities said it was more likely due to the manner in which she purchased her ticket than for her activist past.
Under newly adopted FAA regulations, more passengers - either randomly or based on a computerized profile - are being targeted for more intense screening during the boarding process.
In short, the way she bought the ticket caused a flag to be set. She then objected to the metal wand and probably threw a fit when a sarcastic National Guard said, in response to her complaints, "Lady, don't you remember what happened on 9/11?"
It is a bad idea to throw a fit at the airport. That can indeed get you grounded.
Really, I'm amazed that Cellar and Alistair got all gaga over the press release without noticing that it was all her side.
179. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 9:00:46 PM
A friend of mine works for a major airline. Early this morning he told me about a flight that had to be returned to LAX because of a report of some suspicious "powder." All the passengers were taken off the plane, along with their luggage, and examined -- then put on another flight.
None of this was reported on the news in any form whatsoever.
180. Shannon - 11/3/2001 9:18:05 PM
Cal, this is my favorite quote from her:
“If I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel,” an upset Oden said Friday. "
Um, she thinks that only arrest-worthy things can keep you off a plane? She'd rather be arrested than not allowed to board?
181. CalGal - 11/3/2001 9:28:28 PM
Early this morning he told me about a flight that had to be returned to LAX because of a report of some suspicious "powder." All the passengers were taken off the plane, along with their luggage, and examined -- then put on another flight.
Actually, I did read about that.
Shannon--well, of course! Plus, she'd want to sue if she'd been arrested.
I am really astonished--I saw that "article" posted at another forum, too, with utterly no questioning of it.
182. PincherMartin - 11/3/2001 9:53:14 PM
I'm happy that stupid cunt got booted off that flight. Everyone else has to go through certain procedures. When asked to go through more extensive screening -- as this lady was -- the vast majority of people are, again, perfectly willing to comply. They are willing to do this because they want to be on a safe flight.
Now here come the usual suspects (Alistair Connor and Cellardoor) attributing it to political bias.
At LAX, I've twice been selected by airport security to have my baggage gone through. I imagine they do this because I'm a single male who goes back and forth between Asia and the U.S. quite a bit. But it could be because they don't like the way I look. Who knows and who cares. I do know that they go through everything I own when they do the searches. It's inconvenient and sometimes humiliating (who likes people thumbing through their dirty underwear). But I always cooperate.
183. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:06:27 PM
They'll appreciate that coopertaive attitude as they steer you toward the ovens Kapo!
184. PincherMartin - 11/3/2001 10:14:44 PM
Cellar Door --
But they aren't steering me (or you) towards the ovens. They are steering me towards a line which is designed to prevent the free flow of drugs into the country. Even if you disagree with the aim (as I'm guessing you almost certainly do) or about the effectiveness of the method (as I do), it's clear what it is for.
The stupid Green nut in Maine also knew what the procedures were for -- increasing the safety of the airways. Had she cooperated with the authorities, she would have been on her plane and made the Green Party meeting ... on a safe flight.
185. CalGal - 11/3/2001 10:16:40 PM
I think the security measures are utterly pointless, and am really worried that I'll explode in fury the first time I have to travel. In fact, I'd rather we start preventing certain people from flying, or make it more difficult. But this Green Party bimbo isn't important enough to be on the list.
186. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:17:49 PM
Oh yeah, right. Sure. Of course. What was I thinking of? An unelected "president" put in place by a bloodless coup would have no interest whatsoever in interferring with Green party members.
187. CalGal - 11/3/2001 10:19:52 PM
Exactly. Especially when you consider that they contributed directly towards his victory.
Jaysus. Some people definitely overrate their importance.
188. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:22:46 PM
Step away from the mirror, dear.
189. PincherMartin - 11/3/2001 10:23:27 PM
Hahahaha,
Yes, if I was George Bush, I would be contributing millions of dollars to their cause, asking only that they make sure to run a candidate in every race. A deal could also be worked out to guarantee them first-class seats whenever they fly.
190. jexster - 11/3/2001 10:27:41 PM
For the past several years I've been taking every possible opportunity to talk about the soul of democracy. "Something is deeply wrong with politics today," I told anyone who would listen. And I wasn't referring to the partisan mudslinging, the negative TV ads, the excessive polling or the empty campaigns. I was talking about something fundamental, something troubling at the core of politics. The soul of democracy--the essence of the word itself--is government of, by and for the people. And the soul of democracy has been dying, drowning in a rising tide of big money contributed by a narrow, unrepresentative elite that has betrayed the faith of citizens in elf-government.
But what's happened since the September 11 attacks would seem to put the lie to my fears. Americans have rallied together in a way that I cannot remember since World War II. This catastrophe has reminded us of a basic truth at the heart of our democracy: No matter our wealth or status or faith, we are all equal before the law, in the voting booth and when death rains down from the sky.
We have also been reminded that despite years of scandals and political corruption, despite the stream of stories of personal greed and pirates in Gucci scamming the Treasury, despite the retreat from the public sphere and the turn toward private privilege, despite squalor for the poor and gated communities for the rich, the great mass of Americans have not yet given up on the idea of "We, the People."
Bill Moyers
191. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:29:57 PM
It's "We the Sheep," actually.
192. jexster - 11/3/2001 10:54:52 PM
"Some things just don't change. When I read that Dick Armey, the Republican leader in the Senate, said "it wouldn't be commensurate with the American spirit" to provide unemployment and other benefits to laid-off airline workers, I thought that once again the Republican Party has lived down to Harry Truman's description of the GOP as Guardians of Privilege. And as for Truman's Democratic Party--the party of the New Deal and the Fair Deal--well, it breaks my heart to report that the Democratic National Committee has used the terrorist attacks to call for widening the soft-money loophole in our election laws. How about that for a patriotic response to terrorism? "
Mencken got it right when he said, "Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it."
193. jexster - 11/3/2001 10:56:57 PM
. Democracy wasn't canceled on September 11, but democracy won't survive if citizens turn into lemmings
or sheep Cllr
194. joezan - 11/3/2001 11:15:43 PM
Maybe alistair would prefer we dealt with Greenpeace wackos the way his country does, huh?
195. Cellar Door - 11/4/2001 10:40:47 AM
The Green party and Greenpeace are two separate entities, joe.
196. alistairconnor - 11/4/2001 12:00:28 PM
If you're thinking of the sinking of the Greenpeace boat in Auckland, Joe, I wasn't French at the time, I was a New Zealander.
But it would have given me a chronic case of schizophrenia if I was your type of "my country right or wrong" wacko.
197. joezan - 11/4/2001 1:10:51 PM
Good snooping, btw, Cal.
I did a Google search and found nothing.
(Of course, it would've helped if I'd used Green Party, which is how I misread the original post, instead of Greenpeace).
But still...
198. joezan - 11/4/2001 1:42:12 PM
...instead of Greenpeace, which is how I misread the original post.
199. joezan - 11/4/2001 1:51:15 PM
I imagine it will take sometime for Americans - especially over-entitled, self-important wackos like Ms. Oden - some time to realize that Free Speech does not mean I can say whatever I want, wherever I want, whenever I want.
Still, you have to know this incident will go down in lib lore as the brownshirts' first shot across the bow of "our" civil liberties, and will be told for many years to come.
Of course, within just a few months, Ms. Oden will have been severely beaten at the gate by baton-wielding toadies yelling, IT'S BUSH TIME!!!, or something. And she will, of course, be portrayed as fully cooperative (I mean, why would she want to call attention to herself???!!!).
And, of course, she will receive a hero's welcome at the Loony Convention next week.
200. CalGal - 11/4/2001 1:52:16 PM
Actually, I get the two confused all the time. Loopy liberals.
I saw the article in another forum. I did go looking at other forums because I was hoping to find such an article--I knew there had to be one. I was also looking for Maine newspapers, but I found the link at a forum first.
201. Cellar Door - 11/4/2001 2:08:10 PM
Gee whiz, you used to pride yourself on being a liberal, CG.
What happened? Got "smart" all of a sudden? Or were you just a liar to start with?
(I'll venture the latter.)
202. CalGal - 11/4/2001 2:11:22 PM
The emphasis was on loopy, Cellar. That said, I've acknowledged for years that I'm not a liberal. My views haven't changed at all. Nor did I lie. You're just a tad limited in analyzing the available alternatives.
203. Cellar Door - 11/4/2001 2:17:25 PM
"My views haven't changed at all. Nor did I lie."
How Nixonian.
204. alistairconnor - 11/5/2001 5:03:28 PM
I'd like to apologise for Message # 162. It just dropped into my mailbox and I reacted half-cocked. Since then, I have seen a lot more discussion of the incident, and it appears that the Oden woman is a complete wingnut, and very isolated within the Green movement.
205. ranheim - 11/8/2001 11:13:54 AM
Just back from a trip to Long Island's Islip (from New Orleans - via Baltimore); return to NO via Nashville and Birmingham. On Southwest.
Security at airports as I saw it is a joke. Picture ID + a ticket is all one needs. Spot checks : a further joke. A male security guard patted down a woman who was dressed in a body hugging blouse that was sleeveless. He slacks showed off her figure (not bad)- again subject to hands on 'pat down'. The guard also pressed on her shoes. Do you think that the guard considered this one of the perqs of his job!?
I was spot checked once. The metal of my belt buckle was sensitive enough to trigger the 'wand' they use. Loose change repeatedly caused the wand to be triggered. I wonder if the security powers-that- be (not the guards) have ever heard of the word plastic?
For prospective terrorists, I saw nothing that I would fear. Picture IDs are not hard to purchase. You must have a ticket to get on board. And that would be all one needed to board any aircraft.
So far as I am concerned, this is all cosmetic in an attempt to convince portions of the USA public that something is being done to protect them. LOL. What I saw and experienced was a failure.
206. Absensia - 11/9/2001 6:07:42 AM
Ashcroft has announced that his office will listen to all communications between those persons being held without being charged and their attorneys. There goes the right to counsel, (held not to exist if not effective by the USSC, not to mention the attorney-client privilege. Defense attorneys say they will challenge the newly announced policy.
207. CalGal - 11/9/2001 6:23:45 PM
This really bothers me. Why not turn them over to the military?
208. arkymalarky - 11/10/2001 12:35:58 AM
I'm telling you, Ashcroft is one to watch. He makes me very uncomfortable in his position.
209. Absensia - 11/10/2001 12:58:29 AM
I've said it from the beginning, Arky, and agree. He makes me very uncomfortable, especially with the makeup of this USSC. Imagine, he says justice dept. will eavesdrop on those in detention and their attorneys. And those in detention have not yet even been charged, so they can move forward. They are just being "held." If this goes ahead, then it will move on to eavesdropping between citizens and their attorneys.
210. Cellar Door - 11/10/2001 12:59:52 AM
Welcome to Brazil, folks!
211. Absensia - 11/10/2001 1:01:56 AM
Welcome to Moscow, comrades!
212. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:29:11 PM
Di Fi's immigration/visa recommendations
Works for me. Does anyone object to the recommendations? Quoted/summarized:
* Create a centralized "lookout" database.
* Develop a biometric visa card.
* The 29 countries from which visitors can enter the U.S. without a visa would be required to develop tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports and, within a year, provide biometric data on them that conformed to U.S. standards.
* All airlines, cruise lines and cross-border bus lines would have to submit passenger manifests to the central database prior to departure. Additionally, all non-U.S. citizens would submit fingerprints and other biometric data to the State
Department when applying for a visa that would be sent to a centralized database.
* Implement tougher document requirements. Federal identification documents--such as pilot's licenses, visas, immigration work authorization cards and others--would have to be fraud- and tamper-resistant, contain biometric data and, if applicable, include the visa's expiration date.
* Reform the foreign student visa program, which is a source of serious abuse... Even though Syria is one of seven countries identified by the U.S. as a terrorist state, the State Department issued visas to 14 Syrian nationals after Sept. 11 so that they could attend flight schools in Texas.
All self-respecting terrorists need a pilot license.
213. concerned - 11/13/2001 1:22:25 AM
Is safety ever worth the loss of freedom?
Well, animals are generally pretty much free to do whatever they want, but they don't have much in the way of security.
214. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 9:51:03 AM
For those of us who protested Ashcroft's nomination to A.G., commentary like this -- Ashcroft may be the scariest man in America -- comes as no surprise, now.
Also, hats off to my favorite conservative curmudgeon, Bill Safire.
215. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:57:30 AM
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's executive order authorizing special military tribunals to try suspected terrorists was sharply criticized Wednesday by legal experts who said it flies in the face of world opinion, international law and American standards of justice.
Sieg Heil! - LAT
216. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:58:39 AM
LC..vee vill have you shot!
217. jonesatlaw - 11/15/2001 1:04:02 PM
Before I was admitted to the bar, and before I could become an officer of the court, I and everyone else who has entered the profession took an oath to perform the duties of my office as an officer of the court and to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the same oath we ask the President to take, all judges and members of the military. We trust our freedom to these folks because we rely on them to take the oath seriously. Apparently when defense attorneys take this oath, it doesn't mean the same thing as when government lawyers take it. They can be trusted not to help terrorists, but we can't be.
This is an insult to the attorneys of the US, and an attack on our patriotism and loyalty. More serious however, is the assault on the fundamentals of fair trial and due process that Bush has proposed for his secret military tribunals.
It reeks of Stalin's show trials.
218. janjon - 11/15/2001 1:12:58 PM
FWIW - I placed a post about the new military tribunals in the Attack on America thread (15870), also linking Safire's column today.
It has been many years since I've been a practicing attorney (which means it is even longer since I considered civil liberty issues in law school or during my clerking years), but my wife is a litigation partner for a major firm (which, of course, means that she doesn't get any closer to civil liberty/criminal defense issues than I do).
Having said that, we were numbed to read today's Times.
I'll just repeat (and embellish) a bit of what I said in the other thread - I would like to think that this really hasn't been thought out within the Administration and that in short order more balanced measures will be forthcoming. I don't hold out much hope, though.
219. Ca