Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

We are never "appeased!" The difference is that, in the past, rather than make threats and carry guns many liberals went to work in government or in journalism to change things. The part of the Tea Party that is running candidates, becoming activists and using the interent, has taken that page from the left, and I heard a TP guy mention this on TV a while back. In fact, not only are they using that strategy, but he also mentioned that their "protests are very much like those of the '60s" (only different themes). I understand that kind of rhetoric was used by activists in the '60s protests and was just as partisan as the rhetoric being used today by the TP in some instances. IMO, The TP will have success, and it is having some success already with that strategy.

The death threats, gun-toting, and vandalsim we heard about after the Health care bill was passed, that I'm not sure about, but I've not heard anything like that from the left in my time. The conservative AM radio crowd is something that is peculiar to them. That's where the serious "liberal baiting" goes on. Nevertheless, Liberals don't listen to much radio.

And I agree with you, the political waters are poisoned and it's only going to get worse. What will happen is that the TP will become integrated into the establishment, to some degree, at some point in time. And it will be business as usual. The big money will win out in the end. And the crazies will have to go back to running around with their rifles in the back-woods again. Oh yes, that, and buying all the gold they can afford because G. Gordon Liddy and Glenn Beck tell them to.

 

The promulgation of blogs? No, I think the social 'cool' factor of it plays the primary role.

Everything. Anything and everything. Seriously, have you been in Whatnots? How about AODA? Politics comes up, sure, but because people are interested in it, not because people are seeking to defeat their partisan opponents or anything.

My simple response is: no. More in-depth, it's: No, because online culture isn't strictly American culture. All we have to do is look at these threads and see that the political online amphitheater is populated by everyone, not just Americans, and that some of the loudest partisan voices are non-US. My conclusion from this is that it isn't American partisan politics that lead to the rise of politics in the internet. It's the basic human nature to want our opinions expressed and seek out those who agree with us. And when we find those who disagree with us? We argue with them. And when it's done 'anonymously', many of us loose any trace of civility we may have in real life. Thus people will threaten judges online who would never, for example, write a letter to the same effect.

Just think of them as the conservative Black Panthers and Malcolm X.

 

Aha. Right. Are you serious?

Are you suggesting, since the political on-line amphitheatre is populated by everyone, that the death threats to Judge Bolton then could as well have come from Chinese, Russians, Eskimos ... or the like ... who were irate and aggravated about her enjoining parts of SB 1070? How will we ever know without checking their IP addresses! The net is vast and infinite ...

... but so what: We don't need to bother checking IP addresses. Since SB 1070 is an inherently US domestic topic it stands to reason that it primarily generated a domestic response.

Even though I as a non-US citizen comment here - the only people who would be aggravated by parts of SB 1070 having been enjoined by Judge Bolton are the folks who thought the law a splendid idea in the first place - and that is a homogeneously domestic US audience. The people aggravated enough to write irate comments or death threats are a subset of that. Both will will express themselves in the language the discourse is being led in domestically. And that may very well be rancorous.

 

No, I never suggested anything like that. I'm quite certain that at least the vast majority of those threatening Judge Bolton online are Americans, but I'm also fairly certain they're people who would never say anything like that to her face, or in a letter, or probably even to their friends in person.

You did a great job flipping from specifics to generalities and then back to specifics, though.

 

Then what was the point of belabouring the irrelevant aspect that the 'political on-line amphitheatre is populated by everyone'?

From the context I couldn't help but perceive that as meant to be relativistic (i.e. not just Americans (or American conservatives for that matter) but everyone ... yadda yadda yadda). Not so?

 

Just a quick $2 worth, (inflation) since as early as I can remember any policeman can ask anyone for id and arest anyone who can't prove who thet are, what is the problem with 50 to 60 year old laws being enforced? Just show the dang id and quit complaining!

Another comment, my brother in law was an illegal who worked his backside off to become a citizen of the US. He is a great father and was a good husband until his wife died after a long illness. We do in my opinion need a way to keep good people here. I do not know how to do this fairly but I am tired of people who have snuck across our borders screeming about their rights.... Shut up please and work to be here legal and above board. That will earn my respect and support, not a bullhorn and riots.
Last comment, we need a path for working people to become citizens. I said -working- people not drug smuglers or felons returning over the border. Az law is just a statement of intent to enforce laws that are already on the books at state and/or federal level. The big dedate and argument as well as shouts of race targeting are just smoke or a bad atempt at distracting from real problems with immigration.

 

Let me spell out the logic. You said that the current trend of expressing violence online was a result of the increased partisan nature of American politics. I pointed out that that would only work if it were only Americans online threatening people. Since it isn't, since the political vitriol comes from all over (if you've ever read the comments on some news site's political section, you'll know that), that means it can't be a result of American politics.

Add that to the fact that past threads (and more than a few studies) have shown people are willing to be similarly extreme in any topic, be it politics, religion, favorite game, favorite ice-cream, or even just revealing your name on Blizzard forums, I think it's pretty obvious that this is nothing new or unique.


Old One:
This is one of the things I liked about the federal program I linked to an article about. It would automatically check the finger prints of everyone arrested. No profiling, since it's being done to everyone, and you're catching those with a higher propensity for breaking the law, as opposed to just anyone. Of course it's not 100% foolproof, but it's a good idea.

 

I was under the impression that in order for an officer to arrest someone, they had to tell that person the charge they were being arrested for. Lacking proper ID on your person is not a chargable offense in most cases - at least last I checked.

What crime would you be charged with in a situation like you describe? I cannot imagine a police officer is just going to stop someone walking down the street and ask for ID. That would be like living in Communist Russia - "Your papers please."

If you are pulled over while driving, even if you didn't bring your driver's license with you, an officer can quickly check that you ARE a licensed driver on his internet linked computer in his police car. He just types in the name and address you give him, and presto! if you are a licensed driver a picture of your license shows up on his screen.

I agree with what you're saying in principle - that it is probably wise to carry some from of ID on you at all times. The only thing I'm skeptical about is an officer's ability to demand ID from anyone for any reason, and arrest you if you cannot produce one.

 

And that is my problem. This is not at all persuasive.

I see death threats to alleged 'liberal activist judges' (or think of the murder of the thoroughly demonized Mr. Tiller, or the spike (the number iirc quadrupled compared to Bush-era levels) in death threats against the president since Obama took office.) as a very clear sign that there is a peculiar American way of polarization along conservative vs. liberal lines. America is polarized along party lines - that isn't new. And an implication of such polarization is an "us vs. them" mentality. Considering how you like to harp on the 'liberal bias' theme I doubt I need to explain to you what I mean.

If your thesis of a general internet induced radicalization would be true and describe a general phenomenon there would be no difference between European countries and the US as far as radicalism goes. Alas, there is a difference. The Internet is there in Germany, UK, France and Holland, and debate doesn't nearly go as far. I listen to political discourse in my country and the US and there is a stark difference in tone, and polarization.

I think the threats against Judge Bolton very much fit in the phenomenon of polarization. As for the extent of polarization - there is a reason that Judge Bolton is currently under police protection: Because the polarization has created a rancorous debate.

 

@Aldeth
Yes, it has been the law for many years that you must have ID. This has been overlooked and you are a bit young to have bumped into this. Kids my age, out late at night, at least the wild ones (sometimes me) have. Remember laws like this came before anything but radio. Most times if you were known to the police in the area or had any local student id or library card anything that could be checked you were good. Different times and many less people. Also remember you had to be out and visible in a way that attracted notice. One more thing, as soon as it was established who you were and that you did not have "wants and warrents" it was release time. Comes back to "show the dang id"! I am kinda old and out of touch so laws could have changed in some states without my knowledge however old laws tend to stick around forever.

@Nog
I am aware that the point just talked about would distrub the most people and want to say again it is immigration and border control that must be changed. Your method might work, I don't know. With all the lawers in the congress (no offence please good people, none ment) talk and points of law will be debated forever. I want more people like my brother in law and now too his brother to stay here. They improve the US not hurt it.

please excuse bad spelling and mixed up words. Only 4 fingers working right and damn glasses broke.

 

I don't think that's quite right; at least I've always been of the undestanding that if you're not operating a motor vehicle, you're under no obligation to carry a driver's license (probably considered the most common form of ID). And I'm pretty sure you're not required to carry your birth certificate or passport around with you at all times. You are required to identify yourself verbally upon request, however.* e.g. "I am John Smith." That said, being able to show a driver's license as ID upon request, even if you're not driving, will probably result in the least hassle for you.

flexyourrights.org seems to concur with this opinion: http://flexyourrights.org/faq/When_do_I_have_to_show_ID

*Apparently only if police have reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in some criminal activity, which could be considered prima facie if they're talking to you at all.

 

When I was under 16, I didn't have a DL obviously, and I had no other ID on me whatsoever. There were no school IDs where I went to school, so what type of official documentation could possibly be produced to prove who you were?

 

It may be a local law for you perhaps, but there is no such law here, except for the police, believe it or not. Old One, it is a mistake to believe that your local laws apply outside of where you live. Unless it is some kind of federal law, which there isn't -- you don't need an ID to stay out of jail if you are not suspected of a real crime. Even in AZ they must have just cause to inquire. This is still that much of a free country, at least.

 

@Everyone?
According to what I just read 24 states still have id laws, and the piece (thank you Gaear) is very carefull in what they say.

Aldeth, at 16 a simple relayed call to your parents was what was usually done. During the daytime hours, outside of school time unless you were doing something stupid, like standing still, you were not bothered. Yes it did get that bad sometimes because of crusing. Also at that time California, Az, did have that law.

@Chandos
Local in all the states I traveled in, if memory serves about 7 or 8. In Texes I was stopped at a roadblock by Rangers who checked everything and searched my car too. They arrested the idiot behind me for refusing to show id, claimed he forgot his licence (with Ca plates, same as mine) and would not give permission for a car search. 300 mi from nowhere at about 2hrs before dawn. Wonder what happened to him?

 

Nope, my dad was a cop for 30 years in Texas, I just got off the phone with him and there is no law that requires you to carry an ID. If you are driving you need a DL. In your instance, the person in question was driving without a licence and may have been a suspect. If it really was the Rangers that had a roadblock they were looking for someone in particular and probably wanted to question him further. The Rangers aren't traffic cops, but hunt fugitives and conduct special investigations.

 

@Chandos
Should have seperated that part of the post out better. First comment was about known states. The one about Tx was about an incident that happened and I know they were looking for someone or something. I did believe however that was one of the states that required id. Also remember this was more than 40 years ago. Different times and no pc behavior. One more thing, tell an old ranger in the 60's you don't have to show him your id! Ouch.

 

Also bear in mind that (according to the link) the 24 states that have ID laws are of the identify-yourself-verbally variety. Most notably they state:

They also go on to say in another section:

 

And considering how hard you like to rail against conservatives, I'm sure you don't. But wait, you're not American!

*sigh* You're missing my point. My point is that there's no connection between internet radicalization and politics. So, quite to the contrary, the effect on European politics would be nonexistant. Rather, European internet topics of all kinds would be just as likely to get heated and end in death threats as American ones. Tell me, since I'm not European, have you seen this? Do you think any French officials are getting death threats online because of their recent immigration actions? How did Germans respond when your government gave away money to Greece?

 

NOG,
#1 I said that the tone of the internet debate mirrors the domestic political debate in tone and content. I also said that the means of the internet amplify that, resulting in what I described before.

#2 The stark difference in tone, and polarization between the US and Europe is thus easily explained. It's not because of the internet, but because of the nature of the respective national political debates.

#3 What you don't want to accept but avoid to directly address is that I say that some (in or exclude yourself as you wish) US conservatives since Obama became president have become a rather nasty if not rabid bunch, but alas, particularly the spike in death threats against Obama (fed by this nonsense about him being an imposter, Muslim or wtf), or the death threat against the judge underline that.

So why don't you just jump to #3 and spare us the tip-toeing around it?

 

Well, given that Chandos lists his age as 45, I would suspect his father is older than you (unless he was 14 when Chandos was born). I think it is likely that Chandos' father WAS a poilce officer 40 years ago.