Coming from someone that I marked as a foe [which I haven't done in a few years], it's nice to know that Slashdot knew in advance to remind me to not give a shit about comments from assholes like you.:)
It gets more interesting when you watch the documentary (BBC?) about how many inventions came from Star Trek... And then realize Star Trek was created on amphetamines.
We're not doing nothing. We deport tons - I just read we deport 5000 *white* immigrants last year from non-Mexico countries. But the law is unconstitutional, and will be found as such.
HEY LOOK! As of day 1, they detained an American Citizen for not having his birth certificate on him. I don't know about you, but -- I found out the hard way, if you lose your certificate, you actually can't get a new one. The state will sell you a certificate of live birth for $50, and you can't use it to get either a social security card or a driver's license. And you can't use a driver's license to get a social security card either. Fortunately I ended up finding mine, but the only way I was able to even get a driver's license renewal was via my passport [which I applied for before losing my birth certificate for months]. I had to wait for it to come [several weeks], and finally I could drink in a bar again. So no, people shouldn't be carrying their birth certificates with them everywhere they go; they should be locked in a fireproof safe like mine now is.
Yup. This wouldn't have happened previously, but now happens under existing law.
Thank you for being annoying enough to respond long enough that abuse managed to actually happen before our conversation is over. Reality: A great argument winner.
You have a pedantic way of viewing things that I think constitutes naivety. I've understood the separation of powers since elementary school; it is you that doesn't seem to understand that this separation does not absolve people involved of responsibility. For example, those that set up the laws on rape testimony and the death penalty are indeed partially responsible for those many [usually black] men that are arrested and sent to the their on uncorroborated testimony that they raped someone [when they didn't]. You set up a system, you are responsible for how it is implemented. It is a shared responsibility, but just because the powers are separate on paper does not mean that's how it works in the real world.
It really seems like you're just covering your hands over your eyes and avoiding observing how things really work.
If you really think drug war abuses aren't the fault of the legislators that criminalized drugs in the first place, then I suggest you go back to Mars. Because I don't have an answer for you other than slapping you in the face for stupidity. And of course those who legislated slavery to be legal are not responsible for the abuse of slaves. Wow. You've officially lost me here.
You also use the fallacy of trying to invalidate my opinion because I don't have an alternate solution. First off, if the only solution to rape was to start shooting all men in the head, I wouldn't need an alternate solution to say that's wrong. (But apparently you would continue shooting them, because laws need to be enforced?)
Sorry for the strawman attack, but it's simply another way of covering up your eyes and saying "Nyah nyah I'm not listening to reality because _X_". So far, X has equaled "legislators aren't responsible for the enforcement of what they legislate" (which is about the biggest joke I've herad in 2010), and "bad things must happen unless YOU have a better solution". (Funny..I thought those who came up with the solutions--our laws--weren't responsible for it a minute ago? But when I DON'T come up with a solution, now I'm responsible for things staying the same? Amazing) (BTW, did you chastise mathematicians for not having the solutions to all the math problems they've enumerated?)
And this law absolutely will be invalidated. Lawsuits will be made. Immigrants deported per dollar will decrease when the lawsuits are taken into account. The police can already run immigration status when they arrest those who commit crimes! This is a "papers, please" law, and such laws have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional, unless you are driving. They'll definitely point this one at people who walk. After all, the poor can't defend themselves even when not immigrants.
You do realize there are American citizens who have been detained under immigration laws for weeks at a time and not given a lawyer, right? Even before this law, which will only exacerbate the problem. But hey! Throw your hands up! It's not the legislators fault, and anyone who doesn't have another solution should bend over and show their papers please! Wow. I don't know if you're a closet racist (even though I don't find immigration law enforcement to automatically be racist--I say put up a 20 foot wall on the border with motion sensing cameras every 10 feet), or simply an authoritarian who loves the taste of a good boot. But the fact that you've typed this much to defend unamerican activities plunging our police state further makes it pretty square to me that you are an enemy of freedom, and therefore an enemy to me.
Yes, legislators ARE responsible for the actions of LEOs, just as a CEO or commanding officer is responsible for the behavior of their subordinates. Taser are a good example. Cops couldn't use them, legislators gave them to them, a bunch of people died, and now legislators are starting to take them away. Oh, the individual is definitely responsible: But the leader is responsible too. It's not all or the other. There's plenty of blame to go around. I'll Hitler it up and say: It didn't just take Hitler's policy to create abuse, it took individuals. But neither could do it without the other, and "just following orders" has proven to not be a valid excuse.
The existing procedures for handling LEOs that are out of line are a sham. They don't exist. Officers get re-instated even after they get fired. Their unions are powerful. They pass laws stating that disciplinary records get hidden from the people. They get hired as officers elsewhere -- even when they get criminal records. It's called the Thin Blue Line, and I'm almost at the 100 link mark: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/thinblueline -- Note the guy at the top. 31 disciplines and he's still an officer. Think if you had 31 written disciplines on record at your job you'd still have it? I gotta call bullshit on existing procedures. And wonder how you don't realize that.
Laws to check on people after their arrest are fine. The people fighting those are stupid. But any "papers, please" is bullshit, and anything that can be selectively enforced based on appearance is even worse.
You mean, if 480i is acceptable to you. If you want 1080p because you sit 4 ft from a 52 inch screen [like the one I'm typing on right now], then it's not quite so trivial, is it? [is it? really.. i'd like to know]
I shouldn't need to explain that we're not actually a democracy, but hey, the label we use for our society is pretty irrelevant to this conversation.
You called *me* idealist? Hahaha. Basically, you don't understand that certain laws lead to abuse. The abuse it not written in the statute. You seem to think that if the statute says "you can go up to 8.7", that it won't mean they'll go up to 8.8. {Hopefully you can follow my abstract points here.} But it will. Every time. Don't want abuse? Assuming they overstep a maximum of 1.0, then set the law to say 7.8. You follow?
Prince William County. Hah!! You stepped into a trap there. It's my home county. Big film went around about all the civil rights abuses directed at Hispanics in that county. My parents went to a screening of it. Nice try, though.
Funny thing about statistics: They don't account for individuals. If we had mandatory death penalty for every crime on the book, there's no doubt whatsoever that crime would go down. That doesn't mean jack if just one innocent gets fried over it. Freedom doesn't work on statistics; it's about worst case scenarios not happening. Just look towards the Innocence Project's work in Texas RE: death penalty, and you'll see what I mean. Funny thing is, most of the innocent people were sent to the chair by police overstepping their bounds. Because we gave them laws that let them step right up to the boundary, then people like you come along and say "it's not the system's fault" when they do. You're kind of a shill. At least you mean well and aren't overtly racist.
Funny thing is, I'd expell every illegal immigrant in the country with 0 notice, if I could do it with the push of the button. But it's not like that. The real world is practical, not ideal.
In case you haven't noticed, our 'democracy' has been becoming increasingly less free and more of a police state due to abuses of authority. Your "let the courts sort it out" system has not been working. The best system is one that doesn't lend itself to abuse.
It's only a matter of time until someone films and posts to YouTube an example of this law being abused in such a way that it costs taxpayers even more money than actual immigration enforcement. I don't need a time machine to know I've been proven right. But I invite you to PM me in a year [put it on your calendar or something] and we'll see what happens. (Hint: You'll lose, and the abusing cop will, within 3 years, be back in business.)
Having to produce identification to prove your innocent is the same as having your personal effects searched for such identification. In effect, the end result is the same: Govt snoops in your papers. "Looking like an illegal" cannot possibly be a constitutional crime. This will be struck down in court as soon as someone's rights get trodden on. It will happen.
So your solution to over-generalization is over-specification? I guess the 4th amendment conveniently disappeared in order to make your argument more workable for you?
God you're naive. Did you not read the Seattle case posted on Slashdot just a few days ago? I have to question what subset of news you've been reading, because you clearly have a distorted view of reality.
I'm not going to take the time to make these clickable, because if you're not willing to copy and paste, you only prove my point that you are avoiding news reports about reality:
Wake up, man. I got all these stories from the first 3 pages of my own link collection at http://delicious.com/clintjcl/abuseofauthority... If I went through all 76 pages of my link collection, I'd have a litany of examples showing that your attitude is not at all realistic. If I expanded my search beyond those stories I've personally read, I'd have even more.
Go ahead and make an ad hominem attack about my comments on the links. It's kind of what I expect at this point.
So enumerate all the rights listed, and come up with a total of the ones that only apply to "citizens" (X) and the ones that apply to persons (Y).
if Y > X, then original poster was right. Generalities are about general cases, not about summing up 100% of cases. I think you will find that constitutional rights generally apply to all persons.
". A person who's a minority cannot be subject to traffic enforcement in the first place unless he's actually breaking a traffic law. "
Hahahaha hahAHA HAHA HA AHAHAA HAHAHAH AHA You win the award for most naive commenter on slashdot today. Wow. Do you actually believe yourself when you spout such bullshit?
All it will take is one youtube video to prove you wrong. Sit back and wait. I give you 2 months max. Add the link to my comment on your calendar and come back and tell me I'm wrong then. I think I'm being generous.
And what about when you're walking down the street without ID? You do realize the only time americans are legally required to carry ID is when driving. So when you are a law abiding american citizen who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant, abiding the law but with no ID - for example while doing yardwork - what happens?
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I hope you don't drink coffee or alcohol.
It gets more interesting when you watch the documentary (BBC?) about how many inventions came from Star Trek ... And then realize Star Trek was created on amphetamines.
Most profound work that is imaginative is related to drug use.
i spent years looking for a multiplayer nethack... boy did i feel dumb... i wrote a blog about it, but it wont post for a few weeks [future dated]: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/journal-computer-old-school-computing-tribute-to-nethack-i-used-to-look-for-the-net-in-nethack-but-never-found-it/
and some tubes...
HEY LOOK! As of day 1, they detained an American Citizen for not having his birth certificate on him. I don't know about you, but -- I found out the hard way, if you lose your certificate, you actually can't get a new one. The state will sell you a certificate of live birth for $50, and you can't use it to get either a social security card or a driver's license. And you can't use a driver's license to get a social security card either. Fortunately I ended up finding mine, but the only way I was able to even get a driver's license renewal was via my passport [which I applied for before losing my birth certificate for months]. I had to wait for it to come [several weeks], and finally I could drink in a bar again. So no, people shouldn't be carrying their birth certificates with them everywhere they go; they should be locked in a fireproof safe like mine now is.
The site is "slashdotted" right now, so check it on google cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GuF4PXTjMlkJ:guanabee.com/2010/04/american-truck-driver-illegal-alien-arizona-sb1070/+a+man+who+was+born+in+Fresno+was+jailed+because+he+did+not+have+a+birth+certificate+with+him.&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Yup. This wouldn't have happened previously, but now happens under existing law.
Thank you for being annoying enough to respond long enough that abuse managed to actually happen before our conversation is over. Reality: A great argument winner.
It really seems like you're just covering your hands over your eyes and avoiding observing how things really work.
If you really think drug war abuses aren't the fault of the legislators that criminalized drugs in the first place, then I suggest you go back to Mars. Because I don't have an answer for you other than slapping you in the face for stupidity. And of course those who legislated slavery to be legal are not responsible for the abuse of slaves. Wow. You've officially lost me here.
You also use the fallacy of trying to invalidate my opinion because I don't have an alternate solution. First off, if the only solution to rape was to start shooting all men in the head, I wouldn't need an alternate solution to say that's wrong. (But apparently you would continue shooting them, because laws need to be enforced?)
Sorry for the strawman attack, but it's simply another way of covering up your eyes and saying "Nyah nyah I'm not listening to reality because _X_". So far, X has equaled "legislators aren't responsible for the enforcement of what they legislate" (which is about the biggest joke I've herad in 2010), and "bad things must happen unless YOU have a better solution". (Funny..I thought those who came up with the solutions--our laws--weren't responsible for it a minute ago? But when I DON'T come up with a solution, now I'm responsible for things staying the same? Amazing) (BTW, did you chastise mathematicians for not having the solutions to all the math problems they've enumerated?)
And this law absolutely will be invalidated. Lawsuits will be made. Immigrants deported per dollar will decrease when the lawsuits are taken into account. The police can already run immigration status when they arrest those who commit crimes! This is a "papers, please" law, and such laws have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional, unless you are driving. They'll definitely point this one at people who walk. After all, the poor can't defend themselves even when not immigrants.
You do realize there are American citizens who have been detained under immigration laws for weeks at a time and not given a lawyer, right? Even before this law, which will only exacerbate the problem. But hey! Throw your hands up! It's not the legislators fault, and anyone who doesn't have another solution should bend over and show their papers please! Wow. I don't know if you're a closet racist (even though I don't find immigration law enforcement to automatically be racist--I say put up a 20 foot wall on the border with motion sensing cameras every 10 feet), or simply an authoritarian who loves the taste of a good boot. But the fact that you've typed this much to defend unamerican activities plunging our police state further makes it pretty square to me that you are an enemy of freedom, and therefore an enemy to me.
I lived there for 24 yrs.
Yes, legislators ARE responsible for the actions of LEOs, just as a CEO or commanding officer is responsible for the behavior of their subordinates. Taser are a good example. Cops couldn't use them, legislators gave them to them, a bunch of people died, and now legislators are starting to take them away. Oh, the individual is definitely responsible: But the leader is responsible too. It's not all or the other. There's plenty of blame to go around. I'll Hitler it up and say: It didn't just take Hitler's policy to create abuse, it took individuals. But neither could do it without the other, and "just following orders" has proven to not be a valid excuse.
The existing procedures for handling LEOs that are out of line are a sham. They don't exist. Officers get re-instated even after they get fired. Their unions are powerful. They pass laws stating that disciplinary records get hidden from the people. They get hired as officers elsewhere -- even when they get criminal records. It's called the Thin Blue Line, and I'm almost at the 100 link mark: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/thinblueline -- Note the guy at the top. 31 disciplines and he's still an officer. Think if you had 31 written disciplines on record at your job you'd still have it? I gotta call bullshit on existing procedures. And wonder how you don't realize that.
Laws to check on people after their arrest are fine. The people fighting those are stupid. But any "papers, please" is bullshit, and anything that can be selectively enforced based on appearance is even worse.
You mean, if 480i is acceptable to you. If you want 1080p because you sit 4 ft from a 52 inch screen [like the one I'm typing on right now], then it's not quite so trivial, is it? [is it? really.. i'd like to know]
Good link on PWC nonetheless -- I will use that on my pro-immigration friends. But enforcement needs to be done in a constitutional manner.
You called *me* idealist? Hahaha. Basically, you don't understand that certain laws lead to abuse. The abuse it not written in the statute. You seem to think that if the statute says "you can go up to 8.7", that it won't mean they'll go up to 8.8. {Hopefully you can follow my abstract points here.} But it will. Every time. Don't want abuse? Assuming they overstep a maximum of 1.0, then set the law to say 7.8. You follow?
Prince William County. Hah!! You stepped into a trap there. It's my home county. Big film went around about all the civil rights abuses directed at Hispanics in that county. My parents went to a screening of it. Nice try, though.
Funny thing about statistics: They don't account for individuals. If we had mandatory death penalty for every crime on the book, there's no doubt whatsoever that crime would go down. That doesn't mean jack if just one innocent gets fried over it. Freedom doesn't work on statistics; it's about worst case scenarios not happening. Just look towards the Innocence Project's work in Texas RE: death penalty, and you'll see what I mean. Funny thing is, most of the innocent people were sent to the chair by police overstepping their bounds. Because we gave them laws that let them step right up to the boundary, then people like you come along and say "it's not the system's fault" when they do. You're kind of a shill. At least you mean well and aren't overtly racist.
Funny thing is, I'd expell every illegal immigrant in the country with 0 notice, if I could do it with the push of the button. But it's not like that. The real world is practical, not ideal.
It's only a matter of time until someone films and posts to YouTube an example of this law being abused in such a way that it costs taxpayers even more money than actual immigration enforcement. I don't need a time machine to know I've been proven right. But I invite you to PM me in a year [put it on your calendar or something] and we'll see what happens. (Hint: You'll lose, and the abusing cop will, within 3 years, be back in business.)
In your ideal-driven world, every rule written in a book precisely maps to the real-world implementation of it, huh? Terry stops are never abused, right? cough http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7382184 cough
And of course, police always listen to the letter of the law, right? cough http://www.dnainfo.com/20100427/manhattan/new-york-city-fined-for-enforcing-unconstitutional-loitering-laws cough
Get real man.
Having to produce identification to prove your innocent is the same as having your personal effects searched for such identification. In effect, the end result is the same: Govt snoops in your papers. "Looking like an illegal" cannot possibly be a constitutional crime. This will be struck down in court as soon as someone's rights get trodden on. It will happen.
You're welcome to it :)
There you go! I knew you'd pull through! :)
p.s. in general, people speak generally.
So your solution to over-generalization is over-specification? I guess the 4th amendment conveniently disappeared in order to make your argument more workable for you?
I'm not going to take the time to make these clickable, because if you're not willing to copy and paste, you only prove my point that you are avoiding news reports about reality:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-arrest_24met.ART.State.Edition1.4c46a6a.html Gee, funny how they didn't get recorded.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/04/22/2031222/Seattle-Hacker-Catches-Cops-Who-Hid-Arrest-Tapes?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)&utm_content=Google+Reader - yeah, camera didn't help him, did it?
Not directly related, but, uh, cops can lie, and this law is going to target pedestrians as much as drivers: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100409_11_A17_Aforme19933
Did a camera save this lady, even though the court admits she broke no law? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/pregnant_woman_tasered/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Wake up, man. I got all these stories from the first 3 pages of my own link collection at http://delicious.com/clintjcl/abuseofauthority ... If I went through all 76 pages of my link collection, I'd have a litany of examples showing that your attitude is not at all realistic. If I expanded my search beyond those stories I've personally read, I'd have even more.
Go ahead and make an ad hominem attack about my comments on the links. It's kind of what I expect at this point.
if Y > X, then original poster was right. Generalities are about general cases, not about summing up 100% of cases. I think you will find that constitutional rights generally apply to all persons.
Hahahaha hahAHA HAHA HA AHAHAA HAHAHAH AHA You win the award for most naive commenter on slashdot today. Wow. Do you actually believe yourself when you spout such bullshit?
All it will take is one youtube video to prove you wrong. Sit back and wait. I give you 2 months max. Add the link to my comment on your calendar and come back and tell me I'm wrong then. I think I'm being generous.
Let's see how long you last when being followed by a cop that has it in for you. Especially if he's willing to lie, like more than enough cops are.
And what about when you're walking down the street without ID? You do realize the only time americans are legally required to carry ID is when driving. So when you are a law abiding american citizen who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant, abiding the law but with no ID - for example while doing yardwork - what happens?
tend to not have pictures :)