Because the Arizona state law says that a valid drivers license "creates the presumption of legal residence". And the law itself requires a "lawful contact" first, then you have to reach the "reasonable suspicion" standard, and it may not be done based on race. In plain English, they have to have you for some other reason than immigration initially, and there must be a reason that will stand up in court for them to suspect you are in the country illegally before they can even ask for proof of legal status. And even at that point, producing a valid driver's license or state ID produces the legal presumption that you are lawfully in the US, so the whole "immigration" line of questioning must be abandoned. The facts are: You are still constitutionally protected against random police stops, the law itself does not allow for racial profiling, and there is an easy way out by simply showing a state ID. If you refuse, then you can be held to investigate who you are, as allowed by the Constitution and laws of the given state. You are not criminally charged, but are held (read up the ACLU page and others on this - its surprising that you can be held constitutionally for things like that!). The law allows for this -- and if you do not want that inconvenience, simply tell the law enforcement officer your name and address, or else carry ID. When I have been in Europe, and India, I have not found it inconvenient to carry ID with me for precisely this reason, although I do leave my passport at the hotel unless I'm crossing a national boundary -- a simple phone call by the police to the Hotel is sufficient the few times I have needed it (Mainly in Greece, never in England or Germany).
So, what is unreasonable about this? Its lawful, and appears to be shaped to be Constitutional, at least on its surface. It allows the police to protect the legal residents of Arizona against encroachment by lawbreakers who should not be there (and this is a huge problem there -- violence and property crimes, stress on the government systems which can barely handle the lawful residents, etc).
Now if you want to discuss how broken the US immigration system is, then that's a different thing completely. Its far too easy to get in illegally, and far to hard (and expensive!) to get in with current laws the way they are. You'll get little argument from me on how broken our system is. But the first step has to be with controlling the border and who comes in. The Feds have not done their job -- the states, who are going broke from it and suffering the crime and stress are being forced to act. This law is simply the most visible manifestation of that problem - neither the Repubs nor the Dems have done anything about it.
and then there's the whole H1-B mess which pretty much creates indentured servants -- I'd rather they have green cards and full rights to deal about employment and wages if we truly need foreign hi-tech workers here - get a level playing field instead of being able to threaten them with deportation, and give them a path to stay and become citizens if they wish.!
I agree - they should pass further clarifying legislation to ensure that any use of this law in a profiling manner, or coming close to being unconstitutional, is precluded. The biggest risk this law has in the courts is that it may be too vague to pass the standards of an enforceable law. In all honesty, I have a feeling that this law will be ignored far more often than enforced. Most police officers have plenty of paperwork to do on someone they alreayd have a "lawful contact" with, and will likely shuffle this stuff off to the side, with the defense that they had *no* "reasonable" suspicion. IMHO, its a lot of fuss about something that will likely do nothing. But, law, as with software, more eyes on the source code drives out bugs better.
FFS, read the whole thing when you link. The instance you cite is ICE - that's the Federal Government, not Arizona, and it has nothing at all to do with the Arizona law.
My point still stands. Arizona law allows for a drivers license to be sufficient presumption of legal residence. When someone is stopped for some other reason (the first part of the law, "Lawful Contact"), and on top of that there is "reasonable suspicion" (a legal term that requires something more than "a hunch"), and its not only due to race, and they then produce a driver's license, the immigration part of the law enforcement action is stopped. So no, you're wrong because you confused Federal Agency with the Arizona Law that's in question. You're welcome for the correction.
Unconstitutional? How so? Its basically a rehash of federal law, includes protections against racial profiling, requires a constitutionally limiting circumstance of a "lawful contact", and only after those are met does the law come into play -- and at that point it even kicks in the further restriction by requiring a "reasonable suspicion" standard to be met. Art 4 Section 4 is being cited by some legal scholars, and there is always the 10th amendment that empowers states to enact laws of this sort. If you want to invoke the supremacy clause to push federal over state regulations, then Arizona can claim it is acting under that clause by this being enabling legislation to enforce federal law.
Actually the Arizona law allows the Drivers License as a presumption of legal residency. So for the purposes of this law, if you can show them a valid driver's license, then you are presumed to be here legally and have no more documentation to worry about.
Try the little ID card sized laminated passport card that the US is now handing out for use at the Canadian and Mexican borders. First rather nicely in a wallet. Costs $20 from the passport office.
Exactly how do the police know that a person is a non-citizen visitor or a citizen?... Up next will be a requirement for all US citizens to carry identification due to the above problem, and the transformation to a police state will be complete.
Its not citizenship you nitwit, its legal residence. Same as my Passport and work visa when I am in India. And your driver's license, per law in Arizona, "creates the presumption of legal residency". Furthermore, the doctrine of "reasonable suspicion" is specified in the law, and race is specifically addressed as not a sufficient reason for stopping someone, Furthermore the law requires lawful contact prior to any consideration of immigration status. That is, they have to have already legally and constitutionally stopped you. Stop the idiotic sensationalism, and blatant lies.
How do I, a US Citizen, prove that I am a US Citizen?
You don't, you prove LEGAL RESIDENCE. Just like I do when asked to produce ID papers in India, my passport and work visa. Stop stupidly asking the wrong question. And try reading the law instead of talking partial and slanted coverage of it for gospel. Your driver's license, per the laws in Arizona created a presumption of legal residence. And in general, if you are stopped under the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion", you generally have to identify yourself, either by showing a document like a drivers license, or verbally giving your name and home address to the law enforcement officer (yes this satisfies the request for ID, which they will then check for correctness).
This much is established -- and reported in AP summaries elsewhere A drivers license OR valid state issued ID or Military ID or Passport or Immigration document (H-1b or Green card, which holders are required by FEDERAL LAW to have on them at all times) creates the presumption of legal residence. Also the law requires the "reasonable suspicion" standard to be met -- something that makes it very difficult for a "just because" stop - -the police officer MUST be able to provide a legal and rational reason for having a suspicion --- and by that it means that race gender or other constitutionally protected attributes may NOT be part of that reason. Race or color cannot be the reason for asking - its actually written specifically into the law. Furthermore, before this law actually comes into play, it must be a LEGAL CONTACT - a term that means the law enforcement officer is stopping you for some other reason. Finally, this basically extends enforcement of Federal Law to state law enforcement agents. THe law is nearly identical to the constitutionally lawful Federal statute.
Instead of jumping to conclusions based on partial and bad information, why not read the law and the implementation language? Also ask the correct question - its not about citizenship, its about legal residence. Those are different things - you lose your argument when you start arguing about the wrong things, and are ignorant of the facts of the matter..
FFS, that's stupid - OF YOU! Did you even read the article you linked to? The agency there was ICE and it was at a border customs inspection station.
A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure.
It had NOTHING to do with this Arizona law. And you might want to read the law: The Arizona law specifically states that a drivers license creates a presumption that the individual is here legally. Period. Stop spewing propaganda.
"So it's not like Americans have never had to deal with the inconvenience of police asking for ID before."
Yup. And it was unconstitutional then too.
Wrong. The Supreme court has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are legal, as are checkpoints for immigration near the borde - specifically, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte in which the court held (7-2) that fixed traffic checkpoints for illegal immigrants on roads near the border were legal. Both of these require that you produce proper identification upon demand.
"Yeah, because I couldn't just, oh, show them my drivers license. Because it's so unusual for police to ask for some identification during an investigation"
I guess you missed the part where a drivers license is not proof of citizenship?
And I guess you are too stupid to actually JFGI that in Arizona, a drivers license is proof of legal residence, since they require proof of citizenship or legal residency in order to issue a license - same for most other states as well. Stop repeating a lie, it does not make it any more true.
You Completely omitted the first clause of the law, which requires a LEGAL CONTACT before this law even comes into consideration - rendering your entire argument moot. Ortiz does not apply.
Legally, in theory, a cop CANNOT just stop you for no reason and force you to present an ID, nor detain you for no reason whatsoever. There needs to be some sort of cause, and "he looked suspicious" probably isnt going to do to well if challenged in court.
FFS, read the source code, i.e. read the law!
This is how the Associated Press summarizes the Arizona statute:
Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status. Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses would be a felony.
Requires police officers to "make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation.
Allow lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500
Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.
In order for them to take you in, they must 1) be in lawful contact - a legal term that means you are ALREADY stopped for some other violation, and 2) they must have reasonablesuspicion that you are in the country illegally -- which legally means they must be able to explain their reason for asking you for citizenship based on something constitutional - that is something other than gender or race. Stopping you for no reason at all other than to demand your papers is just sensationalism, and basically a lie.
There is well established case law to back this thing up, and most of what is being reported conveniently omits the entirety of the law in order to print sensationalistic left-leaning bullshit like KDawson spewed here. Its a lie by omission on the part of the activists, and the press in general.. Unless you are otherwise breaking the law, you are at no risk at all for being pulled over and producing the documentation on your H-1B or green card that makes you a legal resident -- and which BY LAW you are supposed to have on you anyways. I didnt cruise around without my passport and visa in India - why should it be any different for a LEGAL resident alien here in the US?
Tech company I worked for in Boulder still does it that way: Everyone was issued a laptop, each gets a docking station and 2 24" LCD monitors and an ergo keytray in the office, L shaped desk, bookshelf and whiteboard at the desk. Normally 2 to an office, with a door. The best arrangement I've seen is several of these 2 person offices along a hall with a collaboration room at one end of the hall, Collab room has electronic whiteboard, projector, big color laser copier and printer, meeting table & chairs, video conf unit (connected to the projector, camera up by the screen), a chilled and heated filtered water thingy, and a fridge. No microwave or sink: they were in the break room on a different floor so no burned popcorn or broccoli or stinky fish! Work alone or in pairs, bring laptop out for collab issues and meetings. Leave door open if you want to hear or be heard. Manager gets a solo office at the entry area, so meetings don't disturb the rest of the team.
Very productive. I guess that's how they got through the last 3 years with only 1 person laid off from a staff of 200+
Ah another logic error on your part: False analogy - due to a faulty premise. You mis-define libertarianism, then argue from your mis-definition - which is also a bit of a Straw Man error. Not to mention a false generalization of libertarian characteristics from loaded terms in your (overly general and false) characterization of engineers -- which is yet another logical fallacy on your part ("spotlight fallacy" or a simple composition fallacy). As a counter-example, there are a fairly large number of "non technical" people who are libertarians, including doctors (MD) and other highly educated people.
FYI, so you get the definition correct: Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state.
Libertarianism stems from a deep desire for personal liberty - not a deep naivety. Libertarianism is based on the premise that people are best left to decide and work things out themselves, individually. That's hardly "gears or transistors" you ascribe to libertarians (indirectly from engineers, and completely off from the subject of "high IQ").
And that is where you get into your most fundamental error: you ascribe the opposite belief (arguably, that of collectivists: people are cogs in a machine that can eventually be perfected) to the Libertarians. With such a demonstrably false premise, you cannot claim a truth in your conclusion.
So once again, you are wrong -- in multiple ways. And I note that you continue to argue in a fallacious fashion, not recognizing your errors but compounding bad argument on bad argument, error upon error, mixing in fallacy after fallacy and wrapping it up in judgmental language. It is quite the package, a shining monument to a struggling mind.
You may want to take a basic course in rhetoric to hone your ability to put together a coherent argument. But don't let that stop you; with your sort it never does seem to do so anyway. It is slightly amusing so see you thrash so hard to hide whatever basic animus you have toward engineers and libertarians that is behind all this.
I am a bit curious though: according to your reasoning, narrow fields of study and work narrow the intellect? In your system, it would seem that puts me and my Philosophy Degree, indicating far broader knowledge (knowledge about knowledge in fact, e.g. my study of epistemology) at "the top of the heap". I do find that pretty amusing. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?
I'm abandoning this thread- your sort usually will post again and again until you get the "last word". Its the old adage about arguing on the internet... Well here you go, it is all yours. Goodbye.
But then you completely contradict yourself with this:
Also has a pretty libertarian bent.
So, who actually dominates, intelligent people, or libertarians?
Sorry, that's a logical fallacy: False dichotomy - very poor argumentation technique on your part. To put it in words simple enough for you to understand: The categories are demonstrably not mutually exclusive. In my experience, the overlap is quite large between higher IQ and Libertarianism. If you want the lower IQ types in the political realm, go to extreme liberals or extreme conservatives, who are surprisingly similar in terms of their unintelligent negative effects on liberty.
It may surprise you to find out that some "Democrats" are also Tea Party people, like Gladney, at least out west. And are your really that stupid? I did a google,a nd the very first result on "Gladney beating" brings up an article that has this quote from a KMOX radio report in it: Gladney had claimed that two men wearing SEIU shirts attacked him as he sat at a table giving away tea party buttons.. As for proof - the fact that they arrested SEIU people and charged them is pretty evident. Are you stupid or just working at being as deliberately ignorant as you can possibly be?
As for the egg throwing, go watch the video - the Dem/Union group there were attempting to intimidate the guy filming, throwing eggs at the buses -- as shown on the film. WHat is not clear about that to you? The reason the guy filmed this is apparently there were deliberately misdirecting the Tea Party people (sending them out to the desert instead of to the rally). As for your head spinning, I'm sure that's a common occurrence given your rather pathetic and stupid attempts to spin this away from a truth that makes you uncomfortable. You're just as bad as the Bushies, although you will never admit to it.
By the way, your attempts to justify initiating violence against the GOP by pointing to past violence against the Dems is pretty stupid - and shows lack of any real grasp of morality or reason on your part. BOTH were wrong. I was pointing out that, as a libertarian, we see the simian feces flinging from both sides, whereas the Left tend to pretend it doesn't happen at all when they tend to be the more violent.
Morons like you make great tools for those who wish to mobilize fools for political use. You are the lefty counterpart to the Focus on the Family types: ready at the drop of a hat to spin things, disbelieve the truth, and bark at whomever your masters have told you are the bad guys. The shame of it is, you're as blind as they are to just how damnably stupid and destructive you and your types are. In short easy words that even you can understand: Disingenuous people like YOU are the problem.
"the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger"
Cite please. I've driven by a couple "Tea Party" crowds and they tend to be fairly well behaved and orderly. A bit older as well. The DC stuff last week ("N word" and spitting) has been thoroughly debunked as a politically convenient lie by the congressmen involved.
If you go to the net, instead of the MSM or politically tilted blogs, you can see the preponderance of physical violence has primarily been on the statist or anarchist part.
Look at all the +5/-1 moderations! Full of Heated, irrational and emotional responses! Trolling and counter trolling! Massive amounts of comments, Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
And best of all it has nothing essential to do with News for Nerds, its purely political, and US oriented. SlashKos is now in session, Bravo!
Rob Malda, you astound and amaze! You finally beat out John Katz, Goatse, NataliePortman+HotGrits, a beowulf cluster of Soviet Russias, and the GNAA...
Kudos to Taco -- This article is the all-time biggest meta-troll ever on SlashDot
Damn. Well said, although you ight want to modify that to any "social welfare" project (Apollo worked out OK). Where are my mod points when I need them?
The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.
So by heating the gasoline, I can ignore The Otto Cycle and its associated Thermodynamic Cycle? Amazing! All I need to do is pay these people money to suspend the laws of thermodynamics? KDawson will buy 2!
Can't these people even come up with an original scam of their own? This is an old scam from the 70's. Its pretty much the same as "leaning out" the fuel/air mixture in an old carburetor based engine. Yes it works for "efficiency" but runs the engine hot so that it wears out more quickly, and reduces power.
KDawson is an idiot for falling for it. Fire him for repeatedly being an idiot and hire a real nerd, not another hipster dufus like him.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the Arizona state law says that a valid drivers license "creates the presumption of legal residence". And the law itself requires a "lawful contact" first, then you have to reach the "reasonable suspicion" standard, and it may not be done based on race. In plain English, they have to have you for some other reason than immigration initially, and there must be a reason that will stand up in court for them to suspect you are in the country illegally before they can even ask for proof of legal status. And even at that point, producing a valid driver's license or state ID produces the legal presumption that you are lawfully in the US, so the whole "immigration" line of questioning must be abandoned. The facts are: You are still constitutionally protected against random police stops, the law itself does not allow for racial profiling, and there is an easy way out by simply showing a state ID. If you refuse, then you can be held to investigate who you are, as allowed by the Constitution and laws of the given state. You are not criminally charged, but are held (read up the ACLU page and others on this - its surprising that you can be held constitutionally for things like that!). The law allows for this -- and if you do not want that inconvenience, simply tell the law enforcement officer your name and address, or else carry ID. When I have been in Europe, and India, I have not found it inconvenient to carry ID with me for precisely this reason, although I do leave my passport at the hotel unless I'm crossing a national boundary -- a simple phone call by the police to the Hotel is sufficient the few times I have needed it (Mainly in Greece, never in England or Germany).
So, what is unreasonable about this? Its lawful, and appears to be shaped to be Constitutional, at least on its surface. It allows the police to protect the legal residents of Arizona against encroachment by lawbreakers who should not be there (and this is a huge problem there -- violence and property crimes, stress on the government systems which can barely handle the lawful residents, etc).
Now if you want to discuss how broken the US immigration system is, then that's a different thing completely. Its far too easy to get in illegally, and far to hard (and expensive!) to get in with current laws the way they are. You'll get little argument from me on how broken our system is. But the first step has to be with controlling the border and who comes in. The Feds have not done their job -- the states, who are going broke from it and suffering the crime and stress are being forced to act. This law is simply the most visible manifestation of that problem - neither the Repubs nor the Dems have done anything about it.
and then there's the whole H1-B mess which pretty much creates indentured servants -- I'd rather they have green cards and full rights to deal about employment and wages if we truly need foreign hi-tech workers here - get a level playing field instead of being able to threaten them with deportation, and give them a path to stay and become citizens if they wish.!
I agree - they should pass further clarifying legislation to ensure that any use of this law in a profiling manner, or coming close to being unconstitutional, is precluded. The biggest risk this law has in the courts is that it may be too vague to pass the standards of an enforceable law. In all honesty, I have a feeling that this law will be ignored far more often than enforced. Most police officers have plenty of paperwork to do on someone they alreayd have a "lawful contact" with, and will likely shuffle this stuff off to the side, with the defense that they had *no* "reasonable" suspicion. IMHO, its a lot of fuss about something that will likely do nothing. But, law, as with software, more eyes on the source code drives out bugs better.
FFS, read the whole thing when you link. The instance you cite is ICE - that's the Federal Government, not Arizona, and it has nothing at all to do with the Arizona law.
My point still stands. Arizona law allows for a drivers license to be sufficient presumption of legal residence. When someone is stopped for some other reason (the first part of the law, "Lawful Contact"), and on top of that there is "reasonable suspicion" (a legal term that requires something more than "a hunch"), and its not only due to race, and they then produce a driver's license, the immigration part of the law enforcement action is stopped. So no, you're wrong because you confused Federal Agency with the Arizona Law that's in question. You're welcome for the correction.
Supreme court has already ruled it OK 7-2 that checks are OK "ner the border". How 100 miles is "near, I am unsure.
Unconstitutional? How so? Its basically a rehash of federal law, includes protections against racial profiling, requires a constitutionally limiting circumstance of a "lawful contact", and only after those are met does the law come into play -- and at that point it even kicks in the further restriction by requiring a "reasonable suspicion" standard to be met. Art 4 Section 4 is being cited by some legal scholars, and there is always the 10th amendment that empowers states to enact laws of this sort. If you want to invoke the supremacy clause to push federal over state regulations, then Arizona can claim it is acting under that clause by this being enabling legislation to enforce federal law.
Actually the Arizona law allows the Drivers License as a presumption of legal residency. So for the purposes of this law, if you can show them a valid driver's license, then you are presumed to be here legally and have no more documentation to worry about.
Try the little ID card sized laminated passport card that the US is now handing out for use at the Canadian and Mexican borders. First rather nicely in a wallet. Costs $20 from the passport office.
Exactly how do the police know that a person is a non-citizen visitor or a citizen? ... Up next will be a requirement for all US citizens to carry identification due to the above problem, and the transformation to a police state will be complete.
Its not citizenship you nitwit, its legal residence. Same as my Passport and work visa when I am in India. And your driver's license, per law in Arizona, "creates the presumption of legal residency". Furthermore, the doctrine of "reasonable suspicion" is specified in the law, and race is specifically addressed as not a sufficient reason for stopping someone, Furthermore the law requires lawful contact prior to any consideration of immigration status. That is, they have to have already legally and constitutionally stopped you. Stop the idiotic sensationalism, and blatant lies.
How do I, a US Citizen, prove that I am a US Citizen?
You don't, you prove LEGAL RESIDENCE. Just like I do when asked to produce ID papers in India, my passport and work visa. Stop stupidly asking the wrong question. And try reading the law instead of talking partial and slanted coverage of it for gospel. Your driver's license, per the laws in Arizona created a presumption of legal residence. And in general, if you are stopped under the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion", you generally have to identify yourself, either by showing a document like a drivers license, or verbally giving your name and home address to the law enforcement officer (yes this satisfies the request for ID, which they will then check for correctness).
This much is established -- and reported in AP summaries elsewhere A drivers license OR valid state issued ID or Military ID or Passport or Immigration document (H-1b or Green card, which holders are required by FEDERAL LAW to have on them at all times) creates the presumption of legal residence. Also the law requires the "reasonable suspicion" standard to be met -- something that makes it very difficult for a "just because" stop - -the police officer MUST be able to provide a legal and rational reason for having a suspicion --- and by that it means that race gender or other constitutionally protected attributes may NOT be part of that reason. Race or color cannot be the reason for asking - its actually written specifically into the law. Furthermore, before this law actually comes into play, it must be a LEGAL CONTACT - a term that means the law enforcement officer is stopping you for some other reason. Finally, this basically extends enforcement of Federal Law to state law enforcement agents. THe law is nearly identical to the constitutionally lawful Federal statute.
Instead of jumping to conclusions based on partial and bad information, why not read the law and the implementation language? Also ask the correct question - its not about citizenship, its about legal residence. Those are different things - you lose your argument when you start arguing about the wrong things, and are ignorant of the facts of the matter..
Nope, showing a drivers licence will NOT suffice. Take a look: http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html
FFS, that's stupid - OF YOU! Did you even read the article you linked to? The agency there was ICE and it was at a border customs inspection station.
A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure.
It had NOTHING to do with this Arizona law. And you might want to read the law: The Arizona law specifically states that a drivers license creates a presumption that the individual is here legally. Period. Stop spewing propaganda.
"So it's not like Americans have never had to deal with the inconvenience of police asking for ID before."
Yup. And it was unconstitutional then too.
Wrong. The Supreme court has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are legal, as are checkpoints for immigration near the borde - specifically, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte in which the court held (7-2) that fixed traffic checkpoints for illegal immigrants on roads near the border were legal. Both of these require that you produce proper identification upon demand.
"Yeah, because I couldn't just, oh, show them my drivers license. Because it's so unusual for police to ask for some identification during an investigation" I guess you missed the part where a drivers license is not proof of citizenship?
And I guess you are too stupid to actually JFGI that in Arizona, a drivers license is proof of legal residence, since they require proof of citizenship or legal residency in order to issue a license - same for most other states as well. Stop repeating a lie, it does not make it any more true.
You Completely omitted the first clause of the law, which requires a LEGAL CONTACT before this law even comes into consideration - rendering your entire argument moot. Ortiz does not apply.
Legally, in theory, a cop CANNOT just stop you for no reason and force you to present an ID, nor detain you for no reason whatsoever. There needs to be some sort of cause, and "he looked suspicious" probably isnt going to do to well if challenged in court.
FFS, read the source code, i.e. read the law!
This is how the Associated Press summarizes the Arizona statute:
Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status. Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses would be a felony.
Requires police officers to "make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation.
Allow lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500
Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.
In order for them to take you in, they must 1) be in lawful contact - a legal term that means you are ALREADY stopped for some other violation, and 2) they must have reasonablesuspicion that you are in the country illegally -- which legally means they must be able to explain their reason for asking you for citizenship based on something constitutional - that is something other than gender or race. Stopping you for no reason at all other than to demand your papers is just sensationalism, and basically a lie.
There is well established case law to back this thing up, and most of what is being reported conveniently omits the entirety of the law in order to print sensationalistic left-leaning bullshit like KDawson spewed here. Its a lie by omission on the part of the activists, and the press in general.. Unless you are otherwise breaking the law, you are at no risk at all for being pulled over and producing the documentation on your H-1B or green card that makes you a legal resident -- and which BY LAW you are supposed to have on you anyways. I didnt cruise around without my passport and visa in India - why should it be any different for a LEGAL resident alien here in the US?
Tech company I worked for in Boulder still does it that way: Everyone was issued a laptop, each gets a docking station and 2 24" LCD monitors and an ergo keytray in the office, L shaped desk, bookshelf and whiteboard at the desk. Normally 2 to an office, with a door. The best arrangement I've seen is several of these 2 person offices along a hall with a collaboration room at one end of the hall, Collab room has electronic whiteboard, projector, big color laser copier and printer, meeting table & chairs, video conf unit (connected to the projector, camera up by the screen), a chilled and heated filtered water thingy, and a fridge. No microwave or sink: they were in the break room on a different floor so no burned popcorn or broccoli or stinky fish! Work alone or in pairs, bring laptop out for collab issues and meetings. Leave door open if you want to hear or be heard. Manager gets a solo office at the entry area, so meetings don't disturb the rest of the team.
Very productive. I guess that's how they got through the last 3 years with only 1 person laid off from a staff of 200+
*Puh-lease*. This is Slashdot. If you haven't gotten head while tanking a raid boss at least once you're not doing it right.
Fixed. True story.
Mod Parent Awesome if True
Ah another logic error on your part: False analogy - due to a faulty premise. You mis-define libertarianism, then argue from your mis-definition - which is also a bit of a Straw Man error. Not to mention a false generalization of libertarian characteristics from loaded terms in your (overly general and false) characterization of engineers -- which is yet another logical fallacy on your part ("spotlight fallacy" or a simple composition fallacy). As a counter-example, there are a fairly large number of "non technical" people who are libertarians, including doctors (MD) and other highly educated people.
FYI, so you get the definition correct: Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state.
Libertarianism stems from a deep desire for personal liberty - not a deep naivety. Libertarianism is based on the premise that people are best left to decide and work things out themselves, individually. That's hardly "gears or transistors" you ascribe to libertarians (indirectly from engineers, and completely off from the subject of "high IQ").
And that is where you get into your most fundamental error: you ascribe the opposite belief (arguably, that of collectivists: people are cogs in a machine that can eventually be perfected) to the Libertarians. With such a demonstrably false premise, you cannot claim a truth in your conclusion.
So once again, you are wrong -- in multiple ways. And I note that you continue to argue in a fallacious fashion, not recognizing your errors but compounding bad argument on bad argument, error upon error, mixing in fallacy after fallacy and wrapping it up in judgmental language. It is quite the package, a shining monument to a struggling mind.
You may want to take a basic course in rhetoric to hone your ability to put together a coherent argument. But don't let that stop you; with your sort it never does seem to do so anyway. It is slightly amusing so see you thrash so hard to hide whatever basic animus you have toward engineers and libertarians that is behind all this.
I am a bit curious though: according to your reasoning, narrow fields of study and work narrow the intellect? In your system, it would seem that puts me and my Philosophy Degree, indicating far broader knowledge (knowledge about knowledge in fact, e.g. my study of epistemology) at "the top of the heap". I do find that pretty amusing. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?
I'm abandoning this thread- your sort usually will post again and again until you get the "last word". Its the old adage about arguing on the internet... Well here you go, it is all yours. Goodbye.
You say this:
The average IQ of ham radio must be like 130
But then you completely contradict yourself with this:
Also has a pretty libertarian bent.
So, who actually dominates, intelligent people, or libertarians?
Sorry, that's a logical fallacy: False dichotomy - very poor argumentation technique on your part. To put it in words simple enough for you to understand: The categories are demonstrably not mutually exclusive. In my experience, the overlap is quite large between higher IQ and Libertarianism. If you want the lower IQ types in the political realm, go to extreme liberals or extreme conservatives, who are surprisingly similar in terms of their unintelligent negative effects on liberty.
It may surprise you to find out that some "Democrats" are also Tea Party people, like Gladney, at least out west. And are your really that stupid? I did a google,a nd the very first result on "Gladney beating" brings up an article that has this quote from a KMOX radio report in it: Gladney had claimed that two men wearing SEIU shirts attacked him as he sat at a table giving away tea party buttons.. As for proof - the fact that they arrested SEIU people and charged them is pretty evident. Are you stupid or just working at being as deliberately ignorant as you can possibly be?
As for the egg throwing, go watch the video - the Dem/Union group there were attempting to intimidate the guy filming, throwing eggs at the buses -- as shown on the film. WHat is not clear about that to you? The reason the guy filmed this is apparently there were deliberately misdirecting the Tea Party people (sending them out to the desert instead of to the rally). As for your head spinning, I'm sure that's a common occurrence given your rather pathetic and stupid attempts to spin this away from a truth that makes you uncomfortable. You're just as bad as the Bushies, although you will never admit to it.
By the way, your attempts to justify initiating violence against the GOP by pointing to past violence against the Dems is pretty stupid - and shows lack of any real grasp of morality or reason on your part. BOTH were wrong. I was pointing out that, as a libertarian, we see the simian feces flinging from both sides, whereas the Left tend to pretend it doesn't happen at all when they tend to be the more violent.
Morons like you make great tools for those who wish to mobilize fools for political use. You are the lefty counterpart to the Focus on the Family types: ready at the drop of a hat to spin things, disbelieve the truth, and bark at whomever your masters have told you are the bad guys. The shame of it is, you're as blind as they are to just how damnably stupid and destructive you and your types are. In short easy words that even you can understand: Disingenuous people like YOU are the problem.
"the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger"
Cite please. I've driven by a couple "Tea Party" crowds and they tend to be fairly well behaved and orderly. A bit older as well. The DC stuff last week ("N word" and spitting) has been thoroughly debunked as a politically convenient lie by the congressmen involved.
The only brick throwing lately has been the opposite: GOP offices have had bricks through the windows (cite: Detroit Free Press) in the past couple of weeks, and one Republican Congressman's office was shot (Cantor, a Jewish GOP guy from VA had a death threat that was verified and resulted in an arrest yesterday). Also Harry Reid supporters were deliberately misdirecting people going to the Tea Party rally last week, and threatening a guy who was reporting and pelting the charter buses with eggs. If you like, search for Kenneth Gladney, a black man who was beaten by SEIU union thugs for supporting the Tea Party outside a rally.
If you go to the net, instead of the MSM or politically tilted blogs, you can see the preponderance of physical violence has primarily been on the statist or anarchist part.
Look at all the +5/-1 moderations! Full of Heated, irrational and emotional responses! Trolling and counter trolling! Massive amounts of comments, Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
And best of all it has nothing essential to do with News for Nerds, its purely political, and US oriented. SlashKos is now in session, Bravo!
Rob Malda, you astound and amaze! You finally beat out John Katz, Goatse, NataliePortman+HotGrits, a beowulf cluster of Soviet Russias, and the GNAA...
Kudos to Taco -- This article is the all-time biggest meta-troll ever on SlashDot
Damn. Well said, although you ight want to modify that to any "social welfare" project (Apollo worked out OK). Where are my mod points when I need them?
The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.
So by heating the gasoline, I can ignore The Otto Cycle and its associated Thermodynamic Cycle? Amazing! All I need to do is pay these people money to suspend the laws of thermodynamics? KDawson will buy 2!
Can't these people even come up with an original scam of their own? This is an old scam from the 70's. Its pretty much the same as "leaning out" the fuel/air mixture in an old carburetor based engine. Yes it works for "efficiency" but runs the engine hot so that it wears out more quickly, and reduces power.
KDawson is an idiot for falling for it. Fire him for repeatedly being an idiot and hire a real nerd, not another hipster dufus like him.
Steve Jobs is the anti-tinkerer; he just wants you to shut up and buy cool looking gadgets from him on a regular schedule.
Thanks for the .sig