213 replies to this topic

[Chewy Sun]

And the highest percentage of illegal criminals who people still want to vote, voted Obama...hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

there has actually been demographic figures that show the old and the lower income (both are the highest concentration of people with photo ID problems) both voted overwhelmingly Obama in the last election.


Would you like to show an actual study that showed that illegal criminals (are you implying all illegal immigrants are criminals, or criminals that vote illegally in elections after losing their votes) voted Obama?

Or actually lets get even more basic than that: show any sort of large scale survey that showed illegal immigrants voted in high numbers or people who can't vote voted......



Chewy........................................................... i'd be surprised to see, outside of a few outliers, any sort of evidence backing up your assertion.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

What's the difference between legal and illegal criminals?

[Chewy Sun]

What's the difference between legal and illegal criminals?

Sarcasm? or serious question?



Chewy.......................................................... officially, in the eyes of the law, there is no such thing as an illegal or legal criminal: they are all simply known as criminal. What the right wing did, was try to reclassify illegal immigrants (a misnomer classification that stuck, but very innaccurrate to describe immigrants without visas) as criminals.

[Jim Ohara]

I don't have my social security card - lost it years ago, but I remember my number. I could see people being asked their SSN in order to vote, but I'm not sure that does anything to curb fraud if you're intent on besting the system. Plus there very little fraud (because I think lots of people couldn't be bothered driving from place to place and repeatedly standing in line only to name themselves as someone who definitely didn't turn up, risking imprisonment in the process. Fraud is much more likely in the counting process, not the casting process.

Even then I doubt it makes a difference. The stories about Chicago having the dead vote have all proven to be complete bullshit (but never let bullshit get in the way of smearing the other guy's legitimacy - I'm shocked Kennedy wasn't asked for his birth certificate).

[Robert B]

I don't think any of this stuff will go through in any meaningful way. It's just a way for the GOP to motivate their voters and get people scared that all these illegal immigrants are voting for Obama, and obviously it's working to some extent.

[Todd Gambrel]

Sarcasm? or serious question?



Chewy.......................................................... officially, in the eyes of the law, there is no such thing as an illegal or legal criminal: they are all simply known as criminal. What the right wing did, was try to reclassify illegal immigrants (a misnomer classification that stuck, but very innaccurrate to describe immigrants without visas) as criminals.

Um, if you break the law, you are a criminal. Illegally crossing the border is breaking the law. Therefore, all illegal aliens are criminals.

[garjones]

To be fair to Todd I do find it hard to argue with that logic and I'm an immigrant.

[Chewy Sun]

Um, if you break the law, you are a criminal. Illegally crossing the border is breaking the law. Therefore, all illegal aliens are criminals.

You are mostly incorrect.

http://pjmedia.com/b...-not-criminals/

Some illegal immigrants have committed a criminal act depending on how they go about entering the country.
“If you’re guilty of alien smuggling or document fraud and it is immigration-related,” Morton said, “then it’s a crime.”
Yet, whether you’re talking about crossing into the United States without permission or overstaying a visa, the act itself is not necessarily a crime.


“Generally speaking,” he said, “if you’re being deported and you’re being detained for it, it’s for a civil infraction and not a criminal one.”
That makes sense. If the infraction were a criminal one, the punishment wouldn’t be deportation but imprisonment. But what if you’re here illegally and you’re forced to leave, but then you come back?
“If you’re deported and you reenter the country,” Morton said, “then it’s a crime. And it’s a crime to enter the country in certain ways. For instance, if you use someone else’s passport or steal someone’s identity, that’s also a crime.”
I would guess that most Americans have never thought about these distinctions. They simply assume that anyone in the country illegally is guilty of a criminal act. Period.

But hey, lets not let facts and actual law get in the way of a perfectly good talking point.



Chewy......................................................................... they'll never criminalize it fully, because then, every single illegal immigrant will get due process rights, instead of what they have now.

[garjones]

Good point.

It may also be noted that the right wing CATO institute publicly stated that illegal (or non-official it may seem) immigration gave the US an economic advantage worth billions every year against the EU. You don't need to be a hardliner to deport people, all over the bleeding heart liberal European Union they deport by default and are much harsher.

Nobody does anything because it runs against the people that fund them. Bush had 8 years to be tough on immigrants, he did nothing and neither will the next guys, they want maids and pool cleaners and not to pay them $10 an hour. (Full disclosure, I have a maid, she's legally registered though as a guest worker).

[Johnny Henning]

Speeding is against the law as well - you can get cited for it and it does contribute to many deaths each year, too. But does that make all speeders criminals? Should we spend billions more than we do to catch every speeder? Should speeders go to jail? Maybe that's what it will take to get this scourge off our roads and highways!

Here's an idea, why don't we require car manufacturers to install a gps device in every car going forward - and require present car owners to purchase and install this device in cars that don't have one - that sends a message to the local police whenever anyone speeds in their jurisdiction? Then they can just send tickets by mail or, if the driver is really dangerous, they can send patrol cars to set up a road block. It would save lives and increase revenue for states and local governments, though it would be a big expense setting up the system and manufacturing all the devices.

Naturally, I doubt many people would be so "law-abiding" that the majority of Americans would like this idea. However, it's the same sort of "at-all-costs" thinking that's being applied to the anti-immigration push.

(BTW, eventually with upgrades to gps and v2v tech, the scenario above won't be that difficult to achieve about ten years from now.)

[Robert B]

Yeah I worked at a newspaper for several years and we were not allowed to use the phrase "illegal immigrants," not because it was culturally insensitive but because it was factually inaccurate. If you hear that phrase on any news source, then get your news elsewhere!

[Mike]

Scott Walker repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act?

Does anyone know his justification? And do the Republican Presidential candidates have an opinion on it?

[Rory Abel]

The reasoning was that it hurt businesses.

[Christian U]

Now there's a surprise.

[Chewy Sun]

The repeal of it is actually bad for business.


Justification was, that now that businesses don't have to worry about frivolous lawsuits, they can spend that money on growing their business..... but that's not what the Equal Pay Enforcement Act was all about. The EPEA allowed people to bring sex-discrimination suits in Wisconsin courts, rather than Federal courts. Now, for a proper lawsuit (which has to be proven either way, in court), may take years to come to fruition in Federal court, due to the fact that Fed courts take far more time than state courts (which takes up some time anyhow) to decide on cases.

So business still have to worry about lawsuits, just really expensive and longer duration lawsuits.



Why are the GOP so intent on losing elections by politically acting against the interest of women?

Chewy....................................................... way to go Scott Walker. If before this last action, you were 3 percent away from recall, It is likely that there will be a woman's push in Wisconsin, where those 3 percent are going to be even the last women to support him.

[Todd Gambrel]

You are mostly incorrect.

http://pjmedia.com/b...-not-criminals/



But hey, lets not let facts and actual law get in the way of a perfectly good talking point.



Chewy......................................................................... they'll never criminalize it fully, because then, every single illegal immigrant will get due process rights, instead of what they have now.

No need to be snarky about it. I actually DIDN'T know the distinction, and I stand corrected. But I guess certain people are allowed to be snarky. Hopefully one day I'll be allowed to be.

So, CIVIL Infraction. Oh well. Still cheats out those who do things the right way, but I suppose doing things the right way is not currently popular in our culture anymore.

And to the point about speeding: Yes. If you speed and are caught, you are a criminal. It's pretty black and white. Breaking the law = criminal. Now, once you've finished your punishment, whether it be the payment of a fine, whatever, then the distinction is gone. You've paid your penance and can move on freely. Doesn't mean you are a criminal for life.

Anyways, moving on. I saw this article on Huffington today, and it really bothers me:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1413422.html

Not necessarily by anything he said, but what he didn't say. Racial hate IS a problem in this country, and the Tulsa shootings, and the KKK patrolling Sanford are prime examples of it. It DOES need to stop, and we as a country DO need to take heed about it.

But this article is an outstanding example of not helping, but HURTING the ability to fight hate in this country. To blindly pretend that hate only flows one way, to purposely ONLY become vocal about hate when it is white on black, is alienating to the intrinsic battle against hate itself.

He brings up the KKK patrols, the Tulsa shooting, etc. Good examples of hate to be sure. But where is the country unifying spirit when the 13 year old caucasion is set on fire by 2 black kids while they shout "This is what you get white boy"?

Where is the calls against hate from Russell, Sharpton, Jesse, etc. when Dallas Watts is beaten while the black kids yell "This is for Trayvon"

KKK patrols in Sanford is sickening. And SHOULD be spoken out against. But where are these same people speaking out against the New Black Panther party issuing a bounty for Zimmerman? Or when the New Black Panther speaks on creating a sea of red, with the blood of the blonde, blue eyed white man?

I am not trying to downplay the idiot moron whites out there who spread hate and violence in a way that does and should make the normal person cringe. But when calls for the country to unite against hate only happen when the hate is publicized one way and one way only does nothing but enhance the problem, not help it.

So I'll hold my breath when Simmons or Sharpton or Jackson or Spike Lee holds a rally the next time an Asian American is gunned down. Or a Hispanic American is gunned down. Or a Caucasian kid is killed in a hate crime. Because until that happens, we aren't truly fighting against hate. We're just fighting for one creek in the river system of hate, and you can't stop it that way.

[Rory Abel]

No need to be snarky about it. I actually DIDN'T know the distinction, and I stand corrected. But I guess certain people are allowed to be snarky. Hopefully one day I'll be allowed to be.

So, CIVIL Infraction. Oh well. Still cheats out those who do things the right way, but I suppose doing things the right way is not currently popular in our culture anymore.

And to the point about speeding: Yes. If you speed and are caught, you are a criminal. It's pretty black and white. Breaking the law = criminal. Now, once you've finished your punishment, whether it be the payment of a fine, whatever, then the distinction is gone. You've paid your penance and can move on freely. Doesn't mean you are a criminal for life.

Anyways, moving on. I saw this article on Huffington today, and it really bothers me:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1413422.html

Not necessarily by anything he said, but what he didn't say. Racial hate IS a problem in this country, and the Tulsa shootings, and the KKK patrolling Sanford are prime examples of it. It DOES need to stop, and we as a country DO need to take heed about it.

But this article is an outstanding example of not helping, but HURTING the ability to fight hate in this country. To blindly pretend that hate only flows one way, to purposely ONLY become vocal about hate when it is white on black, is alienating to the intrinsic battle against hate itself.

He brings up the KKK patrols, the Tulsa shooting, etc. Good examples of hate to be sure. But where is the country unifying spirit when the 13 year old caucasion is set on fire by 2 black kids while they shout "This is what you get white boy"?

Where is the calls against hate from Russell, Sharpton, Jesse, etc. when Dallas Watts is beaten while the black kids yell "This is for Trayvon"

KKK patrols in Sanford is sickening. And SHOULD be spoken out against. But where are these same people speaking out against the New Black Panther party issuing a bounty for Zimmerman? Or when the New Black Panther speaks on creating a sea of red, with the blood of the blonde, blue eyed white man?

I am not trying to downplay the idiot moron whites out there who spread hate and violence in a way that does and should make the normal person cringe. But when calls for the country to unite against hate only happen when the hate is publicized one way and one way only does nothing but enhance the problem, not help it.

So I'll hold my breath when Simmons or Sharpton or Jackson or Spike Lee holds a rally the next time an Asian American is gunned down. Or a Hispanic American is gunned down. Or a Caucasian kid is killed in a hate crime. Because until that happens, we aren't truly fighting against hate. We're just fighting for one creek in the river system of hate, and you can't stop it that way.

Of course they're not going to do that. They're not looking to fight or end hate, they're looking to fight and end hate towards blacks because that they're focus. They're upfront and honest about it and make no claim otherwise.


And in other news, looks like Christie lied about why he killed the NJ tunnel project. Turns out it just so that he wouldn't be forced to break his campaign promise of no raising taxes.

Report Disputes Christie’s Basis for Halting Tunnel

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey exaggerated when he declared that unforeseen costs to the state were forcing him to cancel the new train tunnel planned to relieve congested routes across the Hudson River, according to a long-awaited report by independent Congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, to be released this week, found that while Mr. Christie said that state transportation officials had revised cost estimates for the tunnel to at least $11 billion and potentially more than $14 billion, the range of estimates had in fact remained unchanged in the two years before he announced in 2010 that he was shutting down the project. And state transportation officials, the report says, had said the cost would be no more than $10 billion.

Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey’s share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs.

Canceling the tunnel, then the largest public works project in the nation, helped shape Mr. Christie’s profile as a rising Republican star, an enforcer of fiscal discipline in a country drunk on debt. But the report is likely to revive criticism that his decision, which he said was about “hard choices” in tough economic times, was more about avoiding the need to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which would have violated a campaign promise. The governor subsequently steered $4 billion earmarked for the tunnel to the state’s near-bankrupt transportation trust fund, traditionally financed by the gasoline tax.

[Jim Ohara]

I find your post really interesting Todd, it's maybe the longest you've posted here and I think it speaks to core conservative principles: sticking to the rules and making things fair. You see it that if you break a law you're a criminal and should be punished, and that racial hate can only be tackled by going after both sides. And while I agree with both statements in principle, I suspect we disagree about the areas of grey.

To me there's all different levels of law breaking, in the same way that different offenses are prosecuted at different rates. Not every speeder gets a ticket because it's not that strong of a law - in truth it's more of a guideline, and that's what works best in a free society. If the cops had speed cameras every 100ft and billed you if you went 1 mile over the limit then no-one would speed, but most people would push back on the speed limits themselves - who sets them, what reasoning do they use, should they change based on the weather conditions, etc? They'd discover that setting sensible speed limits is very difficult to do. Seeing as you cannot set laws that are overly complex, you cannot build a system with strict enforcement. It's different if you rob someone (though we specify how you robbed them), and different again if you murder someone. So we're ok with huge flexibility in how traffic laws are implemented.

The same goes for immigrants. You know very well that 95% of illegal immigrants can't come here legally as there's no mechanism for them to do so, and you also know that the US labor force depends on them working low level jobs. You've seen the results in places like Arizona and Arkansas where they passed anti-illegal immigrant legislation. So there needs to be flexibility in how the law is enforced - if the immigrant is selling drugs you can deport them in order to avoid trial and jail, but if they're just working and trying to raise a family you let them slide. That's my position on the issue and it's what Chewy is talking about, but I don't think conservatives can be comfortable with that amount of flexibility.

Which gets around to the fairness and rule breaking stance again. The US has a huge problem with discrimination against minorities - it was one of the last modern nations that didn't treat it's citizens equally. And even recently there's massive evidence of minorities not getting the same opportunities, being profiled and over prosecuted for crimes, not having the same economic conditions and so on. So obviously race issues will be more sensitive for minorities than for others - you'd understand if your entire family had been treated like shit for most of their history. And with that comes a bigger media outcry, more political rhetoric and so on. And that's how it should be - both sides aren't even to start with so nothing that can be involved in can be even.

You're looking for a perfect system in a completely imperfect world. And I think that's the source of division in left vs right in America.

[David Meadows]

Speeding is against the law as well - you can get cited for it and it does contribute to many deaths each year, too. But does that make all speeders criminals? Should we spend billions more than we do to catch every speeder? Should speeders go to jail?

Yes. Yes. And possibly yes.

Here's an idea, why don't we require car manufacturers to install a gps device in every car going forward - and require present car owners to purchase and install this device in cars that don't have one - that sends a message to the local police whenever anyone speeds in their jurisdiction? Then they can just send tickets by mail or, if the driver is really dangerous, they can send patrol cars to set up a road block. It would save lives and increase revenue for states and local governments, though it would be a big expense setting up the system and manufacturing all the devices.

I would vote for that.

[Chewy Sun]

No need to be snarky about it. I actually DIDN'T know the distinction, and I stand corrected. But I guess certain people are allowed to be snarky. Hopefully one day I'll be allowed to be.

So, CIVIL Infraction. Oh well. Still cheats out those who do things the right way, but I suppose doing things the right way is not currently popular in our culture anymore.

And to the point about speeding: Yes. If you speed and are caught, you are a criminal. It's pretty black and white. Breaking the law = criminal. Now, once you've finished your punishment, whether it be the payment of a fine, whatever, then the distinction is gone. You've paid your penance and can move on freely. Doesn't mean you are a criminal for life.

True, I was a bit snarky on the response. Its just that with the term "illegal immigrant," by itself, perpectuates a mistruth, and completely mischaracterizes the actual situation of the immigrant issues here in America. My anger is towards the term, not you, Todd......


That being said, the distinction between criminal and civil isn't that difficult to decifer. You ask any person on the street (who's old enough) about OJ Simpson, most will know that despite not being in jail, Simpson was sued for the same act. Speeding tickets are all civil, and you go to jail not for the crime of speeding (which aren't crimes, but civil infractions on the level of ordinance tickets), but for the crime of not paying tickets, or excessive speeding is wreckless driving.


However, getting removing the snark, again, there is ZERO evidence of widespread election fraud that would prompt the passing of Photo ID laws. Across the country, in every state house/congress, the GOP are proposing these bills, and when confronted by the Democrat for actual evidence for need of a photo ID law, not a single sponsor of these bills across the country have produced any report.

While certainly, no one has proof, unless someone produces a memo, it seems coordinated effort to change election laws to target a block of voters that are not favorable to voting GOP. Its more or less, a legal gerrymandering. However, where gerrymandering is a constitutionally legal thing, voter photo ID messes directly with the rights of the individual to vote, cloaked in the vein of a problem that doesn't exist.



Chewy.................................................................... so pluuuuuuuuhhhhhhhese, you're not dumb Todd, read inbetween the lines. Voter photo ID initiatives have little to do with fraudulent voting.