Governor Ignores ACLU, Signs Anti-Immigration Bill

[Fletch]

In our society, you ARE innocent until proven guilty.

Absolutely agree that this is how it should be.

However, if you cannot prove who you are, how are you to prove your innocence?

The second statement conflicts with the first. If the burden of proof is on those who maintain guilt, why would I have to prove innocence?

Are you suggesting that no one should have to carry ID?

Absolutely! Outside of contractual obligations, there should be no requirement whatsoever for ID. If I open a bank account, I will naturally desire that the bank maintain some way to ensure that no one else will access my cash, but that's a private transaction. The government should not be in the ID business in any way.

With that in mind, if you cannot prove who you are, how can you prove your innocence?

Again, your very first statement was that I don't have to. Those who want to establish my guilt have the burden of proof. It is their responsibility.

If I'm charged with being an illegal, I have the burden of proof. Just as if I'm charged with bank robbery, I have the burden of proving my innocence.

Your first statement says otherwise.

I may be innocent, but if I can't prove it, then in the eyes of the law, I'm guilty. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

What happened to "in our society, you ARE innocent until proven guilty"? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere... Oh yeah, your first statement. It's amazing how quickly you forgot it.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

There are instances and exceptions the burden normally associated with a criminal defense, notably the burden of mounting an affirmative defense, which I believe is what you may be referencing.

Lacking (or declining to provide) an affirmative defense to a charge is not the same as admitting or accepting guilt, nor is it allowing the prosecution to establish guilt by mere assertion. It's simply not using an affirmative defense.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[SavageEagle]

Absolutely agree that this is how it should be.



The second statement conflicts with the first. If the burden of proof is on those who maintain guilt, why would I have to prove innocence?

If you are charged with a crime and the prosecution presents evidence of any sustainability, you have to prove innocence. If they get someone that they believe has committed a crime and believe to be illegal, they have to have some kind of evidence. That would lead you to have to prove innocence.


Absolutely! Outside of contractual obligations, there should be no requirement whatsoever for ID. If I open a bank account, I will naturally desire that the bank maintain some way to ensure that no one else will access my cash, but that's a private transaction. The government should not be in the ID business in any way.

The government SHOULD be in the ID business because if they're not, how are the police to know if the person they have in custody has multiple warrants for rape and murder?

Again, your very first statement was that I don't have to. Those who want to establish my guilt have the burden of proof. It is their responsibility.



Your first statement says otherwise.



What happened to "in our society, you ARE innocent until proven guilty"? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere... Oh yeah, your first statement. It's amazing how quickly you forgot it.

I didn't forget it. If you're in court for a crime, they have evidence, no matter how substantiated, that you committed said crime.

As I said before, this law doesn't mean the police can just ask random people for their papers or arrest them for being illegal. If they do, it's against the law and unConstitutional, and the charges should be dropped.

And don't forget the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That gives the STATES the power to require or not require STATE ID's. If you don't like that a state requires you to carry a photo ID, move to a state that doesn't or lobby to have the law changed. Having a photo ID doesn't infringe on your liberty or freedom.

 

[Fletch]

And don't forget the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That gives the STATES the power to require or not require STATE ID's.

Yet another reason I rarely rely on the Constitution for a moral exposition of rights. As I've said many times before on this forum, the Constitution is a fine document, perhaps the finest of its kind, but it's also deeply flawed. It's limited by the knowledge the founders had at the time, so it's no crack against them, but it's not the final word on rights except in a merely legal sense.

If you don't like that a state requires you to carry a photo ID, move to a state that doesn't or lobby to have the law changed.

I have done both of these, in different arenas.

Having a photo ID doesn't infringe on your liberty or freedom.

Of course it does. Anonymity and privacy are both rights unrecognized (except indirectly) by the Constitution and abrogated by identification laws.

 

[SavageEagle]

Yet another reason I rarely rely on the Constitution for a moral exposition of rights. As I've said many times before on this forum, the Constitution is a fine document, perhaps the finest of its kind, but it's also deeply flawed. It's limited by the knowledge the founders had at the time, so it's no crack against them, but it's not the final word on rights except in a merely legal sense.



I have done both of these, in different arenas.


Of course it does. Anonymity and privacy are both rights unrecognized (except indirectly) by the Constitution and abrogated by identification laws.

I'm not saying the Constitution is perfect, but it's the law of the land. There will never be a 100% free society in this world. Maybe after we learn to colonize other planets, but that's a LONG way off. So what we have is the Constitution.

Oh, and please explain to me HOW having a state ID is an attack on privacy? Or Anonymity for that matter. If you don't commit crimes you have no worries about the police finding out who you are. Also, please show me where Anonymity and privacy are "indirectly" referred to in the Constitution. Is it the Tenth? Because if so, add the right to travel and the right to travel in a car/truck/van. I mean, if I have a right to be anonymous, I also have the right to drive a vehicle on the roads I help to maintain. And especially on my own property.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Thumper]

Yet another reason I rarely rely on the Constitution for a moral exposition of rights. As I've said many times before on this forum, the Constitution is a fine document, perhaps the finest of its kind, but it's also deeply flawed. It's limited by the knowledge the founders had at the time, so it's no crack against them, but it's not the final word on rights except in a merely legal sense.



I have done both of these, in different arenas.


Of course it does. Anonymity and privacy are both rights unrecognized (except indirectly) by the Constitution and abrogated by identification laws.

So are you saying to let illegals to come in and run free?If that is your outlook 911 was a drop in the bucket.Open your eyes they have more rights than we do right now.Don't get me started.

 

[Fletch]

Oh, and please explain to me HOW having a state ID is an attack on privacy? Or Anonymity for that matter.

Every place a state ID is required to transact any business is a potential violation of privacy. Right now the biggest field of concern is medical records, but it also goes to things like firearms purchases. The government should not have access to this information, because it's none of the government's business.

If you don't commit crimes you have no worries about the police finding out who you are.

"Only the guilty need to fear" is a justification for many kinds of tyranny. Every argument you make in favor of the government being able to issue and demand ID is also an argument for biometric identification, government DNA databases, implantable RFID chips, and a cashless society. Why not allow the government to track your every movement, or every single transaction? Only the guilty need to fear, right?

Also, please show me where Anonymity and privacy are "indirectly" referred to in the Constitution. Is it the Tenth?

The Fourth indirectly refers to privacy. The Ninth is a grab-bag. The Tenth is probably reinforcement.

Because if so, add the right to travel and the right to travel in a car/truck/van.

The right to travel, yes. The right to a particular means of transportation is dependent on proper disposition of property rights.

I mean, if I have a right to be anonymous, I also have the right to drive a vehicle on the roads I help to maintain. And especially on my own property.

I'm pretty sure that you can drive whatever vehicle you want, without plates or license, on your own property in every state of the union. Government-owned roads are another issue which would be best solved by eliminating them, though as it stands the government owns them and can marginally justify its demands on that basis.

 

[Fletch]

So are you saying to let illegals to come in and run free?

Not at all. What I'm saying fundamentally is that if we abrogate our own freedoms there's no point in fighting terrorists. I should not have to prove my innocence. Ever. No one should. We should be able to travel anywhere in the nation without identification, and no one of the constabulary persuasion should be able to say "boo" to us for it. It is a person's actions that we should be concerning ourselves with, not their paperwork.

You may take this as an indirect "secure the borders" argument, and that's fine, but once you're inside the borders the presumption should be that you have every right to be here, unless it can be proved otherwise. We don't catch criminals by demanding identification. We catch criminals by matching physical evidence to the person in custody... or at least we should. A person's name and place of birth is utterly unnecessary information for matching their blood/hair/fingerprints/tissues/etc. to the scene of a crime, and for crimes in progress, you don't need the guy's ID to say "THAT is the guy shooting up the McDonald's".

 

[Thumper]

Not at all. What I'm saying fundamentally is that if we abrogate our own freedoms there's no point in fighting terrorists. I should not have to prove my innocence. Ever. No one should. We should be able to travel anywhere in the nation without identification, and no one of the constabulary persuasion should be able to say "boo" to us for it. It is a person's actions that we should be concerning ourselves with, not their paperwork.

You may take this as an indirect "secure the borders" argument, and that's fine, but once you're inside the borders the presumption should be that you have every right to be here, unless it can be proved otherwise. We don't catch criminals by demanding identification. We catch criminals by matching physical evidence to the person in custody... or at least we should. A person's name and place of birth is utterly unnecessary information for matching their blood/hair/fingerprints/tissues/etc. to the scene of a crime, and for crimes in progress, you don't need the guy's ID to say "THAT is the guy shooting up the McDonald's".

Not looking for a argument but there is a serious problem here.What would you recommend to fix the problem?

 

[Fletch]

Not looking for a argument but there is a serious problem here.What would you recommend to fix the problem?

To which problem do you refer?

 

[Thumper]

To which problem do you refer?

The draw on the economy by providing free health care,education and the crimes that are getting very common here.I have to work to pay for mine.They are so bold they publicly protest when they broke laws even being here.Do you think we should just ignor it?

 

[Fletch]

The draw on the economy by providing free health care,education ...

...I have to work to pay for mine.

End public health care and education.

and the crimes that are getting very common here.

Violent and property crime have been declining for almost two decades now.

They are so bold they publicly protest when they broke laws even being here.

Let them protest.

Do you think we should just ignor it?

No, I don't. I think we need a massive expansion of legal immigration and/or work visas. I think we need to eliminate social services of all kinds. We also need to eliminate the minimum wage and the various obstacles to hiring workers of all kinds, as well as government control of interest rates and currency, the Constitutional provision for coining money notwithstanding.

If some want to secure the borders, I could certainly agree to it if we do it by pulling our troops out of foreign countries and posting them around the nation. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "invading illegals" argument when we're invading elsewhere. Want to keep terrorists out? Put our soldiers at the borders and ports of entry and keep terrorists out.

If I leave the country, I can see needing some sort of documentation to get back in. But while I'm here, leave me the hell alone. Don't make me play the paper-pushing game just because someone's afraid their teenager might not get a job mowing lawns this summer.

 

[Thumper]

End public health care and education.



Violent and property crime have been declining for almost two decades now.



Let them protest.



No, I don't. I think we need a massive expansion of legal immigration and/or work visas. I think we need to eliminate social services of all kinds. We also need to eliminate the minimum wage and the various obstacles to hiring workers of all kinds, as well as government control of interest rates and currency, the Constitutional provision for coining money notwithstanding.

If some want to secure the borders, I could certainly agree to it if we do it by pulling our troops out of foreign countries and posting them around the nation. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "invading illegals" argument when we're invading elsewhere. Want to keep terrorists out? Put our soldiers at the borders and ports of entry and keep terrorists out.

If I leave the country, I can see needing some sort of documentation to get back in. But while I'm here, leave me the hell alone. Don't make me play the paper-pushing game just because someone's afraid their teenager might not get a job mowing lawns this summer.

I see your approach thank you.

 

[Fletch]

I see your approach thank you.

Namaste.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[JBusch8899]

.