PhredE

PhredE

109p

3,145 comments posted · 7 followers · following 1

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Overall, number of dep... · 1 reply · +8 points

Comrade Tovaritch?

Ironically, the requirement that any person that is not a citizen carry documentation (eg. is visiting on a visa, green carded, etc) is already included in current immigration law. So, what the issue of 'carrying papers' is really about is the purely illegal population that jumped a border. Most visa overstays have a paper trail that is at least 'chase-able', so we can figure out fairly quickly who they are even in the absence of documents. It's the ones that exist totally in the gray area of no formal history here that need to have valid/legit IDs, but don't.
As for the rest of us (citizens, native born or otherwise..), while you may not wish to carry formal ID on your person at any given time and there is no law to require it, the police have a right to ask for it (under a variety of circumstances) and you are obliged to display it and/or identify who you are. If you don't, they can detain you until they can ascertain your correct identity. So, in short, even if there is no formal requirement to carry ID at all times, there is a practical one in the least.

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Overall, number of dep... · 0 replies · +6 points

I do know that in 2001 Tony was and did do the right thing by filing all of his papers
It's a fairly long and involved process for most people. It definitely is NOT a one-time submission followed by instant work authorization/legal residence. It takes time and sometimes, significant $$$ as well. So, which forms were filed with USCIS? Or, are you just taking his word that the paperwork was filed?

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Overall, number of dep... · 2 replies · +6 points

say the right thing will/would be for all illegals to go through the process of becoming legal.
Why? Who says we even NEED these people here? They aren't our citizens, and they aren't (technically) our problem. Does just calling something 'legal' that was formerly 'illegal' solve the underlying problem that created the situation in the first place? What if people are poor, and a poor persons 'steals' stuff for money (assuming the money is used solely for survival -- food, clothes, etc) -- since we feel sorry for that person [well, perhaps], and we don't want to 'label' that person a thief, does just calling him a poor-person-that-happens-to-temporarily-borrow-other-people's-stuff-to-sell-for-money transform him into something other than a thief?

Again, I say the 'right thing' for illegals to do is not enjoy the fruits of what they stole (their presence here), but to go home.

What did he do to get sent to jail? Which jail is he in? I find no matches for anyone going by the name given in the story in the 3 metro Portland jails? Is this really his correct name? Is there some other part of the story that has been [conveniently] omitted?

Call it what it is. Respect the rules. If a person can't, then they have made their choice and deserve to suffer the consequences (if there are any).

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Overall, number of dep... · 0 replies · +17 points

In Hernandez' case he needs proof that he has lived in the area for more than 10 years. The only proof he can get is lease records from his Aloha apartment complex. But his family says the owner and manager of the apartments are refusing to give up the paperwork. On Monday, the family hired an attorney.

No sympathy from me. He / they could and should have done that years ago. Even better, don't be arrested for doing bad stuff -- that'll go a long way to keep you off the radar of LE.

If he is such a 'great guy' (as claimed in the story above), why is he in jail???

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Overall, number of dep... · 4 replies · +43 points

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber released a statement following the court's ruling: "I want to reaffirm that I am 100 percent committed to creating an inclusive and welcoming Oregon, a state that values the skills and talents of our diverse population and precious human capital. If we are to build an enduring prosperity in Oregon, we must ensure all Oregonians have an equal opportunity to contribute."

So, Gov. Kitzhaber, let me get this straight: you want to welcome unauthorized, unvetted persons from a myriad of places throughout the world -- to include countries overrun by corruption, drug violence, criminal cartels, and even terrorism -- and individuals that may have criminal records, engaged in document fraud, tax evasion, ID theft, etc. Well, I can see your definition of diversity differs from mine. I knew we couldn't count on you to help protect the law-abiding citizens and legal residents of Oregon.

Do you care at all about the Oregonians that might lose jobs or have their wages depressed as a result of this influx of humanity from outside? Is there ANYTHING that we can do to protect ourselves that you *might* be able to support?

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Supreme Court rejects ... · 0 replies · +3 points

Glad to hear your story. It echoes the same feelings I have heard several people that I know personally that came here legally -- eg. the the right way. Illegal immigration (and pandering to illegals) is THE ultimate slap in the face to all the fine people that CHOSE to do it the right way.

Outstanding aviator8. I'd give you 1000 TUs if I could (one is all I can manage).

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Supreme Court rejects ... · 1 reply · +19 points

A response from US Rep. Lamar Smith of TX:


Statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) about today’s immigration decision

Chairman Smith: "I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision today, which limits the ability of states to protect their citizens and communities from illegal immigrants. It is the federal government's job to enforce our immigration laws, but President Obama has willfully neglected this responsibility. This dereliction of duty has left states to address the crime, job loss, and other costs of illegal immigration.

"Unfortunately, under this Administration, today's ruling essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration. This is especially bad news for border states since they have to deal with border violence, drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

"Throughout the past three years, President Obama and his administration have ignored our immigration laws and have encouraged more illegal immigration by their actions. President Obama has abused his executive branch authority to allow potentially millions of illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. And under this Administration, worksite enforcement has plummeted 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to hold jobs while 13 million Americans are looking for work.

"According to a recent poll, two-thirds of the American people want to see our laws enforced. But President Obama puts illegal immigrants and his partisan agenda ahead of the interests of the American people. If our immigration laws are going to be enforced, we need a new President this January who will enforce immigration laws, not deliberately ignore them."


Thank you sir.
http://nation.foxnews.com/supreme-court/2012/06/2...

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Supreme Court rejects ... · 0 replies · +24 points

A). I am not a "Tea Bagger"

B). I copied/pasted DIRECTLY a Reuters headline on the subject from another source.

-93, Feel free to apologize any time..

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Supreme Court rejects ... · 0 replies · +8 points

Oh, from past experience, it would be woefully too easy to overestimate the intellectual capacity of the best of our nation's civil servants - Way.Too.Easy. Plus, the Civil Rights Industry has to keep that dead horse alive because many jobs and entire organizations depend on doing so.

435 weeks ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Supreme Court rejects ... · 2 replies · +40 points

Anybody else catch the veiled Nazi reference: The decision upholds the "show me your papers" provision

Sigh. Mr Sherman, most other countries do not limit themselves in asking such basic questions of their populations, nor do they apologize if/when they do it. But if we dare ask people the most basic question: 'Hey, are you American (or legally here)?' it is somehow on par with Nazis? Reeeeaaally. Give me a break.