Cool the personalisations else some of you will find yourself on the other side of the border in Suspendia!
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
ICE uses church hypothermia shelter as a suspect trap
- Thread starter ChristianProgressive
- Start date
Furthermore, please confine your posts to the topic of this thread. If you have nothing to post on the topic, then don't post in this thread. Several off topic posts, including some in breach of the previous mod box, have been shuffled off to AAH.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: zooterkin
paulhutch
Master Poster
If an employer, bank, the IRS, SS, etc., ask to see it you should show it and in some cases are required to show it. However in 50 years and many jobs and bank accounts I have never been asked to show the card. The requirement to show in some situations is why, as I said, my Dad told me to not carry it around and only bring it back when asked because if you loose the card and later are required to show it, you may have to wait weeks to get a replacement from SS.
A SS card is only for tax and social security purposes not identification as is clearly printed on the card. So if law enforcement, immigration or any other organization asks to see it they are wrong to ask and you don't have to show it.
Your premise is correct, but I'm not convinced Law Enforcement or immigration actually wants to see the physical card, except in cases of pure abuse. I believe you are correct in other instances too, but if one wants to be hired for a job and the business requires it who is going to object. Any entity who even requests the number is also REQUIRED to state in writing why the number is required. This is routinely violated without justification. It is an abused area for sure.
Last edited:
Generally, citing a research paper from a respected source (vetted/juried journal) recognized by the field of study as trustworthy and careful with what it publishes covers that really, rally well!!!
Citing the research in/from such a source is quite sufficient. The source gets loads of funds from the persons active in the involved field, from schools teaching/researching that field and from academic libraries/schools paying big bucks to buy and circulate the journal and from individuals purchasing (not cheaply) copies of the articles
If errors are found (just like in the science journals ) ) others in the field will gladly and quickly point them out either to advance their own careers or bring down the producer of the research the article is concerned with.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
That looks like a typical Trump statement. His hardcore supporters even talk (write) like him.
Yes, that's horrible. I hope no one is making that argument.
On a distantly related topic, do you think people should be asked to show ID so they aren't subject to investigation and possible deportation? (Assuming "undocumented" means "without documents.")
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
By whom? How often? Using what criteria? If one fits the profile, how does one get on the "already checked" list? Do they toss you in the clink right away, or let you go home and get it? Do they accept one thing and not another? Are you on probation or house arrest or trip cancellation while it's checked? Can they come into your house and demand it? Casebro facetiously suggested gold stars stitched to our jackets or tattoos, I think, but really, what other way could one do this? Require internal passports like the Soviets or the South Africans? Make it a crime to step out of your house without documents?
I guess we're back as so often we are, to the utilitarian question of what price we are willing to pay out of our rights as Americans to solve the immigration problem.
Last edited:
Agreed.
We haven't even proven that ICE is doing this. I've been asking for actual evidence and none has been presented. Fake thread.
ICE says they are not doing this and, well I'm just repeating myself. But everyone else keep can just keep arguing about carrying ID based on nothing.
Biometrics solve many of these problems, as does "positive" vetting. Scan fingerprints and see if they are in the database of offenders.
Or, if there is even an immigration problem to solve. But yeah, you are correct.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
You have to have a person's hand to scan his fingerprints, though, and unless you subsequently wear some kind of "I've already been scanned" tag, it may happen over and over.
Certainly that kind of scanning works better if you're already checking a group of people (conducting a raid or running a spot check, etc.), but between stopping a person and demanding ID and stopping a person and demanding an opportunity to scan and cross check, I would contend there's no real difference.
Correct.
The difference is in the burden of proof. With ID checks (requiring a government issued ID) someone is under suspicion if they don't have one. Getting and carrying the document is considered a burden. With biometrics and a database, I already have the "document" on my fingertips and not showing up in the database means I'm off the hook.
Another way of showing the difference would be:
"Prove you are OK." vs.
"Prove I'm not."
The weakness in the biometrics version is someone would have to be known to ICE already. ICE would be relying on data they've already collected, either at the border when someone came in, or through previous contact with immigration enforcement. That means someone who snuck in and was a "virgin" would be let go. This is less than ideal from ICE's perspective.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
That last weakness is one thing, but I still contend that the other weakness, and the one more troublesome, is that the advantages only occur when ICE already has legitimate authority to do a check. As long as that is remembered, it seems a pretty good idea. I can see it as being useful when the ICE raids an ethnic restaurant, for example, and that kind of thing, where one presumes they have obtained whatever authority is required. It seems useless, and possibly worse than useless, if it becomes an excuse for "what do you have to hide" random searches and harassment.
I agree. There's always a line to draw for police powers. I'm not particularly thrilled with the 100-mile from the border area of operations where ICE can side-step the normal search and seizure rules. That doctrine puts my entire state (Michigan) under border patrol rules.
A better model would recruit local police and immigration holds - that is, citizenship for those already in the country wouldn't be a direct enforcement concern for ICE, but a result of other investigation. This, however, is not popular, I think because it has been used as a club to beat minor offenders with.
In my view, if someone is here illegally and manages to stay on the right side of the law, they are being a good citizen and shouldn't be overly bothered so long as they remain so. Post conviction? Go ahead and consider deportation.
The problem, of course, is that deporting someone who has grown roots here also has undesirable consequences. And that's a tough complication to handle with a general policy that doesn't have room for nuances.
Back to the journals for the last (?) important reason - if the journal publishes bad papers and neglects to have them vetted by people with no problem checking them thoroughly hoping to find errors then pretty quickly they will have no subscribers and no submitters of papers and they will drop into the special hell reserved for science frauds and fraudsters!!!!!
Special note: there is only one republican conservative person I respect - Derek Lowe - He is a pharmaceutical chemist with a blog and is big on outing bad science and scientists.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
It looks as if we're drifting toward agreement here. Vermont has much the same issue as Michigan, in which a large portion of the state is within the border-mileage rules, giving the INS or ICE or whatever it is called these days pretty much free rein to roam about the state. Like many rural states, we have a small but persistent population of immigrants, many illegal, working on farm jobs that are difficult to fill otherwise, as well as a large transitory population of seasonal workers who are mostly legal (mostly Jamaican). So far Vermont has managed this balance pretty well, with legislation specifically addressed at avoiding biased policing, and a peripheral statement from the border patrol that they are after terrorists not dairy workers. But one still has to be vigilant, I think, not to allow our satisfaction with present policies to blind us to the potential for abuse at a later date.
I am not against the basic idea of deporting criminal illegal aliens, and I can see a possibility in which the use of scanning technology and the like would streamline the proper function of the ICE. Of course there's always going to be a fuzzy boundary in which things don't go as we like - either a few people who should be tossed out aren't , or a few who should be left alone aren't, or both. So far, it's been pretty good around here.