ICE uses church hypothermia shelter as a suspect trap

[Aepervius]

And will you be surprised when someone from WA comes along and tells you that the cop didn't know what he was talking about?

Not in the slightest. Cop tend to make up rules on the spot if they suspect you of anything which pass by their mind that day. And get angry & "beaty" when you tell them it ain't a rule.

 

[marplots]

It is a big hassle for some to get such id (in fact that was the point about voter id law : to add such hassle in the hope that the "wrong" people don't get to vote, and it has been documented as stated as such). So what make you think homeless which are already on the side of society can and will be able to afford it ? Also I am pretty sure you need a valid address in many case to get such id issued. And nominal fee, is still a fee. When you are homeless and use hypothermia shelter, chance as that *any* (what you see as nominal) fee is an insurmountable obstacle compered to get food.

I doubt you really understand what being homeless means. It nearly sound like the mythic "let them eat cake" : as remote from understanding the status of the person as one can be.

In the article they mentioned biometrics - you scan the person's fingerprints and see if they are in the database of offenders. In that case, no official government ID is needed.

It's a form of vetting that selects only those already on the offender list. You need a "hit" instead of requiring the person to produce a "miss." It at least gets around the problem of people having to get an ID.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What the hells does that have to do with it? And id advise you to look at the map
Only 1 way to get there effectively. I 25. That's it.
And Albuquerque Is in the MIDDLE of the State, with Las Cruces at the South Center.

It's Randi ISF. Simple statements MUST BE ARGUED OVER.

Also, I'm currently eating a Blake's Breakfast burrito. You are free to express your envy.

 

[rwguinn]

It's Randi ISF. Simple statements MUST BE ARGUED OVER.

Also, I'm currently eating a Blake's Breakfast burrito. You are free to express your envy.

[envy]
I used to like you. Now I see that you are as spiteful as the tea party! [/envy]
(The best I ever had was at a little hole-in-the -wall place at the entrance to Roswell's Airport. Pulled flank steak cooked with Green Chile, potato, and cheese...I'd pay $20 for just one of those right now...)

 

[varwoche]

I

I lived iin New Mexico for several years, so I am familiar with this situation. It's not legal residents or citizens I have a problem with, it's the illegals and virtually nothing has been done about it, particularly in the last 8 years. Now, we have sanctuary cities to protect criminals. Where is respect for the rule of law. It's gotten worse and worse and it's well past time to stop it.

We were all either immigrants of descendants thereof at some point in the past, but it needs to be controlled and it's needs to be legal.

If I sound angry, I am. I've probably over reacted, but I am pissed off and so are millions of others. I'm sure that's one of the primary reasons Trump was elected. If he doesn't do something about it, he will lose in 2020, unless the Democrats stupidly run another open borders advocate.

My point is that just because someone doesn't speak English, that's insufficient information to conclude status.

 

[A'isha]

Also, I'm currently eating a Blake's Breakfast burrito. You are free to express your envy.

I take back what I said before. This is the most heartless and cruel post in the thread.

 

[paulhutch]

Further, who here, over the age of thirty, actually has their SS card? In my generation they were made of cardboard and mine was issued when I was 16 and lasted until a rainstorm drenched me to the bone about four years later. My son's card, issued in 2008, is also flimsy cardboard. They ain't ID.

Absolutely correct.



I only have mine because of the instructions I was given in 1966. When I got my first cash birthday present ($5 thanks Nana & Grampa) my Dad took me to open a savings account. When I asked if I should keep it in my wallet he pointed out the circled part and said:

Never carry it around, most likely no one will ever ask to see it. If anyone says they want to see it tell them you'll bring it later for them to see.

It's really only a keepsake for memories of those days, I've never needed to show it to anyone.

 

[Babbylonian]

My point is that just because someone doesn't speak English, that's insufficient information to conclude status.

Just because someone is currently not speaking English is insufficient information to even infer status. This is particularly true for those speaking Spanish since both the US government and businesses in the US so often explicitly enable Spanish speakers to function very well without ever learning English.

 

[Beerina]

I've also had to show an ID to get back in the US from Canada and Mexico. Yea, terrible inconvenience. SNORT*

Those of us who live near the border have been aware of this for around 10 years or so, when the government first decided to cut down on how easy it was to get into the US from Canada. You'd better bring your passport if you are going there just for dinner.

Are some people only now finding it an unexpected inconvenience?

 

[Fudbucker]

Absolutely correct.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3912358a890b9c80b2.jpg[/qimg]

I only have mine because of the instructions I was given in 1966. When I got my first cash birthday present ($5 thanks Nana & Grampa) my Dad took me to open a savings account. When I asked if I should keep it in my wallet he pointed out the circled part and said:


It's really only a keepsake for memories of those days, I've never needed to show it to anyone.

My school district asked for mine. From SSA's own website:

"Employers often ask to see an employee’s Social Security card."
https://www.ssa.gov/employer/SSNcard.htm

I don't know if that means you have to show them (maybe the S.S. number plus a driver's license is sufficient), but every job I've ever applied for asked to see my SS card.

 

[mgidm86]

Thread topic: "ICE uses church hypothermia shelter as a suspect trap"

Page five and still no evidence that ICE is making sweeps that target churches rather than individuals, including this story. No evidence that ICE is hanging out in areas in hopes of grabbing some random illegals.

Why worry about carrying ID when the premise for this thread is baseless? Provide evidence and I will change my mind.

So do a lot of people including myself, if that is actually what is going on. Still waiting for actual evidence. I already know how it appeared to the reverend, that is not evidence. I'm not even saying it wasn't how it appeared, just prove it.

Other points:
Why would ICE choose such a location over other possible targets? I see more people standing outside Home Depot - they only "harassed" what, eight and arrested two?

Is this the only story we can find where this has happened near a church?

ICE has denied they are doing this (see above), there is no actual evidence that they are. All I need is a quote from an official saying, "we had no idea who we would find in the church"

Provide that and I will be upset right along with you.

<looks up-thread at baseless hyperbole> Ya, give me a call when you have that evidence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

For all of those opposing me on this issue, YOU pay the freaking taxes to support these illegal free loaders.

I have a Walmart near me, which I occasionally use because it's convenient. Recently, I followed a Latino family thru the Checkout line. The kids spoke some English because i spoke with them. The parents (I presume) obviously spoke very little. They had a ton of groceries, which were paid for with a fist full of food stamp type cards.

Now, in order to legally immigrate into the US, one has to prove they are financially able to support themselves. That is a requirement for legal immigration.

It's no freaking wonder we are going broke. So, if you want to support these freeloaders be my guest. But, you pay the freaking taxes to support them. I suggest you voluntarily pay an addition several hundred $$ more tax this year.

In addition, I would support a national referendum that those who support this crap be taxed at a different rate than those who don't.

One of the reasons Hillary lost is that she supported open borders. Illegal immigration was a major campaign issue and the opinions expressed here are one of the reason you suckers lost. So, continue to support this and you'll continue to lose. Be my guest.

You do realise that illegal immigrants are not eligible for food stamps? Right?

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Non-Citizen_Guidance_063011.pdf

SNAP eligibility has never been extended to undocumented non-citizens.

 

[bruto]

In the article they mentioned biometrics - you scan the person's fingerprints and see if they are in the database of offenders. In that case, no official government ID is needed.

It's a form of vetting that selects only those already on the offender list. You need a "hit" instead of requiring the person to produce a "miss." It at least gets around the problem of people having to get an ID.

"Selects" is selectively used here. It's true it's better to require that one be on a list than to prove that one is off it. But obviously in order to arrest those already on the offender list one must scan everybody. And while that may be selective enough for la migra, there could well be reasons why it's not a very good idea to expect the homeless to go along with it, since to do so requires not only that one be sane and rational and not paranoid or used to harrassment and hassle for vagrancy and similar offenses, but also to trust that the authorities are not scanning for other things, other lists, other offenses, other excuses.

Your argument sounds as if it would be nice and rational in a world that is nice and rational, but it requires a level of trust in the discretion and kindness of authority that many, especially in the group targeted, may not enjoy, and in many cases may know better than to enjoy.

 

[Babbylonian]

Your argument sounds as if it would be nice and rational in a world that is nice and rational, but it requires a level of trust in the discretion and kindness of authority that many, especially in the group targeted, may not enjoy, and in many cases may know better than to enjoy.

I'm not in any group that might be routinely targeted and I *********** hate the idea of submitting to ID checks in any form just to go about my daily business around town. Apart from various kinds of "checkpoints," even pulling someone over who is driving a car (an activity which requires the driver to have ID in the form of a driver's license) requires a police officer to have a reason beyond general demographics.

 

[bruto]

I'm not in any group that might be routinely targeted and I *********** hate the idea of submitting to ID checks in any form just to go about my daily business around town. Apart from various kinds of "checkpoints," even pulling someone over who is driving a car (an activity which requires the driver to have ID in the form of a driver's license) requires a police officer to have a reason beyond general demographics.

I completely agree.

 

[Bogative]

You do realise that illegal immigrants are not eligible for food stamps? Right?

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Non-Citizen_Guidance_063011.pdf

Their children are.


Not only are the taxpayers supporting the freeloaders, as Reheat said, but we are also financing a federal agency that actively informs the freeloaders on how to cheat the system.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

 

[PhantomWolf]

Their children are.


Not only are the taxpayers supporting the freeloaders, as Reheat said, but we are also financing a federal agency that actively informs the freeloaders on how to cheat the system.

If the Children are born in the US then they would be US citizens.

Also if you read up on it, you'd find that the vast majority of those eligible for the system but not citizens, i.e. permanent residents with more then 5 years, and special cases like Iraqi Translators, don't apply even when they could. Eligible Children with non Eligible parents especially are under-represented with just 55% of those eligible for assistance taking it, compared to 86% of eligible children in total.

The fact is that you're not even spending hundreds of dollars on them, but they are paying billions in taxes and social security for you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Their children are.


Not only are the taxpayers supporting the freeloaders, as Reheat said, but we are also financing a federal agency that actively informs the freeloaders on how to cheat the system.

Judicial Watch? Really?

Did you read the documents? No, I didn't think so. Early on in the chain of discussion they set out the parameters for discussion. Meeting the nutritional needs for citizen children of non-citizen parents.

The "you don't need to put down your immigration status" refers to the parent. The children are citizens.

Nice catch, JW. It shows what lying scum you are.

 

[fuelair]

When LEO target specific individuals, they know who they are and where they are. This was a general sweep of "suspects" (meaning everyone who looked Latino). The article makes that clear. They weren't asking for "Pedro Sanchez", they were papering brown-skinned people in general.

Or worse, "Filthy" Sanchez!!! (an actual distant relative of Santorum!!!)

 

[Reheat]

The fact is that you're not even spending hundreds of dollars on them, but they are paying billions in taxes and social security for you.

Prove it. Don't just cite some freaking research paper. Specify, how they determine who is paying what and how much?