Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Free Speech 1st Amendment      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 76
Free Speech 1st Amendment Page 4 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Samuel Adams, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."


George Washington, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience. My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth. The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. We should not look back unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dearly bought experience."
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 77
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/7/2010 7:19:32 AM
Skooch its not the FTC's job to reinvent journalism or figure out how a dying industry should be propped up. If the industry can't reinvent itself then it will die. If this kind of thing is the government's responsibility then why are we not still watching VHS tapes or using 3 1/2 inch floppy disks.

Why can't they just pose both theories and let the kids decide. When i went to Junior high and took Social Studies we studied the 7 major religions of the world, the and if I remember right 6 or 8 major types of government. The different type of economic states in the world. We didn't have any morons outside our school protesting for or against it either way. I felt i got a well rounded education and was given a well rounded knowledge base to my life and good view of the world as whole to start out life.

I look at some of the crap that gets taught now in college and I think I got a better education in my Grade, Junior and High School years than they get in college today. As for today k-12 education my kids were being taught to be idiots and the next great generation of consumers. I have a great library at home and every time I saw them studying a particular subject I would give them about for or five additional books to read on that subject before they wrote any kind of papers on it. Don't be fooled they would have to read book from both sides of the perspective on any subject if not 4 or 5 different perspectives.

Actually had a teacher ask my son once, "Where did you get this idea for your paper, it wasn't covered in the text books." Tells me more about the teacher than my sons paper.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 78
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/7/2010 8:13:50 AM
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to "reinvent" journalism, and that's a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC's policy staff fears this new reality.

"There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism," the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue.

The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, "Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses."
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 79
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/7/2010 9:00:04 AM
New Law Will Require a License to be a Journalist

Mac Slavo
SHTF Plan
June 2, 2010

What good is a government if they can’t regulate every aspect of your life? From the same lawmakers that brought us the Detroit economic calamity comes a new bill, aimed at controlling the flow of information to the unsuspecting public even more than the mainstream does now.

A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”

State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets — traditional, online and citizen generated — and an even greater amount of misinformation.

“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.

He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.

“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”



According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a “Board of Michigan Registered Reporters” with proof of:

– “Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

– Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.

– Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.

– Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.

– Three or more writing samples.


Government registration and licensing requirements of journalists and reporters will be determined by a board of higher-educated bureaucratic intellectuals who’ll have the power to determine if a wanna-be reporter has the necessary writing skills, ethics and good moral character to be allowed to disseminate their views to the public.


Had a law like this been passed by King George in the late 1700’s, would reporters and commentators like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Payne been approved by the journalist licensing board? Or, would a board instituted by the king have found that Franklin’s and Payne’s morals and ethics ran counter to those of the Empire? Since both of these men published their views under anonymous pen names, the information and claims made could not possibly have been – what did Mr. Patterson call it – oh yes, “legitimate.”

At the very least, however, Mr. Payne would have certainly subscribed to the fairness doctrine, publishing the monarchy’s opposing views right next to his patriotic diatribes in Common Sense.

President Obama, who recently suggested that news and information on blogs, talk radio, and cable, is difficult to sift through and figure out who’s telling the truth, would likely support Mr. Patterson’s bill on a federal level. Once a reporter is licensed, the public would have the comfort of knowing that the writings, opinions, and insights being presented have been thoroughly sifted, filtered and edited to ensure the information is truthful and easy to understand.

The same population of gullible idiots that require government intervention when it comes to smoking cigarettes, drinking sodas, and salt intake, also need to be told what news they can consume.

We couldn’t possibly let the consumer gather as much information from various news sources and make their own interpretations based on opinions, video, and audio excerpts – that would be way too easy and cost-effective.

While Senator Patterson believes that it is important for the government to have legitimate media sources because they are critical to our government, radio talk show hosts like Neal Boortz disagree:

The media isn’t supposed to be important to the government, you ignoramus ; it’s supposed to be important to THE PEOPLE.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 80
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/7/2010 12:24:35 PM

Anyone who uses the lines of argument favored by racists of the past leaves themselves open to the charge of racism now.


I suppose that by using "the lines of argument favored by racists of the past," you mean supporting the enforcement of a federal statute that was first duly enacted by Congress in 1940. The mind boggles so at just the thought of such an unspeakably outrageous position that it's hard even to put it into words.

How dare any citizen of the United States even think it has any right to enforce its national sovereignty and its territorial integrity?


Well, nice twist and way to go answering your own assumption. BTW, I agree with you, and if that was the implication I was making, you'd be right.

However, my comment, though prompted by the AZ debate was far broader in its implications. If the 1940s laws were an expression of institutionalized racism, then refering back to them as an example would still be racist. I'll let you assess for yourself whether they were or not.

The answer to a charge of racism is a willingness to become accountable--preferably before uttering a career-ending gaffe. We have freedom of speech, but freedom of association means that it is pefectly legal and well within any individual's rights to shun or boycott people whose views appear to be unconscionable.

Yes, that goes for Marxists too. So, before slinging these charges around, it would be a good idea to have some evidence. Otherwise, people do have recourse by way of defamation lawsuits. Of course, it's awfully hard to bring one against the House Un-American Activities Committee--an apt name if there ever was one.

When the AZ laws against employing illegal immigrants are enforced with as much gusto as the ones against the "invaders," I'll be the first to say that the AZ policy isn't racist or tainted by racism. Until then, there remains a question that you would do well to look into. Or at least, that's how it seems to me if you want to claim intellectual integrity. Or are you just looking to defend a result you like regardless?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 81
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/7/2010 3:20:26 PM
Paul,

We have a history of institutionalized racism in this country. I recently found out that when the schools were desegregated, one dodge that was used was to bus all the Latino and Black kids to the schools that had been relegated to those populations because Latinos were technically considered to be White.

If you were a reasonable Black or Latino, you'd have good reason to presume that racism was still being practiced unless you had some evidence to the contrary.


I do agree with you whole heartedly that the employers should be jumped on just as hard, if not much harder than the ILLEGALS that cross the border. If there was no call for workers, they wouldn't come here, or at least it would slow down to a trikle. And, for this, both sides are equally complicit.


Yep. I also agree that it is highly unethical and short-sighted to play the race card as the first move in a negotiation. However, it is also short-sighted to defensively dismiss racism as a factor in policies that make the plight of individuals from targeted groups even worse. A result that appears inequitable is not proof of racism. However, it is an indicator of possible racism.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/7/2010 8:49:55 PM

If the 1940s laws were an expression of institutionalized racism, then refering back to them as an example would still be racist. I'll let you assess for yourself whether they were or not.


I've already assessed that question. In doing that, I notice that the 1940 federal statute--which you seem to assume, without any evidence at all, was an expression of institutionalized racism--was slightly amended by Congress as recently as the late 1980's. The Supreme Court takes the fact Congress made minor amendments to a statute as evidence it continued to approve it, because it could have repealed it if it had wanted to.

*My* answer to your obsessive assertions of racism is that they're completely a product of your imagination. I, or anyone else, could just as easily claim you were making that up as a noble-sounding excuse for opposing the enforcement of your own country's duly enacted immigration laws. I couldn't care less if everyone coming across this country's borders were a white Englishman. They'd be challenging our laws just the same, and they'd rate exactly the same treatment. NO alien has any right to enter this country--ever--except as American citizens provide by law.

The notion that U.S. immigration laws discriminate by race is as shameful as it is false. But even if they did, we'd have a perfect right to enforce them. No nation has to explain the basis for its immigration laws to anyone, any more than any U.S. citizen has to justify to anyone how they voted. The right does not depend on whether laws against hiring illegal aliens are enforced are as vigorously enforced, or on anything else. It is absolute. If you had bothered to read SB 1070, you would know that your argument has no basis to begin with. That law also makes it a crime for anyone knowingly to employ any illegal alien.

As for your comment about defending laws that produce results I favor, of course I do--just like everyone else. The real question, though, is not whether laws produce certain results, but whether those laws comply with the U.S. Constitution. There's just no serious question about the constitutionality of U.S. immigration laws. Aliens not lawfully present in the U.S. have very little constitutional protection--just Fifth Amendment due process. And the cases in which the Court established that right, in different contexts--most of which involve Chinese--are from a very long time ago.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 83
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/8/2010 12:25:08 PM
The notion that U.S. immigration laws discriminate by race is as shameful as it is false.


Ask any Asian whose parents came over in the 1st half of the 20th Century about this and then get back to me. Talk about drinking the kool-aid!


No nation has to explain the basis for its immigration laws to anyone ...


A statist position if there ever was one. Every nation owes a clear explanation of all of its policies to its electorate.


The real question, though, is not whether laws produce certain results, but whether those laws comply with the U.S. Constitution.


Well, the Constitution as it is now understood no longer countenances institutional racism.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/8/2010 7:46:03 PM
I said:
"The notion that U.S. immigration laws discriminate by race is as shameful as it is false."

You responded:
"Ask any Asian whose parents came over in the 1st half of the 20th Century about this and then get back to me. Talk about drinking the kool-aid!"

That makes no sense. Are we supposed to take your claim about some unnamed person's opinion of his parents' opinion of their immigration experience--third-hand speculation--as proof that U.S. immigration laws discriminated by race before 1950? Why not directly cite verifiable historical or legal examples, instead? Maybe it's because there aren't that many of them.

But let's join you for a minute and assume that between 1900 and 1950, U.S. immigration laws denied aliens entry strictly on the basis of race. Even is that were true, it still wouldn't have anything to do with what I said. It's now 2010. I repeat: "The notion that U.S. immigration laws *discriminate* by race is as shameful as it is false." Note the present tense.


A statist position if there ever was one. Every nation owes a clear explanation of all of its policies to its electorate.


So I, who hate statism as tyranny, take statist positions. Really? I can't imagine why I would, and that's certainly news to me. I assumed it was obvious I meant that no nation needs to justify its immigration policies to anyone *else.* I made that even more clear by saying the right to control immigration is absolute--we no more need to justify it to anyone than any American citizen needs to justify his vote to anyone. But you conveniently left that part out.

Our immigration policies are established by federal laws. Those laws represent the will of a majority of the American people, as expressed through their representatives in Congress. They're published when they're enacted, like all our laws, so what they say is there for anyone to see.

Apparently you think there's some "nation" separate and distinct from the American people that has to explain to them, whenever their representatives enact a law, what that law does. Most of us believe this is a government of, by, and for the people. We can find the text of any federal law very easily and read it ourselves.


Well, the Constitution as it is now understood no longer countenances institutional racism.


It hasn't been understood to countenance institutional racism since Amendments 13, 14, and 15 became part of the constitution at the end of the Civil War. Institutional racism is what those Amendments were meant to prohibit, throughout the U.S., although the question whether the 14th Amendment was meant to give blacks *all* the same rights as whites has been the subject of a lot of articles and books, and we may never know the truth. But in any case, Congress has acted to fill whatever gaps may have remained.

I don't believe there IS any legitimate way to understand the constitution, except as it was written and has since been amended. The ugly reality the snappy term "living constitution" hides is that to treat the constitution that way means, bit by bit, to destroy it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 85
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 8:12:32 AM

People don't like Obama's Politics.... His leadership sucks..... He is way out there, extreme left


You don't like his politics. Fine. But you don't speak for everyone who doesn't like him. I don't know what the percentage is of people who don't like the idea of a black being President, but you have to admit that it is nonzero. So don't be running political cover for those idiots, OK?

I thought we were talking about the phenomenon of racism, not the specifics of Obama. There's a different thread for that.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 8:14:18 AM
^^^^^Statists' political beliefs are a sort of religion to them. That's why they always believe in the federal government's ability to bring us heaven on earth, no matter how miserably it screws up program after program. They claim to love freedom, and yet they do everything they can to destroy it by giving the central government more and more control of every aspect of our lives. Except, of course, when it comes to abortion, or homosexual marriage, or recreational drugs, or the supposed right of one left-handed, gay, disabled atheist to make the other ten million people in his state arrange everything to suit him. Then, they scream that no government can limit anyone's rights and start waving the constitution, which they usually treat like so much toilet paper.

That's also why they tend to see anyone who disagrees with their views as not just wrong, but immoral. You can see them in these threads, pretending in almost everything to have a higher morality than us less enlightened reactionaries. (A lot of us think it's just that, pretending--and all the more obnoxious because of that--when someone would let tens of thousands of innocent people be blown to bits, even if they knew waterboarding one person was sure to prevent it.) So the predictable reaction of these propagandists to the Arizona law was to howl that it was motivated by racism. Now we see one poster claiming that if the law also came down on employers, he wouldn't say that. But in fact, a whole section of SB 1070 does exactly that, targeting employers of illegal aliens.

That proves to me that the people who are crusading against laws like Arizona's don't care about the truth. They make the means fit the end. They know, or should know, that the facts don't support what they're claiming, and yet they keep claiming it. What they really want to do is deny their own country's right to control its territory--as basic right of any nation as there is--and they don't hesitate to trump up phony claims of racism for that purpose.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 87
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 12:30:11 PM

What they really want to do is deny their own country's right to control its territory--as basic right of any nation as there is--and they don't hesitate to trump up phony claims of racism for that purpose.


Well, I am both interested in maintaining our sovereignty and in how we go about it. It is simply a waste of taxpayer dollars, both federal and state, to keep rounding up these people and shipping them off when there are employers luring them and others like them right back in. Also, bringing in people whose rights are not protected to do work for substandard wages and in substandard conditions undermines the competitive position of all legitimate workers.

Given that reality, calling only for removal is shortsighted to say the least. Yet, that is all I hear from conservatives. I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself why your allies are not calling for actual solutions but instead cosmetic activities. As far as playing the moral superiority card goes, both sides do that. If I had a dollar for every time a conservative implied that a position I hold was subversive or degenerate, I'd be a very wealthy man.

But until you can offer me _any_ other explanation for that discrepancy, the suspicion of racism remains on the table. Does it not?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 88
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 12:36:25 PM

With Illegal immigrants, people can have an issue with it because it's illegal.... not the fact that they are one race or another.


You're a fair guy. That's what _you_ focus on. Not everyone spouting the conservative line is as fair as you are.


Now are these people upset because it is "mostly all young boys" that snuck in?


I'll bet at least some of them are saying, "isn't it just like bratty young boys to do that," while the well-behaved and productive young boys who stood in line and paid their way are well within earshot. Think about it.


because there is a Black president, you wanting to create an indicator for racism is totally unfair


I agree. I'm talking about the residue of racism, both cultural and institutional, that is still with us. Some of that cultural racism is bound to be pointed at Obama.

I will say this for us all, so far the criticism of Obama has been about his actions and not his color. Well, there has been some speculation on his ideology, motives, and character, but it is about the same for him as it would be for any White President.

I do give y'all a great deal of credit for that. It says to me that the residue of racism is far less than it was before. All I'm saying is that it's not yet completely gone and still bears watching.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 89
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 6:13:32 PM
Unfortunately, to crack down on illegals, something has to happen.


But here's the thing, JD, CRACKING DOWN ON ILLEGALS IS NOT A SOLUTION.

You want to solve this? Pass laws that would throw employers of illegal aliens in jail for a 5-year stretch and then enforce them. Far far far cheaper than a wall.

The fact that your mind goes there first and stays there says a good deal about your basic orientation--not who you are but how you were socialized. You make my point every time you say something like this, and you're someone who likes to think of himself as a fair and decent guy.

So be fair and decent, and question your own bias. If, after doing so, you come to the same conclusions, so be it. But I'll bet you come to them for different reasons, and that's my hope.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 7:02:25 PM

according to GOA HR 5175 will force some groups to reveal their membership lists


I don't know the details, but in general it violates the 1st Am.'s implied guarantee of freedom of association to force any group to identify its members to the government. That was just what the Court held in Alabama v. NAACP, a case from the late '50's that involved an attempt by police to force a NAACP chapter to disclose the names of its members.

If this Pelosi-inspired garbage becomes law, it will be one more law to repeal after Jan. 20, 2013.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 7:27:09 PM

That you have to create another law that cracks down on people of color


The fact that the aliens affected by our immigration laws are of this or that ethnic background or race is irrelevant. But it's a convenient ruse for people who oppose those laws because they detest their own country. Deriding those laws as motivated by racism is a way to divert attention from the point that IS relevant: The people U.S. immigration laws exclude are not U.S. citizens, and they have no right to be on U.S. territory, except as those laws provide.

Ironically, it is those who want to see racial victimization everywhere who keep racial consciousness on the burner all the time. An obsession with racial identity as the arbiter of all things in public life characterized another group of statists some decades ago--the Nazis.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/9/2010 10:10:56 PM
when there are employers luring them and others like them right back in.


Of course we want our laws to be enforced! If only the Arizona law went after employers who lure these helpless aliens in, overcoming their will, instead of just authorizing those jackbooted storm troopers to round up anyone who doesn't look bright white and demand to see their papers, we'd *never* call it racist!



Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
7 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;
8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;
9 classification; license suspension and revocation;
10 affirmative defense


11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,
12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a
15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the
16 labor, the employer violates this subsection.



17 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
18 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
19 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
20 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
21 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly
22 employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall
23 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
24 If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint
25 form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the
26 employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall
27 not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not
28 submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county
29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
30 color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney
31 shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged
32 unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or
33 any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a
34 complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county
35 attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized
36 alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section
37 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to
38 independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to
39 work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work
40 authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant
41 to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a
42 false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3
43 misdemeanor.



1 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
2 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

3 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
4 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

5 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
6 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

7 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
8 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint
9 was originally filed with the attorney general.



10 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be
11 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
12 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county
13 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
14 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
15 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is
16 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
17 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.



18 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
19 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
20 practicable date.



21 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

22 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
23 subsection, the court:

24 (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all
25 unauthorized aliens.

26 (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year
27 probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien
28 performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file
29 quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county
30 attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business
31 location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

32 (c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The
34 affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all
35 unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not
36 intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The
37 court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to
38 this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file
39 a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days
40 after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this
41 subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn
42 affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing
43 of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by
44 the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses
45 that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that
1 are held by the employer specific to the business location where the
2 unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license
3 specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed
4 work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in
5 general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision
6 are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary
7 place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any
8 other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to
9 the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the
10 attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
11 subsection G of this section.

12 (d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses
13 described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer
14 for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to
15 suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it
16 during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the
17 following factors, if relevant:

18 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
19 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
20 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
21 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
22 applicable requirements.
23 (v) The duration of the violation.
24 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
25 in the violation.
26 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.


27 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
28 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently
29 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business
30 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does
31 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized
32 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's
33 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to
34 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the
35 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and
36 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately
37 revoke the licenses.


38 3. The violation shall be considered:
39 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the
40 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court
41 under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
42 business location.

43 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the
44 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under
1 this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
2 business location.





3 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
4 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a
5 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation
6 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the
7 attorney general's website.





8 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the
9 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
10 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
11 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
12 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
13 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
14 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).




15 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
16 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a
17 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an
18 unauthorized alien.




19 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that
20 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code
21 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not
22 knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have
23 complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),
24 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural
25 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply
26 with the requirements.




27 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
28 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
29 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
30 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
31 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:

32 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
33 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

34 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
35 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

36 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
37 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
38 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.




39 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
40 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
41 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
42 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
43 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
44 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
45 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.




Subsection A. is the heart of this Section 6.

B. covers anonymous complaints. Note lines 28-30.

C. covers which agencies get notified of valid complaints, and directs the country attorney to act on them.

D. covers venue and retroactivity of actions by the county attorneys.

E. gives these suits priority.

F. tells the courts how to punish these violations and describes how to deal with second violations. Note the penalties in F. 2.

G. directs the state AG to set up and publish an online database of court orders in employer violations.

H. directs the courts to use only the federal agency's determination whether an employee is here legally and makes that determination convenient for the courts to use. Sec. 1373 (c) is the federal immigration statute SB 1070 requires state officials to enforce.

I. says that when an employer proves it used the e-verification system (set up by a federal statute) it's presumed not to have knowingly hired an illegal alien. The prosecution then has the burden proving otherwise.

J. similar to I--this says that if an employer complies in good faith with the federal statute that describes which documents every employer must see and verify before hiring someone, it can claim that as a defense if sued for hiring an illegal alien.

K. states the usual requirements and burden of proof for employers of illegal aliens who claim entrapment as an affirmative defense.

L. restates the law as to what will *not* establish that the police entrapped you. Again, nothing unusual.


All in all, a modern, complete, very well drafted subsection. It streamlines the process for going after the employers of illegal aliens, sets up website databases, gives the court useful guidelines, tracks the federal statutes carefully, makes it a crime to file a false or frivolous complaint about illegal alien employees, and prohibits state officials from investigating any complaint that's based solely on race, color, or national origin.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 8:46:39 AM
It's interesting to see that some people jump to the conclusion the Arizona law only involves the police stopping people to ask them for proof they're here legally (which they've always had the right to do to anyway, to anyone, if they have a reasonable suspicion a law's being broken.) Maybe they've been taken in by all the anti-American propaganda that's been spread around about immigration.

The Arizona law, SB 1070, contains several sections. Section 1 states the intent of the law:

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.


Sec. 2 prohibits any Arizona official or agency from adopting a policy of enforcing federal immigration laws to anything less than the full extent permitted by federal law. When an official already has a reason to detain someone (e.g. for a vehicle code violation) and has a reasonable suspicion the person's an illegal alien, he has to try to check the person's immigration status with the feds. If he's not here legally, the official must turn him over to them. There's also a provision for citizen suits, with costs and attorney fees paid, to make state agencies enforce this law. Any agency that doesn't is subject to large fines.

Sec. 3 makes it a crime to trespass on private or public land in violation of federal law. Anyone convicted has to pay for his own jail expenses, plus a fine. There are heavy sentence enhancements for repeat violators, drug runners, and traffickers in people, and they're even more severe if you're armed.

Sec. 4 deals with smuggling people for profit.

Sec. 5 deals with stopping to pick up illegal aliens as day laborers and with those aliens soliciting day labor.

Sec. 6 is the employment section already detailed.

Sec. 7 is similar to 6., but with some stronger penalties. I'll figure out what the differences are when I have more time.

Sec. 8 adds some record-keeping provisions to the e-verification system for verifying that employees are legally in the U.S. that Arizona apparently set up a few years ago. Employers must use this system to qualify for economic development incentives, and if an employer's convicted of failing to use it, it has to repay any grant money it received.

Sec. 9 authorizes officials to impound any vehicle a person who is violating a criminal law is using to transport, harbor, or conceal an illegal alien, or to attempt to do those things.



This is the law your president and prominent members of his cabinet have such grave doubts about--although Holder and Napolitano admitted they'd never even read it--that the Justice Dept. has solemnly been directed to look into it. Apparently your president thinks that investigating a state that would dare to try to enforce the very laws he himself swore to enforce is time well spent by his DOJ. (When, that is, it's not busy planning to give a full, extremely expensive and dangerous years-long federal trial, right in New York, to the guy who masterminded the murder of 3,000 innocent American civilians and brags about hacking off Daniel Pearl's head on camera.) But that same DOJ which is so exquisitely sensitive to the rights of People of Color refuses to prosecute the two members of the New Black Panther party who stood right by the entrance to a Philadelphia polling place in November, 2008--one of them with a club in his hand--and belligerently intimidated U.S. citizens trying to exercise their fundamental constitutional right to vote.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 94
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 8:59:42 AM

But it's a convenient ruse for people who oppose those laws because they detest their own country.


Please. Where do you get this stuff?


Deriding those laws as motivated by racism is a way to divert attention from the point that IS relevant: The people U.S. immigration laws exclude are not U.S. citizens, and they have no right to be on U.S. territory, except as those laws provide.


True enough. And if this was the entire story I would entirely agree with you. But the partial measure of kicking them all out is just that, a partial measure. And why conservatives simply refuse to deal with illegal immigration in a systematic way could well be due to the residue of racism that is part and parcel of the cultural legacy that we inherited. No blame, no shame--unless of course you're still buying into it. And one way to keep buying into it is to refuse to consider that your own viewpoint might be unwittingly tainted.

There is nothing wrong with detesting the history of injustice that is also part of our heritage. An adult can hold in mind both the greatness that is the legacy of our founders and the faults that fall to us to correct. Rather than continually mischaracterizing the liberal position as black-and-white, you'd be a lot happier and a lot closer to the mark to consider the possibility that liberals love the country and want to make it better.

You might disagree with their approach, and that's fine. But your insistence that any call for change is some sort of betrayal says more about you and your mindset than it does about liberals and theirs.


Ironically, it is those who want to see racial victimization everywhere who keep racial consciousness on the burner all the time.


Huh? Where do you get this stuff? I am absolutely certain that even Sharpton would have preferred to go out of business a long time ago.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 95
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 9:06:30 AM

I find it funny how some just like reading into what people say, rather than trying to understand what they say. ...

I should be a bit more clear, I mean on illegal activity, not just those coming here illegally, but those helping them, and those hiring them, but also those encouraging them, and those hiding them. I say them, meaning all illegals, not just hispanics.


Thank you for clarifying. This is a perfect example of what I'd mentioned earlier about being accountable when one's words or actions rouse a suspicion of racism. Your comment appeared racist. I called it out. You accounted for it. I get it--and so does everyone else who tracked our conversation.

It is about free speech and honest dialogue, and my respect for you and your position has been reaffirmed. We might disagree on certain things, but you are a fair and honest guy.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 96
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 9:12:28 AM
One other thing about the AZ law and racism.

How will y'all ensure that this law isn't enforced through a concerted effort to stop people for DWB (driving while brown). Here in Pomona, the police are notorious for setting up checkpoints in Hispanic neighborhoods. These are ostensibly to catch drunk drivers, but they pull over and cite anyone with a tag or mechanical violation, and sometimes impound cars on that basis. They never put the checkpoints in upscale (White) neighborhoods.

The law leaves room for some very malicious enforcement activity along those lines.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 10:20:36 AM

Please. Where do you get this stuff?


I observe.


But your insistence that any call for change is some sort of betrayal


You must have been studying Mr. Obama's straw man rhetorical technique again--he's the master of it. You might want to study how well he hides his straw men, though--yours are still a little too easy to spot. Any change in law or policy people want to make is perfectly fine with me, as long as it doesn't require ignoring the U.S. Constitution.


I am absolutely certain that even Sharpton would have preferred to go out of business a long time ago.


Oh, sure. With his brain and talent, just think what he could be doing, if he weren't forced to man the ramparts all the time, ever vigilant against a new eruption of latent American race prejudice. What heros these people are! Meanwhile, the U.S. recently elected its first black president ever. But I'm sure it's still a racist country.


And why conservatives simply refuse to deal with illegal immigration in a systematic way could well be due to the residue of racism that is part and parcel of the cultural legacy that we inherited. No blame, no shame--unless of course you're still buying into it. And one way to keep buying into it is to refuse to consider that your own viewpoint might be unwittingly tainted.


I guess you know that "comprehensive immigration reform" is the usual euphemism for "blanket amnesty."

I don't believe we inherited any racism as part of America's cultural legacy. You might as well claim that because of what happened in Salem, we inevitably inherited a belief in witches as part of our cultural legacy. Ideas that can't be proved or disproved are interesting, but suspect. Explaining away the positions people take as a reflection of their hidden desires or urges is a lot like Freudian analysis, and there's just as little reason to believe the explanation. If you have evidence that racism is motivating an opinion or policy, state it. I don't pretend to know people's hearts, except by making inferences from what I see them do. And even that isn't completely reliable.

If I saw someone point a gun at a person's head and scream that he was going to kill him, once I was sure I wasn't watching actors rehearsing their roles in a play, it would be very clear the guy with the gun had a violent intent. I go by what many leftists do and say. Some of it is so consistent and blatant that it's clear to me that they not only do not love this country, but hate it and wish it harm. Just read about what the lawyers defending the prisoners at Gitmo did. Their actions--which are well documented--were clearly felonies under federal law, and some of them might even qualify as treason. And yet this administration saw fit to put some of them in its Justice Department, where they're in charge of national policy on that subject. It also refuses to reveal their names.

Nothing new about disloyalty by leftists--from the 1930's into the 1950's, the U.S. and the federal government itself were riddled with people who felt the same way. Many of them were members of the Communist Party here, which in those days dutifully followed Moscow's orders. And more than a few of them, as we now know for certain, were outright traitors and Soviet agents working against U.S. interests in every way possible.

The USSR's long gone, but statism is alive and well. I suspect much of the sympathy with Muslim jihadists, the refusal to identify them as Muslims or to criticize Islam among statists is the result of their common cause. Both of them hate this country and want it brought low. It's not very comforting to realize we now have a president who seems fairly sympathetic to those ideas--even less so, considering how well he knows Alinsky's tactic of appearing more moderate than you are, so you can do things that otherwise would alarm people and turn them against you.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 11:10:31 AM

These are ostensibly to catch drunk drivers, but they pull over and cite anyone with a tag or mechanical violation


Are you claiming the police are breaking the law by doing this? If so, you might want to inform yourself a little better. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of police to stop vehicles even when they're doing it a pretext for looking into other things. It said the 4th Amendment only requires an adequate reason to make the stop in the first place. The constitution allows a lot of things some people might consider malicious.

The police are free to concentrate their resources wherever that lets them enforce the laws most effectively. Nothing requires them to keep a couple cars and a SWAT team near the old folks' home at all hours, just in case some of the residents should get into a row over what to watch on the TV and start a gun battle with each other. They might use those resources better over at the projects, where drug dealing and murders and rapes and carjackings and child abuse and God knows what else are part of everyday life.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 99
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 5:13:14 PM

I don't believe we inherited any racism as part of America's cultural legacy.


Really? I suppose that MLK died of a head cold?

Please, Match. That is just an incredible statement on your part.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 100
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 5:17:52 PM

Are you claiming the police are breaking the law by doing this?


I called it "malicious enforcement" for a reason, Match. Kind-of like waterboarding people who we claim have no legal rights.

Institutionalized racism doesn't have to break laws in any overt way to be unconscionable. Do you have a moral conscience? Or is it all just bureaucratic with you?

No, I'm not being superior here. Some of your positions, while seemingly logical, take you into some very strange places. If there was a concerted effort to enforce traffic and other laws in your neighborhood, but not the neighborhood next door, and if at the same time you couldn't get rapid police response but people in that other neighborhood did get rapid response, would you have a cause for complaint or not?
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Free Speech 1st Amendment