Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-17-2005, 03:55 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
REAL ID act of 2005

Someone please tell me this is a joke.
H.R. 418

Sec. 102) Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), in the Secretary's sole discretion, to waive all laws as necessary to ensure expeditious construction of certain barriers and roads at the U.S. border. Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary's decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision.

I know it just says certain barriers and roads, but if he decides to invoke this there can be no judicial review if he decides to take a very liberal interpretation of it.

I have little doubt that the Senate will pass this and Bush never vetos.

Michael Chertoff must be tickled pink at all the power he gets.

America is dieing... please discuss.

Last edited by samcol; 02-17-2005 at 04:19 PM..
samcol is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:11 PM   #2 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
I think this is better in the eminent domain thread already open, because that is all it is.

It says nothing about martial law, or anything of the sort. Simply says he can use eminent domain to build roads or barriers at the US borders if needed, and no one can stop him. Still an interesting topic to discuss, but not anything near what you are saying.

I would suggest a title edit.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:16 PM   #3 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
What the libs hate about this bill is that it states the courts have no say in the matter. Just how can the libs get their agenda through without the courts!?!?!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:26 PM   #4 (permalink)
Eat your vegetables
 
genuinegirly's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Arabidopsis-ville
So they can disregard laws revolving around the boarder... and neither the courts nor any other entity is capable of review???!?! No offence djtestudo, but how can anyone see this as not dangerous or along the same lines as martial law?
__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy
genuinegirly is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:32 PM   #5 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
GOP..... for a political party who constantly accuses the Dems of a Big Brother government, the GOP sure does like to take away rights and add to the police and authoritarian type laws, while destroying any education, environmental, and healthcare.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:59 PM   #6 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
GOP..... for a political party who constantly accuses the Dems of a Big Brother government, the GOP sure does like to take away rights and add to the police and authoritarian type laws, while destroying any education, environmental, and healthcare.
You forgot the part about killing old people and "discrminating" against homosexuals

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 05:08 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
I think this is better in the eminent domain thread already open, because that is all it is.

It says nothing about martial law, or anything of the sort. Simply says he can use eminent domain to build roads or barriers at the US borders if needed, and no one can stop him. Still an interesting topic to discuss, but not anything near what you are saying.

I would suggest a title edit.
I did change the title. However, how do you think it will be enforced if chertoff decides he needs to use your home, or community for security reasons? My best guess is Waco type scenarios.
samcol is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 05:14 PM   #8 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
unlikely at best...but let us all hope it does not come to that
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 05:17 PM   #9 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
NCB -

That cracked me up.

samcol -

To your last statement.......what???? I am trying to see how you got from the article posted to Waco..... Whether this idea trumps law or not, it won't trump the Constitution (3rd Amendment).
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 05:23 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
NCB -

That cracked me up.

samcol -

To your last statement.......what???? I am trying to see how you got from the article posted to Waco..... Whether this idea trumps law or not, it won't trump the Constitution (3rd Amendment).
About the Waco statement. If the Homeland Security Secretary decides he needs property in regards to borders, he has it. If the people decide they don't agree with it, excessive police or military force will be used to "persuade" the people to leave. Which is martial law under my book which is what I was trying to explain to the previous poster.

As far as the 3rd Amendment goes, this bill waves all judicial review. I don't know how much more I can break that down. Yes, it might be in violation of the 3rd, but if courts can't review it then it might as well not exist.
samcol is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 05:33 PM   #11 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Someone please tell me this is a joke.
H.R. 418

Sec. 102) Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), in the Secretary's sole discretion, to waive all laws as necessary to ensure expeditious construction of certain barriers and roads at the U.S. border. Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary's decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision.
I don't know all the environmental impacts caused by these fences, but I believe they want to bypass some of the environmental restrictions especially around San Diego.
Quote:
Policy Issues
The completion of the border fence is likely to be an issue faced by the 109th Congress. At issue, is the balance between the preservation of the environment in border regions and the requirements of domestic security. On the one hand are environmental interests who believe that the environmental damage caused by the border fencing is not justified because the fencing merely shifts unauthorized migration and therefore does not contribute significantly to national security.

Others are concerned with the potential precedent that could be set with giving the Secretary very broad waiver authority. On the other hand are those who believe that the border fences have been an effective tool in discouraging aliens from crossing the border in those areas where they have been constructed, and that the environmental damage caused by their construction is an unfortunate but necessary reality of securing the border.

If the 109th Congress should take legislative action on the border fence, possible policy alternatives may include

!allowing DHS to waive some or all applicable laws in order to expedite the construction of all fences along our international borders;

!allowing DHS to waive some or all applicable laws only to finish the construction of the 14-mile triple-fence in San Diego;

!establishing a panel of experts to review all proposed border fence construction projects; and

!requiring DHS to propose alternative construction plans that would mitigate the environmental impact of the fence’s construction.

CRS Report for Congress
flstf is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 05:50 PM   #12 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
You forgot the part about killing old people and "discrminating" against homosexuals

No look at the budgets. Just as the GOP (and rightfully so) can say the Dems cut defense and intelligence, the Dems. can point to (and rightfully so) that the GOP cuts domestic spending and bolsters military spending. That's fact.

The Dems. pass anti-discrimination laws and are harsh on big business. The GOP tend to pass more laws that take away liberties and ease up on big business. I tend to side with the DEMS.

I appologize for not getting further in to detail earlier. Both sides have their faults and both have good points. I earlier commented and focussed only on the negative of the GOP and how I felt.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 06:18 PM   #13 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
One other thing.

The law says the courts can't overrule the use of the law. However, just like any other law, they can declare it unconstitutional if it turns into the government stealing property for no reason.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 06:23 PM   #14 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
I think we need a spending thread.

pan -

On a vague level, some of your claims may (key word: may) be accurate, but most are not. You should start a thread with the claims you made above and I will respond with accurate data to refute it.

My boy spends way, way too much...on everything...not just the military. I have seen the numbers and the percent increases and it floored me. He makes Clinton look like a social tightwad.

Non-defense spending by Bush is over four times higher than Clinton Part I and two-and-a-half times higher than Clinton Part II--that's non-defense....

Anyway, back to the thread.

NCB -

The chances of your claims coming true are really slim to none. There are a lot of worst-case scenarios that could happen, but this one is so far out that there that it borderlines paranoia to worry about it.

I just think that there are many more topics that could be discussed that have a much higher chance of happening, why stress over something that will most likely never happen.

Last edited by KMA-628; 02-17-2005 at 06:25 PM..
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 06:59 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
I did change the title. However, how do you think it will be enforced if chertoff decides he needs to use your home, or community for security reasons? My best guess is Waco type scenarios.
Ok so please explain how this is different than emminent domain laws of the past?

If the Gov. decides (local, state, or federal) that they require your land for public works they CAN force you off. They pay the going rate for the property.

Explain how this is martial law? Your statements have nothing in common with what the law states. It's no different than the government stating they want a military base is say, San Antonio to help defend the southern border. This is just they are using it to make roadblocks and increased fencing.
Seaver is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:13 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
Ok so please explain how this is different than emminent domain laws of the past?

If the Gov. decides (local, state, or federal) that they require your land for public works they CAN force you off. They pay the going rate for the property.

Explain how this is martial law? Your statements have nothing in common with what the law states. It's no different than the government stating they want a military base is say, San Antonio to help defend the southern border. This is just they are using it to make roadblocks and increased fencing.
The law specifically says the government doesn't have to compensate you for the property.

"Prohibits courts, administrative agencies, and other entities from reviewing the Secretary's decision or from ordering relief for damages alleged to have resulted from such decision."

This is tyranny plain and simple. He will have absolute power when it comes to national security and immigration when this passes.
samcol is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:25 PM   #17 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
again.....not likely....I am almost tempted to move this to paranoia....but we shall see
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:43 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
again.....not likely....I am almost tempted to move this to paranoia....but we shall see
I must be paranoid to think this is way to much power for one un-elected person to have.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't likely. It's what the official bill says. Yes, I am giving the worst case scenario with the martial law statements. However, even if you think Chertoff is an angel, if we ever get a real tyrant in there this could easily be abused.

I can't believe an official bill that's headed to the senate is now considered paranoia. Some of the things in here are quite shocking if you actually read it. Nothing goes into a bill by accident.

Last edited by samcol; 02-17-2005 at 07:46 PM..
samcol is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 08:05 PM   #19 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
I have read the bill....and I agree it is disheartening....perhaps a discussion of the information contained within the document...rather than an extrapolation of worst case scenario effects?
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 08:06 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Damages is different than paying for the taking of the land. Damages would be loss of nearby property value because of a building of a checkpoint.
Seaver is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 10:21 PM   #21 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
If I understand these bills correctly it appears to me that the new bill is restricting the authority to just the barriers, roads and fences specified in the old 1996 bill. While this may be somewhat oppressive it does not seem to be nearly as bad as some have speculated here. As I understand it there is no private property involved but mostly some environmental restrictions.

The section of bill from 1996 that is to be amended is as follows:
Quote:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility SEC. 102. <<NOTE: 8 USC 1103 note.>> IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDER.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions
as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads
(including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in
the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in
areas of high illegal entry into the United States.

(b) Construction of Fencing and Road Improvements in the Border Area
Near San Diego, California.--

(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Attorney General shall provide for the construction along the 14
miles of the international land border of the United States,
starting at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward, of second
and third fences, in addition to the existing reinforced fence,
and for roads between the fences.

(2) Prompt acquisition of necessary easements.--The Attorney
General, acting under the authority conferred in section 103(b)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as inserted by
subsection (d)), shall promptly acquire such easements as may be
necessary to carry out this subsection and shall commence
construction of fences immediately following such acquisition
(or conclusion of portions thereof).
The wording of the new bill will add section c to the above is as follows:
Quote:
H.R.418 H.R.418
REAL ID Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
Reading through this legal mumbo jumbo and trying to figure out what the hell they are talking about is worse than getting a root canal.

Last edited by flstf; 02-17-2005 at 10:28 PM.. Reason: spelling
flstf is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 07:49 AM   #22 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
I wonder how this interacts with the NAFTA provisions on property confiscations, or anything that amounts to the same thing.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 08:50 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
again.....not likely....I am almost tempted to move this to paranoia....but we shall see
alot of things have happened throughout history that probably could have been stopped had people not thought the very same thing you've stated right here.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
 

Tags
city, coming, law, martial

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:50 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360