Obama Demands Proof of Health Insurance But Proof of Citizenship Is "Misguided"
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, April 24, 2010, 10:07 AM
It’s an Obama World–
Good Question: So just to be clear, it’s constitutional to penalize someone for not showing proof of health insurance but not request proof of citizenship?
Only 23% of Arizona voters agree with Obama.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Obama Campaign National Co-Chair Admits Giving Students Credit For Volunteering to Elect Democrats
Published February 22, 2012 at 4:19 pm - 32 Comments
Chisum commented:
Can’t make sense out of nonsense.
ar05075 commented:
What a great point.!!!
archer52 commented:
Jim,
I’m going to go into greater detail later today at my site, but I’m very familiar with this issue after twenty years of dealing with the “right” to privacy, illegal stops, street contacts, etc.
Here is my first impression. 1- Be careful with demanding that the police, at any level, can require you carry papers to prove you are a citizen or even you are who you are. Especially if that law gives the police the power to detain you (which is arrest-lite remember) until you cough something up. We have gotten so used to having I.D. that not having it seems impossible, but it happens. We cannot allow a problem in one area to create a whole new set of problems in another one.
2- The best lesson I learned in my entire career came to me from my buddy who distilled the process of catching bad guys into one sentence. “Don’t chase the offense, chase the offender.” In a sense what he was telling the young police officers that treating a symptom doesn’t cure the disease. I’ll have more about this later. But think about the concept.
3- You are absolutely correct in your statement. The federal government is going to not only demand you have a certain product (healthcare) but that you keep with you proof of that product (your card). The card will have all your information on a magnetic strip on the back and probably your name, face and info on the front like a D.L. If the feds don’t have the card you don’t get service. If the illegal doesn’t have their card, they don’t get to stay here. However, the process is different as is the outcome.
4- National I.D. cards have been an argument we in law enforcement have had for a long time. You’d think the vast majority would be in favor of something like that, but you are wrong. It scares us. The thought of saying to a person standing on the street doing nothing other than standing there “Your papers please.” in a heavy German accent makes us almost sick. Would it make it easier for us? Sure, but easy isn’t part of the bargain. Sometimes being a cop and catching bad guys is a tough job and it should be if making it easier steals your freedoms away.
ADVERTISEMENT
gail commented:
Cops ask people for other forms of ID all the time, though. Couldn’t they just ask for “other ID” like drivers’ licences or nondrivers’ state IDs instead of immigration papers?
jomojava commented:
Presenting proof of citizenship could be a problem for some at the very highest levels of gubment.
Andreas K. commented:
The thought of saying to a person standing on the street doing nothing other than standing there “Your papers please.” in a heavy German accent makes us almost sick.
You know that today, in Germany, you can just say “No”? And the cops can just say “Good bye sir.” I was shocked when I read that officers in Germany can tell you “Please open your bag” but you can say “No” and they can’t really do much about it. The only time is when they make large scale controls (like when hunting drug runners) or in “imminent danger” which they won’t dare to use on normal people in the streets, because of the huge amount of lawsuits they’d have to deal with (not to mention the political fallout should they dare to do this with an “Asian.”)
In Japan police can stop you and ask for your ID. Usually they do it with foreigners who can easily be identified as foreigners. Koreans and Chinese tend to blend in optically. Every time I’m over there at least one officer asks me. I don’t mind it. At least the cops there still have rights and do their job. And I carry my ID with me because I know they could ask anyway. Back in the days, even if you were a premanent resident, you were required to carry the good old “gaijin card.” I’m not sure how they’re doing it right now. There were a couple of changes, I’d have to look them up.
It was a good system. It worked. But of course, nutjobs like that Debito guy had to start with “human rights! whaaa whaaa whaaa!”
Yeah, I don’t like Debito. He thinks he has a constitutional right to enter a bar or an inn. And if an inn-keeper on Hokkaido hangs up a “Japanese only” sign (after drunken Russian sailors have demolished his bar several times), Debito screams “RACIST!” and sues the guy.
I tell you, if I was that inn keeper., and drunken foreign sailors demolish my place several times, I hang up a “Japanese only” sign as well. I believe the landlord has the final say over who he serves and who not. At least, it used to be like that.
Today it’s all “racist”. In Japan. In Austria. In the US. Everywhere.
Great. Now I’m getting infuriated again.
Yeah, watch out. I’m white. I’m armed. And I’m angry.
Joylily514 commented:
Wow! I am very impressed at the thoughts and discussion here. Excellent points. Looking forward to more.
CommieBlaster commented:
IS YOUR PC RED?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOAaUKcFtkc
The Marxist Plot you weren’t expecting.
hstad commented:
archer52:
“I’m very familiar with this issue after twenty years of dealing with the “right” to privacy, illegal stops, street contacts, etc.”
What does the immigration law in AZ have to do with your comments? Police can stop anyone and ask for an ID-stop the BS, it’s done everyday. Let’s get real. This is more about PC than “rights”. I was born in Argentina and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1976, the legal way. Now all I hear are these idiot activists (Latinos/Hispanics) complain about violation of their civil rights? Firstly, there is no such group(s) as Latinos/Hispanics. Try telling that to people born in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, etc. This is all about identity politics practiced by people who care less about rights, vs. power. Amnesty is their goal-just like the misguided one done in the ’80′s by Reagan. This problem will be here again in 20 – 30 years. The Federal Government is the problem and will continue to be the problem. We need to reign in the Fed’s powers or we will all be doomed to giving up far more freedoms- versus being stopped to ask for ID.
archer52 commented:
hstad-
Nice try. Take a look at my website for the full article. I just finished it.
http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/04/24/arizona-takes-one-step-closer-to-your-papers-please-typical-example-of-treating-a-symptom-and-not-the-disease/
And yes the police can “ASK” for I.D. but they cannot force you to provide it or even talk to them. The Arizona law changes that to an extent and believe me will be challenged in court immediately. I know all about consensual stops and arrests, I’ve been on both the winning and losing end of those suppression hearings.
As the other poster mentioned, even today’s Germans get that privacy/detention/intrusion issue clearly. They learned it the hard way. You would think we would be able to pick up a freaking history book and learn it too. We are a free society to an extent. Not nearly as free as we once were, but that is our fault and something we can correct.
Having the police do the dirty work that politicians and businessmen won’t do is the typical weak-kneed response the police are used to getting saddled with.
Take the time to read the article. If you think I’m wrong then post a comment. I could be in a lot of areas. But not on the law. It is what I did for a long, long time.
You might find I’m on your side about illegal immigration, I just think Arizona needs to address the disease, not just the symptoms.
Alana commented:
Interesting point.
Alana commented:
And interesting points from Archer as well.
Robert commented:
If we can’t get the real birth certificate lets try something else that should be a piece of cake.
How about a look at Mr. O’s College Grades???
JonahVark commented:
it’s constitutional to penalize someone for not showing proof of health insurance but not request proof of citizenship?
And doesn’t the Constitution require the President be a natural born citizen? Shouldn’t Obama provide REAL proof of eligibility?
All indications are that the Obama COLB posted at fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org is a fake.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts?page=451
and also at Post & Email – – -
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/21/obamas-forged-certification-of-live-birth-the-evidence/
The logical questions should be -
WHY DOESN’T THE HAWAII DOH CONFIRM THAT THE OBAMA COLB POSTED ON THE INTERNET WAS ISSUED BY THEIR DEPARTMENT AND IS AUTHENTIC?
and
WHY WOULD OBAMA POST A FAKE COLB ON THE INTERNET IF HE HAS A REAL ONE?
aprilnovember811 commented:
Because Obama thinks he’s above the rules. The same way a serial killer believes it’s alright to keep murdering, Obama believes it’s alright to keep lying. The rules are for other people, not this malignant narcissist.
And if you still believe after all of his serial lying his one honest statement is, “I was born in Hawaii?” Get some professional help.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481
nadadhimmi commented:
Time to cut the crap. Obama and his regime expect people to shut the eff up and do as they are damn well told. In the Soviet Gulag, the actual criminals, rapists, murderers were actually a step up on the ladder from the political dissenters, and indeed were used to, and rewarded for, abusing the Politicals. Illegals are protected from proving immigration status but citizens are punished for not obeying unconstitutional dictates for purchase of private goods and services. Sound like the Gulag?, where criminals are used to control the innocent? It should, it’s the same thing. Obama’s every action proves he is an out and out Communist that Hates America. His goal is our destruction by promising stupid people free stuff forever in exchange for votes until he doesn’t need votes anymore.
archer52 commented:
Yes, It’s time to cut it. I agree. But the options left the peaceful law abiding people are being stripped away, as I predicted. You wonder by the actions of the administration if they are wanting something to happen or they are horribly tone death. As far as Obama hating the nation. I think it is a matter of his upbringing. Father commie, momma commie, granddaddy commie, granddaddy’s friend commie, College friend Jarret’s family commie, friend Ayers anarchist, wife highly motivated social justice advocate, preacher communist/America hater.
Gee, it is a wonder he didn’t show up for the debate wearing a Che shirt, a Mao hat, carrying the little red book and sporting an “I love Stalin” lapel pin.
But that was his talent wasn’t it, hiding all of that from us, with the help of all the democrat party and the MSM.
Feel set up yet. Maybe a little desperate as you watch the democrats tear your country apart while you watch? Remember most of them aren’t radicals, but obviously willing to go along with radicals which means the same thing. Hopefully the good democrat voters, all six of them that are left, will remember this come November.
hstad commented:
Archer – sorry I’m not buying your pitch:
The law does not authorize unlawful stops, but only permits verification of immigration status once a lawful stop has been made :
11-1051 B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).
bg commented:
++
gee, can’t imagine why his priorities are so bass ackwards..
/sarc/
==
kansas commented:
Don’t need proof of health insurance if your religion is against it. I just joined the church of I Don’t Need No Stinking Insurance.
bg commented:
++
Aztlan Rising
Arizona rancher murdered by illegal immigrant who flees to Mexico
["As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano deployed the National Guard to help the Border Patrol do its job. Yesterday's murder of rancher Rob Krentz on his own land 25 miles from the Mexican border makes it clear that that job remains unfinished," said Tancredo. "Three days ago, Napolitano told an audience at Arizona State University that the border is more secure than ever," said Tancredo. "I challenge her-no I dare her to come to this community and try to sell that lie. The residents here know better."]
and the following is from someone who
lives there and knows what’s going on..
Over in Arizona
As you know, one of the local ranchers was murdered in Douglas two weeks ago. His funeral is tomorrow. I received three messages similar
to the one below from different officers within the Rangers and law enforcement.
Yesterday afternoon I talked to another rancher near us who is a friend of ours and whose great grandfather started their ranch here in 1880. These are good people. He told me what really happened out at the Krentz ranch and what you won’t read in the papers. The Border Patrol is afraid of starting a small war between civilians here and the drug cartels in Mexico.
Bob Krentz was checking his water like he does every evening and came upon an illegal who was lying on the ground telling him he was sick. Bob called the Border Patrol and asked for a medical helicopter evac. As he turned to go back to his ATV he was shot in the side. The round came from down and angled up so they know the shooter was on the ground. Bob’s firearm was in the ATV so he had no chance. Wounded he called the Cochise County Sherriff and asked for help. Bleeding in the lungs he called his brother but the line was bad so he called his wife but again the line was bad.
Several ranchers heard the radio call and drove to his location. Bob was dead by this time. The ranchers tracked the shooter 8 miles back towards Mexico and cornered him in a brushy draw. This was all at night. The Sherriff and Border Patrol arrived and told them not to go down and engage the murderer. They went around to the back side and if you can believe it the assassin managed to get by a BP helicopter and a Sherriff’s posse and back to Mexico. So much for professional help when you need it.
One week before the murder Bob and his brother Phil (who I shoot with) hauled a huge quantity of drugs off the ranch that they found in trucks. One week before that a rancher near Naco did the same thing. Two nights later gangs broke into his ranch house and beat him and his wife and told them that if they touched any drugs they found they would come back and kill them.
The ranchers here deal with cut fences and haul drug deliveries off their ranches all the time. What ranchers think is that the drug cartels beat the one rancher and shot Bob because they wanted to send a message. Bob always gave food and water to illegals and so they think they sent the assassin to pose as an illegal who was hungry and thirsty knowing it would catch Bob off guard.
What is going on down here is NOT being reported. You need to tell people how bad it is along the border. Texas is worse. Near El Paso it’s in a state of war. 5000 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez last year and it’s over 2000 so far this year. Gun sales down here are through the roof and I get emails from people wanting firearms training. Something has to be done but I don’t hold out much hope. These gangs have groups in almost every city in the US.
This is serious business. The Barrio Azteca and their sub gangs are like Mexican Corporations and organized extremely well. If this doesn’t get dealt with down here you guys will deal with it on your streets.
==
Chisum commented:
Fact: 83% of homicide warrants in Phoenix, AZ are issued for illegal aliens
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/04/24/fact-83-of-homicide-warrants-in-phoenix-az-are-issued-for-illegal-aliens/
reliapundit commented:
******Jim:
How can the USA CONTINUE to give medical care to illegal aliens if all citizens are required tio buy insurance or be fined by the IRS.
How can the IRS fine someone who isn’t here?
How will they get healthcare!??!
Under Obamacare: the illegals who currently get car will get nothing?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Obama has some splainin’ to do!
archer52 commented:
hstad-
I’m going to take the time to show you what reality is in court and in case law, not what is cutely written by a couple of lawyers thinking they can outsmart the system.
Here is the first problem-
“The law does not authorize unlawful stops, but only permits verification of immigration status once a lawful stop has been made :”
Describe to me what is a lawful stop and what is an unlawful stop. This is where the rubber will meet the road in court. Did the officer see a tail light out, or an improper turn? Or did he see a car full of Hispanic males all staring at him like he had three heads and made up the PC for the stop? Further, does he have the right to ask I.D. from all Hispanics in the car? If so, he just violated what I believe is a Supreme Court ruling on detention. He can detain a driver for proper investigation of DL, insurance, registration and for any subsequent tickets. But the passenger is free to go, UNLESS he develops INDEPENDENT reasonable suspicion of another offense then he can continue his investigation. So, I ask you, outside detaining the passenger and asking them “Are you legal and do you have your papers to prove it on you?” What is the reason for holding onto them?
Now the judge is going to ask several pertinent questions to the officer who is now sitting in a courtroom months later. He is facing a complaint of illegal arrest and detention and maybe a civil rights violation. The question will be “How did you determine the people in the car were illegals? What was the first indication that you needed to turn your traffic stop into a illegal immigration investigation?
You are that officer, what is your answer? Do you answer honestly that the reason you suspected they were illegals was because they were Mexicans and there is a more than eighty percent chance any Mexican you meet along the border is illegal? It may be true, but hardly what will get you off the hook. Honesty is not always the best policy in court. You have to remember it is all a game to lawyers and judges, and you, as the officer, are just a pawn. Again, I know, been there, done that. So what are you going to say about how you shifted the investigation? How about when they ask “Did you ever question the status of blond haired blue eyed people…or just dark skinned Mexicans? How about old blue haired ladies, or red headed kids?
Here is the second real world problem with the law, from your brief summary-
“where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).”
How long do you get to detain the person? With drugs, waiting for a drug dog, you get about twenty minutes unless you can prove your investigation is progressing independently. How long will the court allow you to detain a person for immigration status? I’ve tried to get ICE on the phone while on traffic stops in the past and you can forget any help from them. And that was when they were actually trying. Now they won’t be. So even if the law stands against the basic challenges and you can use it, you will have to be aware of time limits or you can run into unlawful detention issues. Remember if you move him against his will say to the station just to hold onto him until verification is made you have just “arrested” him. With that comes all sorts of issues.
If you want, leave a comment at my site and I’ll go into greater detail. It’s just a bad law trying to solve a problem that has a real cure elsewhere.
Militant Conservative commented:
O.K. the ELEPHANT in the room. If your white or black the accent should give you away. We all know parts of this country have very distict dialects and slang. Not foolproof but a damn good indication. You blacks, gee ya’ll have aspecific lilt and dialect and so do the southeren whites. WOW, am I racist or just observant. I have asked others in Northern states NOT to appologize as I love the new england accent. THIS is who we are, Make no mistake. I don’t care about your color, nor your part of the country you grew up in. Love the Creole’ accent alot. close to home. WE are Americans, I just don’t want illegals nor malcontents from a foreign country. Is this difficult? powder is dry.
S. Wolf commented:
bg #24
Maybe something to do with the ‘Safe Schools’ czar in a roundabout Zero logic way..
Required Listening
“An NPR report on an investigation into the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and its efforts to cover up cases of child rape—and aid and abet more cases of child rape—includes this absolutely insane detail from the deposition of a Catholic priest who suddenly “flipped” and started to answer questions honestly:”
“After the settlement, Richard Loomis, the vicar for clergy, felt something had to be done about Baker. [Father Baker told Cardinal Mahony personally that he had raped two boys repeatedly over a period of years.] In a 2009 deposition obtained by NPR, Loomis told Luis’ attorney that he suggested the police be called.
“Did they do that?” Manly asked.
“No,” Loomis responded.
“Who did you suggest that to?”
“To the cardinal,” Loomis said.
Describing the deposition to NPR later, Manly said that Loomis “flipped” right in the middle of the deposition. “You know, how you used to see on Perry Mason or A Few Good Men, when someone actually flips on the stand? It just doesn’t happen. And here it did,” Manly said.
Later in the deposition, Loomis said he suggested that the archdiocese should alert all the parishes about Baker’s activities, in case there were other victims. Again, the cardinal declined.
“I was upset because I felt we should have made the announcements,” he said. “It was the right thing to do.”
Loomis says he considered resigning, and suddenly, an increasingly agitated lawyer for the archdiocese, Donald Woods, stood up and grabbed Loomis in an angry bear hug, physically restraining him from talking.
“Wait, wait, woah, woah! What are you doing?” Manly asked.
“I’m instructing my client,” Woods replied, as he jostled the priest and whispered in his ear.
“You’re trying to shut him up!” Manly replied.”
..
“[the] crimes were never reported to the authorities, he was not relieved of his priestly duties much less defrocked, he was moved from parish to parish (some with grade schools attached), and he went on to molest more young children—all of this after Baker himself told Cardinal Mahony that he had molested two boys repeatedly. Go read or listen to the whole appalling thing, and then ask yourself… why isn’t Cardinal Mahony in jail?”
The ‘good’ Cardinal Mahony seems to like other things besides open borders, like rapist priests.
archer52 commented:
Militant-
Yes common sense can tell us we have illegals in front of us. I know that. I’ve used that. WE in law enforcement use our observations all the time. Do you know what is insane???? It is ILLEGAL TO DO SO!!!!!
Put aside what you know to be true, what you know to be just, what you know to be fair. NONE of that works in court.
I had a senior prosecutor tell me one time, when I had just the mind blowing moment of frustration all of YOU have suffering right now, that I should never confuse justice and right and wrong with the LAW!
I swear I thought I was going to stroke. But then it hit me, she was right. I had been tilting at windmills most of my career, trying to bring justice and truth into a forum that desires neither. The justice system is about the law. And if the law is badly written or can be challenged by smarter lawyers than who are defending it, the law ceases to exist or worse makes bad law. It has never been about doing the right thing. In fact I encourage you to visit Harvard’s curriculum for lawyers and see the absence of classes discussing ethics.
That said, getting back to Militant’s point. Yes, you can use what you observe in front of you as a tool. But it is how you use the tool. For example, when I taught class I tried to explain this very issue as it related to crime and certain type of people who we all know commit crime. If I were to tell you that 70% of all violent crime was committed by 13% of the population and in truth that it was only 2-3% of that 13% that actually committed violent crime you’d be pretty happy that I had narrowed the field down so much. So let’s make these people “blue haired, club-footed, midgets” I mean that is how narrow I can get it. A police officer sees a carload of “blue haired, club footed midgets” driving down the road. Should he stop them, knowing the stats and knowing there is a good chance they are up to something? Can he? What if there are “blue haired club footed, midgets” who aren’t criminals, as a matter of fact that number is in the millions. So how to I explain to that law-abiding “blue haired club footed midget” that the reason he was detained is because he LOOKED like a criminal? Should he be willing to accept this role without complaint for the greater good?
Militant- let’s say those “blue haired club-footed, midgets” are people who shoot guns and have NRA stickers on their trucks, like I do. Some of them are militia members. So should the police be able to stop you, detain you, and verify with a government source that you are NOT a militia member? (Yes, I know, it’s legal to be a militia member now, but only for now…)
How about a young black man under thirty and over fourteen? Especially if you are dressed a certain way or act a certain way or are seen grouped up in a certain way. Is it remiss of a police officer not to stop and investigate a group of such people standing on a street corner at 2am? Or am I profiling? Did they do anything to warrant contact with law enforcement other than standing on a street corner at 2am and happen to be black?
Yes, I’m aware from an earlier post that the law says the police can only investigate the status after another lawful reason for the contact has been established. Oh, how I wish that was how it worked out in court! (At my site I’ll go into an actual court case I had explaining just what Militant is talking about.)
These are the struggles we deal with. We know from experience that group, especially in certain neighborhoods, left to their own devices, will sooner or later get into trouble…maybe. Do we interdict now assuming this from past history of contact with other similar groups? Or do we treat each person as an individual and allow their actions to dictate our actions. This is the whole “driving while black” you hear about. Now it will be “driving while Hispanic.”
Again, look beyond the frustration over the trouble illegals cause crossing into our nation and ask why they are crossing. Why do we have this fever? Because we are addicted to the money. The businesses, the politicians, the government all want the money those people provide. And until we have a political sea change in attitude, what will happen is the politicians will do stupid things like this just to make you feel better (or get you mad at me) but it will do little to stop the problem. (But it will make lawyers richer by far with all the upcoming court cases.)
As for Militant- Please remember this fact that is always rearing its ugly head- Nothing in politics happens in a vacuum. There are always unintended consequences. If the law holds and it is legal to force certain people to maintain and carry federal proof of their right to be in the country, then how far behind is a push for a national ID card? Do you want the federal government to have the right to force you to carry “your papers”?
Just saying…
raybojabo commented:
Health insurance? No speaky english.
bg commented:
++
S. Wolf @ 10:20 pm #32
==
Micah commented:
Still waiting on Mr. Obama to offer proof of his own natural citizenship.