Tuesday, December 2, 2008

UK: Cops Can Now Ask Immigrants for ID

The Bench front page... Why the hell can't we do that in the US? In this post-9/11 world (hell, in the pre-9/11 world), does it make sense to hobble the police by ordering them to NOT ask people for ID? After all, clerks are required to ask people for ID for purchases of liquor or cigarettes. Yet many US city governments intentionally ignore the fact that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants live within their jurisdiction. Many of those illegals commit crime. Many drain local treasuries by using city services. Why is it considered by some to be wrong to ask for ID to prove that a person legally entered a nation? Today, the Telegraph reports that British police and immigration officials will be given the ability - the legal ability - to ask an immigrant to prove that he/she is in the UK legally. Clauses in the draft Immigration and Citizenship Bill give state officials the power to make anyone who has ever entered the country, at any time, prove who they are without needing any suspicion of a potential crime. This will be challenged, no doubt. You can hear liberals already moaning. "But if they're not suspected of a crime, why are you asking for ID?" Yes, well, I'm a man of 53 years with gray hair, and I am still occasionally asked for ID when purchasing cigarettes. I dare say that I am not suspected of criminal behavior by the clear who asks me for ID, but I understand why I'm being asked for it. Had the ten terrorists been asked for ID upon setting foot onshore in Mumbai last week, they would have understood why, too. Had that happened, about 900 people would not be dead or injured as a result of that blood bath. The Telegraph story goes further in depth: Civil liberty groups warned that the catch-all clauses would effectively cover any British citizen who has ever left the UK, even for a holiday, because they will have "entered" the UK on their return. Refusing to hand over the necessary documents would be a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of almost a year in prison and/or a hefty fine. Officers will also be able to hold someone until they meet the requirements and can even demand a medical examination, although that will be more targeted at foreign nationals arriving from countries with high health risks of contagious diseases. Note the stupidity of the civil liberty groups with their concern that "Civil liberty groups warned that the catch-all clauses would effectively cover any British citizen who has ever left the UK, even for a holiday." Here, in the US, passport policy was changed nearly two years ago so that if I, a US citizen by birth, were to travel to Canada, I would need to present my passport to re-enter. Is that discrimination? Not if it's applied to everyone, which it is. Which is the bigger outrage? To require proof that a person is in or entering a country legally, is not involved in criminal activity, and is not carrying a disease that could sicken or kill citizens? Or to just let anybody in, willy-nilly, and not protect the public from illness and mayhem? Here, in the United States, the immigration laws have been a subject of hot debate for decades. Some cities, such as Chicago, are known as "sanctuary cities," where local police are actually under orders from city leaders to never ask a person for proof of citizenship. Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC (OJJPAC) gives us this: Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called "sanctuary policies." Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal and illegal immigration--so illegal aliens often benefit from city services too. (Source) The next time a liberal tells you that requiring ID of immigrants is wrong, ask the liberal how he/she feels about people being asked for identification when purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, guns or any other restricted, controlled item. Ask the liberal how they feel about requiring a ticket to enter a movie theater (the ticket identifies you as having paid for the priveledge). Then ask the liberal how they would feel if you entered their home without permission, helped yourself to everything in the kitchen, then demanded that you provide them with health care and other services at no charge to them. Their reaction will prove amusing. It's amused me every time. RELATED: List of US Sanctuary Cities 'Sanctuary Cities Embrace Illegal Immigrants - HUMAN EVENTS The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth: THE CONSTITUTION PART ... The US Constitution Only Delegates the Power Over Immigration or ...