Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
F3SS

Illegals OK'd to fly without ID

73 posts in this topic

Illegal Immigrants Are Reportedly Being Allowed to Fly Without Verifiable ID — No Photo, ‘No Watermark, Nothing’

Illegal immigrants are being “released on their own recognizance” and later “allowed to board and travel commercial airliners by simply showing their Notice to Appear forms,” a National Border Patrol Council spokesman reportedly told Breitbart Texas’ Brandon Darby.

Hector Garza, identified as NBPC’s Local 2455 spokesman, expressed serious concern that illegal immigrants are only required to show “paperwork that could easily be reproduced or manipulated on any home computer” in order to board planes used by the American public for domestic travel.

“The Notice to Appear form has no photo, anyone can make one and manipulate one. They do not have any security features, no watermark, nothing,” he said. “They are simply printed on standard copy paper based on the information the illegal alien says is the truth.”

9FB34979839348DFB9341447778E2631.jpg

Source: Breitbart Texas

Garca also claimed that authorities have to “solely rely on who they say they are, where they say they came from, and the history they say they have.” In reality, he explained, officials can’t be positive of the identities of the thousands of illegal immigrants currently flooding into the United States.

More... http://www.theblaze....ermark-nothing/

Would anybody else like to start listing everything wrong with this? There has to be a thousand good reasons why this is a bad idea.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnt these usually come with the green card and the pink card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anybody else like to start listing everything wrong with this? There has to be a thousand good reasons why this is a bad idea.

It would be a lot easier to list what is right with it! I'll start:-

1) Nothing.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnt these usually come with the green card and the pink card?

I think a few employees with be getting their pink cards for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And they can get Driver's Licenses without any documentation also. It's not surprising Illegals don't respect our laws, or our borders.

The US Govt. is now complaining that Illegal Immigrants are costing too much to process!!! (IF you can call this being processed.)

Wouldn't it be much easier/cheaper, etc. IF the US Govt. simply deported them imm?

This would eliminate the need to 'process' them, ID them, bus/fly them to other US cities, clog up our Courts, provide medical treatment, day care for their children, ETC. ALL @ US Taxpayer expense.

Barry's answer to the latest group is to send more lawyers and Judges to TX, etc, and give big $$$ to Guatemala. :cry: (IF I was Pres, I would return this latest group of 57,000 to MEX, and let them deal w/ it....of course, I would've already secured the S. border w/ Marines redeployed from Afganistan. :tu: )

Who actually believes that these ppl will show up in court???

Edited by scorpiosonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What's wrong with it?

Well, Breitbart is not one of the most reputable sources, and we have a "told by a friend of a friend" story. I see them posting "Obamacare reduced uninsured by less than 2% in Texas" -- and not mentioning that Dear Governor Rick Perry actually REFUSED Obamacare for Texas (http://www.thedailyb...-obamacare.html)

I see it picked up by Fox Nation's blogs (not Fox... yet), so I would prefer to see more evidence or more explanation of the story before getting my jimmies in a rustle.

Edited by Kenemet
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hectar Garza is the spokesman for the border patrol Union. This is his words, not Breitbarts. Further, reading through Breitbarts article it seems NPBC, the union, is validating these DHS orders.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bunch of information seems to be missing.

1) Where are they getting money to pay for plane tickets?

2) Where are they flying to?

3) Is the government just buying seats on an commercial airline to ship them around the states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal immigrants are being “released on their own recognizance” a

You really don't understand how this works. SUSPECTED illegal imigrants can be released pending an immigration court decision. It's the rule of law. Immigration is a matter of civil law not criminal law. We don't cotton to vigilantism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bunch of information seems to be missing.

1) Where are they getting money to pay for plane tickets?

2) Where are they flying to?

3) Is the government just buying seats on an commercial airline to ship them around the states?

I don't think the first question maters. The point is that, if able, they can. I don't think the government is paying for it. Again, it's just that they can. And will. And they're flying right into obscurity never to report to their immigration hearing and their true identities may never be known.

You really don't understand how this works. SUSPECTED illegal imigrants can be released pending an immigration court decision. It's the rule of law. Immigration is a matter of civil law not criminal law. We don't cotton to vigilantism.

Yes and then they fly away into the void. Do you really think they're going to fly back to wherever for their deportation hearing? Seriously. There's a thousand different ways they can find and things they can say that'll keep them hidden here, unassimilated, courtesy of our generous tax dollars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't understand how this works. SUSPECTED illegal immigrants can be released pending an immigration court decision. It's the rule of law. Immigration is a matter of civil law not criminal law. We don't cotton to vigilantism.

"SUSPECTED" Illegals....surely, you can't be serious. :unsure2: EVERYONE OF this latest group of 57,000 Illegal Immigrants ARE KNOWN TO BE ILLEGALS. :yes:

Where is the rule of law regarding ENFORCEMENT of ALL the rest of our Imm Laws???

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone gets their day in court. (Some silly rule about presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Everyone gets their day in court. (Some silly rule about presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)

Assuming they do show up.

(LEGAL US Citizens have this right, [and US Constitutional rights] ILLEGAL Immigrants in the US do not have these rights.)

Edited by scorpiosonic
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This scares me... giving people who has no background, no criminal check, or any other check licenses to fly or drive. Is the government trying to bring America's doom quicker? Plaques, Terrorists, and Criminals can easily enter and exit United States now.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This scares me... giving people who has no background, no criminal check, or any other check licenses to fly or drive.

Kind of flies in the face of the most basic principles of national security.

Edited by F3SS
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming they do show up.

(LEGAL US Citizens have this right, [and US Constitutional rights] ILLEGAL Immigrants in the US do not have these rights.)

Uhh, they absolutely DO have those rights.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

It's All About Equal Protection

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.

This is 'Murica, dammit.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This scares me... giving people who has no background, no criminal check, or any other check licenses to fly or drive. Is the government trying to bring America's doom quicker? Plaques, Terrorists, and Criminals can easily enter and exit United States now.

You're obviously a bigot (kidding). This is one indication that the alleged war on terrorism is a bad joke. It's obviously not a priority to secure our southern border, but it *is* a priority to frisk children and old folks at airports. Scratch that if they're illegal immigrants. They can take the express lane to the plane. We live in some kind of weird blend of "1984" and "Idiocracy". My neighbor's service *dog* was searched at the airport before he could board a plane. Dogs are well known to be terrorists, so good on the TSA. :rolleyes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming they do show up.

(LEGAL US Citizens have this right, [and US Constitutional rights] ILLEGAL Immigrants in the US do not have these rights.)

They don't have a stamp on their foreheads that says illegal. Hence the whole need for court. And everyone has constitutional rights. (even corporations apparently)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh, they absolutely DO have those rights.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

It's All About Equal Protection

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.

This is 'Murica, dammit.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

You're right, and my bad.....wishful thinking on my part-dammit.

IMO, and for the record, they do not deserve these rights....BUT, apparently all an Illegal Immigrant has to do is set foot in this country, and presto, they automatically have constitutional rights.

Citizenship-blind IS BS, time to change this crap! Yup, this is murica, where selective enforcement of our laws is the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizenship-blind IS BS, time to change this crap! Yup, this is murica, where selective enforcement of our laws is the rule.

Lets be brutally honest here; a lot of the constitution is BS and needs to change. It is supposed to change and is NOT the infallible document that it is sometimes made out to be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have a stamp on their foreheads that says illegal. Hence the whole need for court. And everyone has constitutional rights. (even corporations apparently)

And they don't have any documentation either, so NO ONE can prove who they are/aren't, prove their Immigration status, or prove that they are required to show up in court @ the appropriate time/place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're obviously a bigot (kidding). This is one indication that the alleged war on terrorism is a bad joke. It's obviously not a priority to secure our southern border, but it *is* a priority to frisk children and old folks at airports. Scratch that if they're illegal immigrants. They can take the express lane to the plane. We live in some kind of weird blend of "1984" and "Idiocracy". My neighbor's service *dog* was searched at the airport before he could board a plane. Dogs are well known to be terrorists, so good on the TSA. :rolleyes:

That dog could have had a bomb in his shoe. You don't know! YOU DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!

And they don't have any documentation either, so NO ONE can prove who they are/aren't, prove their Immigration status, or prove that they are required to show up in court @ the appropriate time/place.

Trade off for our "free" society, i suppose.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lets be brutally honest here; a lot of the constitution is BS and needs to change. It is supposed to change and is NOT the infallible document that it is sometimes made out to be.

I agree 100%.

Our Govt. feels it's OK to practice selective enforcement. IOW, they pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, and fail to enforce all others....and I know for a fact selective enforcement isn't backed by the US Constitution.

Edited by scorpiosonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100%.

Our Govt. feels it's OK to practice selective enforcement. IOW, they pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, and fail to enforce all others....and I know for a fact selective enforcement isn't backed by the US Constitution.

And I agree with this. It is a complicated situation and it will require a complicated solution. A solution which I certainly don't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.