Law Bans License-Plate Spraying To Foil Radar, Cameras
NBC News
07/10/05

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Gov. George Pataki on Friday signed a new law that bans using sprays or other synthetic materials to hide license plates from radar and camera detection.

The sprays, available online and elsewhere, create a gloss invisible to the naked eye that reflects the flash of radar or traffic cameras, making it difficult to identify a license plate by electronic means.

"It's important that law enforcement have the ability to identify all vehicles that use our public roadways, and anything that hinders their ability to do that is clearly a public safety hazard," Pataki said in a statement.

The law will take effect in 120 days.

Link: http://www.wnbc.com/news/4701876/detail.html

--Big brother government strikes again.  As far as I know, this stuff is still legal in 49 states and even New York since the ban doesn't take effect for 120 days, so you may want to get yours now by clicking here.

You can't take a picture of a license plate using radar.  The cameras use normal, "optical" means.

Anyone selling spray paint that obscures a license plate from "radar photos" is a scammer.

I thought that was an urban legend in the first place.  There were rumors a coating of hairspray or a covering of cellophane would fog up the photo, but those were debunked.
If someone is selling a special spray that actually works...then paar-tay for the next four months.  Get a few cans, and run all the reds you want for the rest of the summer!
;D

You can't take a picture of a license plate using radar.  The cameras use normal, "optical" means.

Anyone selling spray paint that obscures a license plate from "radar photos" is a scammer.


I honestly don't know if it works, but my guess is if it didn't, then the state of New York wouldn't have banned it.

I guess I was wrong, but it has always been my understanding that defacing or altering a license plate
in any way was illegal, why should this be any different?
???

I guess I was wrong, but it has always been my understanding that defacing or altering a license plate
in any way was illegal, why should this be any different?
???


I guess because you can't see it.

Why 'Big Brother'?  I've never understood why fuzz busters were legal.  Why would the government allow citizens to buy or use devices or techniques expressly designed to break the law?

???

If someone is selling a special spray that actually works...then paar-tay for the next four months.  Get a few cans, and run all the reds you want for the rest of the summer!


Hey, it's still legal in Massachusetts....

Why 'Big Brother'?  I've never understood why fuzz busters were legal.  Why would the government allow citizens to buy or use devices or techniques expressly designed to break the law?

???

A radar detector helps you obey the law.  If you're going 80 mph, and the speed limit is 65, you'll slow down to 65 when you hear the fuzzbuster go off.  Or should it be illegal to do anything that might jeopardize your state's precious speed citation revenue?  Should it be illegal to flash your lights to an oncoming motorist in order to indicate there's a police officer ahead? 
The cops get to spend too much time pushing citizens around instead of fighting real crime as it is!

Anyway, radar is on its way out.  Do they have laser-detecting devices on the market?

A radar detector helps you obey the law. 



BWAH!   ;D  That's good.  So does a burglar alarm.  When I'm just about to break into someone's home and hear one go off, I'm reminded that I'm not supposed to do that, and I go back to the straight and narrow!    ;D

Radar detectors are illegal here. So is manipulating a license plate to avoid detection.

We had a thing of people having cd's hanging in their car windows which were meant to stop the camera's from taking a good picture, don't know if it worked or not but alot of people tried it !

We had a thing of people having cd's hanging in their car windows which were meant to stop the camera's from taking a good picture, don't know if it worked or not but alot of people tried it !


I can see why they tried it, because the reflection of the flash off the CD would blot out the license plate, at least in theory. In reality, it wouldn't work. Even if it did, here in Australia, fixed speed cameras photograph cars from behind, so the CD would have to hang in the REAR of the car.

:)

--Big brother government strikes again.  As far as I know, this stuff is still legal in 49 states and even New York since the ban doesn't take effect for 120 days, so you may want to get yours now by clicking here.


You know, I've been thinking about this, and to me it isn't really a case of Big Brother. If, as others have suggested, these things don't work, then selling them on the basis that they do should be illegal, and therefore, they should be banned. Even if they did work, a) you shouldn't be allowed to alter your license plate to avoid police detection nor be allowed to sell a product that is specifically designed to allow you to do so and b) license plates are State property, and defacing State property is illegal anyway.

What if someone ran a red light and killed your child... wouldn't you want to know who was behind the wheel? There's more to these laws than just trying to make money out of fines. You need to see the wider picture and not be so self-centred.

What if someone ran a red light and killed your child... wouldn't you want to know who was behind the wheel? There's more to these laws than just trying to make money out of fines. You need to see the wider picture and not be so ignorant.


I love you.

Love you too!  ;)

Though I changed ignorant to self-centred as it was more apt. In fact I got caught last week for running a flashing amber (it's debatable) and yes it's a pain in the a$$ to pay the fine and sometimes you feel the cops should be fighting "real crime", but c'mon... spraying your licence plate... what are you 12??? I can't believe anyone would go to such limits.

Love you too!  ;)

Though I changed ignorant to self-centred as it was more apt. In fact I got caught last week for running a flashing amber (it's debatable) and yes it's a pain in the a$$ to pay the fine and sometimes you feel the cops should be fighting "real crime", but c'mon... spraying your licence plate... what are you 12??? I can't believe anyone would go to such limits.


:) The cops are there to uphold the law. All laws, not just busting crack dealers or putting away gun-toting gangbangers. The thing about traffic offences is that no one considers them to be breaking the law. It's just "bad luck" and "revenue raising" if you get caught. I haven't been convicted of a traffic offense in 19 years. It's not that hard to keep to the road rules.

Anyway, radar is on its way out.  Do they have laser-detecting devices on the market?


Laser detecters have been around for awhile.  Radar detecters are still available, and you can buy ones that detect both radar and laser.

The law in Georgia is you're allowed to have them in your car, as long as they're not plugged in.  :D

What if someone ran a red light and killed your child... wouldn't you want to know who was behind the wheel? There's more to these laws than just trying to make money out of fines. You need to see the wider picture and not be so self-centred.


How did police catch them before traffic cameras?

Traffic cameras themselves reek of big government, which is why I'm so glad to live in a city that doesn't use them.  The only traffic camera I've EVER seen if the one by the DMV in Henry County.  I hope America never looks like Britain, where traffic cameras are everywhere.

The more the population/infrastructure grows, the more people, the more cars... it's not feasible to have traffic cops man every single road 24/7. I generally believe that people's driving - like crime - is getting worse and more widespread. People's bad driving probably led to the whole necessity of the traffic/speed camera. And hit and run drivers more so.

I live in England and the country is now one of the safest places to drive statistically. Now I'm not a hypocrite - I've been flashed a dozen times for both speed and red lights, but since having 2 accidents I am now a relatively safe driver. Does it really hurt to wait less than a minute at the lights? Does the other traffic flow not have places to go to like yourself??? And to return to my main point, which really cannot be argued in any way... your impatience can cause death and you'll have to live with yourself for a long time!

I hope America never looks like Britain, where traffic cameras are everywhere.


It's not just traffic cameras everywhere in Chicago:

--

High-tech ears set to gun down crime
14:14 AEST Mon Jul 11 2005

AAP

AP - Police installed video surveillance cameras around town and saw Chicago's murder rate fall to its lowest level in four decades. Now the cops hope to further cut crime by not only watching, but listening, too.

The city is employing new technology that recognises the sound of a gunshot within a two-block radius, pinpoints the source, turns a surveillance camera toward the shooter and places an emergency 911 call.

Welcome to crime-fighting in the 21st century.

"Instead of just having eyes, you have the advantage of both eyes and ears," said Bryan Baker, chief executive of Safety Dynamics LLC, the company in suburban Oak Brook that makes the systems.

The technology isn't just gaining favour in Chicago, where 30 of the devices have already been installed in high-crime neighbourhoods alongside video surveillance cameras (Baker says dozens more installations will follow).

In Los Angeles County, the sheriff's department plans to deploy 20 units in a pilot test, and officials in Tijuana, Mexico, recently bought 353 units, Baker said. Police in Philadelphia and San Francisco are close to launching test programs of their own, and New Orleans and Atlanta have also made inquiries.

Safety Dynamics also works with the US Army and Navy, developing systems that could detect a range of sounds such as glass shattering or diesel trucks slowing in an unexpected location.

Some US troops in Iraq already have a similar system that works differently. Designed quickly in late 2003 and early 2004 by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and BBN Technologies Inc of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a detector known as Boomerang can be mounted on the back of a moving vehicle to locate hostile gunfire.

The Safety Dynamics system deployed in Chicago, known formally as Smart Sensor Enabled Neural Threat Recognition and Identification - or SENTRI - uses four microphones to triangulate, or zero in, on the shooter.

By contrast, the Boomerang has sensors mounted atop a pole that detect shock and sound waves from a muzzle blast.

In Chicago, police hope the SENTRI system will add momentum to a technology-fuelled crackdown on guns and gang violence.

The city in 2004 reduced its homicide rate to its lowest level since 1965 and police seized 10,000 guns - successes that were in large part credited to a network of "pods," or remote-controlled cameras that can rotate 360 degrees and feed video directly to squad-car laptops.

The SENTRI systems are an addition to that network.

"They have been extremely successful," said Monique Bond, spokeswoman for the Chicago Office of Emergency Management. "We've been able to see the benefits that cameras and advanced technology bring to the community."

The American Civil Liberties Union in Illinois is concerned about privacy rights being violated by the city's prevalent camera system. Spokesman Ed Yohnka said officers need to be properly trained in monitoring the cameras and only record activity in public spaces, such as sidewalks and streets.

As long as the cameras and SENTRI system are set up in public spaces, they do not violate the law, said Northwestern University Law School professor Robert Bennett.

"You don't have much in the way of privacy issues when you're in a public area," Bennett said.

And local officials say it's hard to argue with the results.

"The crime rates in Chicago are the lowest in 40 years. The price of keeping the community safe far outweighs civil liberty issues," Bond said.

Baker stresses that SENTRI is programmed to recognise only gunshots, not record conversations or bug private homes.

"There's no mechanism for other sounds like human voices," he said.

SENTRI is the brainchild of Safety Dynamics and Dr Theodore Berger, director of the Centre for Neural Engineering at the University of Southern California.

Each SENTRI contains a library of acoustical patterns, or "sound signatures," which Berger developed over several years. They're used to differentiate gunshots from other noises, such as traffic and construction, by measuring the unique decibel level of a bullet being fired. That way, a gunshot activates the system but a car backfiring does not.

Adding SENTRI to an existing surveillance camera is not cheap, however. The system costs between $US4,000 ($A5,400) and $US10,000 ($A13,500) per unit. In Chicago, money forfeited by criminals is used to pay for both it and the accompanying cameras.

As a result, Police Superintendent Phil Cline told a recent US Conference of Mayors meeting, "the drug dealers are actually paying to surveil themselves."

This is a whole new thread really, but yes I agree with camera's.

"The crime rates in Chicago are the lowest in 40 years. The price of keeping the community safe far outweighs civil liberty issues," Bond said.


Oh that's real nice.  All police need are cameras telling them that people are legally shooting guns.

And note: I do NOT live in Atlanta (thank God.)

Oh that's real nice.  All police need are cameras telling them that people are legally shooting guns.

And note: I do NOT live in Atlanta (thank God.)


I didn't think you did. But I do assume you are from Georgia, and therefore it's pretty close to home. I'd be afraid.

Legally shooting guns? America's more screwed up that I thought if people are able to just wander around legally firing off guns whenever they please.

I didn't understand that legally shooting guns line either.

Anyway I'm all for it - although if you're into dodgy dealings I can see how you'd protest. I used to be involved with illegal recreational activities and I used to think cameras were watching me in town.

However these cameras are more for street crimes which not only involve terrorism, murder and robberies but also drunken fights - I've seen some ugly ugly ones... trust me, we need cameras with today's society... the amount of people I used to see glassed for no apparent reason is countless. If you do good as decent people should, the camera shouldn't be a problem. They're there to protect the innocent victims. Think of the policeman who has to explain to a grieving mother they don't know who brutally killed her son.

Maybe you need to live in these cities to understand where we're coming from. We can't all live in middle-American suburbs.

Security systems like these are a two-edged sword. If they saved you from being robbed or murdered, you'd think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread, but any other time you'd just think they're intrusive and spying on you. The cops installed cameras on the entertainment strip in the Sydney CBD and the crime rate dropped overnight. Same thing happened in the major heroin trade suburbs. If these things are used properly, and not misused, they're great. But the legislation controlling their use has to be strictly enforced.

Laser detecters have been around for awhile.  Radar detecters are still available, and you can buy ones that detect both radar and laser.


This is an area where I see nothing wrong myself.

When I lived in LA, Traffic Cameras are a fact of life.  And there are many intersections where they have reduced traffic accidents a lot.  And in at least 3 cases that I knowof, they helped to identify "hit and run" drivers.  Anything that helps uphold the law I feel is a good thing.  And unless you are breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.

Radar detectors are for those that speed.  Since I do not, I never saw the need to have one.  Laser detectors are a gimick that is sold to the foolish.  Unlike radar, laser does not "scatter", so when it is possible to detect, it is already to late cause they got ya.  And while they may be legal in some areas, they are illegal everywhere for drivers of big rig trucks.

While I myself have no love for "big brother", I do not see anything wrong with passive systems.  Just so long as they are not used for anything other then what they were advertised as.

As a side note, London has one of the most sophisticated systems for video surveilence.  Large areas of the city are constantly being recorded.  And those records are being used now to try and track down the people sho did the horrible bombing last week.  I will not be surprised if this is used as a key piece of evidence if/when the people who did it are caught.

Remember, this is a post 9/11 world.  The rules have been changed, so we have to change with them or perish.

Legally shooting guns? America's more screwed up that I thought if people are able to just wander around legally firing off guns whenever they please.


Depends on where you live.  If it's a rural area, like Antioch, Tennessee (where I use to live) you can shoot guns any time you want as much as you want.

Though I doubt the same is true for Chicago.

Wait, I'm confused here.  Our most die-hard Repugs are suggesting that better ways to inforce the law constitute and intrusion of "Big Government" while those more liberally minded (or less dogmatic) are saying that gov't should use all the tools at its disposal to inforce the law.  So I guess that our die-hard repugs have no problem with lax law inforcement when THEY break the law, but want it inforced to the fullest when "others" do so.  If I'm driving 65 in a 50 mile/hour zone should not the cops ticket me?  Is it their place to say that, hey, this guy is a great driver, has his car under complete control, isn't under the influence, and is just having fun running through the gears?  I wish.  But on principle I would oppose.  Law inforcement should use all the tools at its disposal to inforce the law, and should do so without regard to any extranious consideration (race, sex, nationality etc).  To quote Berreta, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Law inforcement should use all the tools at its disposal to inforce the law....

But to what point?  Should the police be able to walk into your house at any time and do a full search?  As long as you aren't doing anything illegal, you got nothing to worry about right?  It sets a bad precendent.

But to what point?  Should the police be able to walk into your house at any time and do a full search?  As long as you aren't doing anything illegal, you got nothing to worry about right?  It sets a bad precendent.


That's an astounding leap -- from surveillance on a public highway to intrusion into a person's home?  C'mon.

BWAH!   ;D  That's good.  So does a burglar alarm.  When I'm just about to break into someone's home and hear one go off, I'm reminded that I'm not supposed to do that, and I go back to the straight and narrow!    ;D

PISH-TOSH yourself!  I was just using a bit of lawyerly mumbo-jumbo!
"Speed kills" they say.  I say not necessarily.  Bad driving kills.  On the German Autobahn they have long stretches with no speed restrictions.  However, lane usage is strictly regulated.  You drive on the right and pass on the left.  If you're puttering along at 90 kph in the left lane, you'll get a huge ticket.  If you're weaving in and out of traffic, same thing.  Also, you can be fined just for making rude gestures at other motorists.  Furthermore, Germans drive when they're driving, they don't drink coffee and chat on the cell phone. 
When I'm out on the highway, fast drivers don't bother me.  If a guy wants to do 90 mph, I let him pass.  I like to see that, in fact, because it's his azz on the pan when the speed trap comes up, not mine!  The drivers that scare me are inattentive, erratic, and stupid drivers.

Robby wrote:
What if someone ran a red light and killed your child... wouldn't you want to know who was behind the wheel?
Yeah, I would.  I'd buy him a beer.  Couldn't stand the little bugger anyway!
;D

OK, OK, don't go nuts!  I don't have kids, and I'm only joking anyway, I promise!

GWB wrote
The law in Georgia is you're allowed to have them in your car, as long as they're not plugged in. 
Hey, I like that law!  If the cops pulled me over, I'd just leave the jack dangling conspicuously!

Don Carlos wrote
So I guess that our die-hard repugs have no problem with lax law inforcement when THEY break the law, but want it inforced to the fullest when "others" do so.
I've noticed this hypocrisy for ages!  Judge Janice Rogers Brown says she hates zoning laws, but I'll bet she likes them just fine in her neighborhood!  I love all these law-and-order right-wing politicians who look for any loophole they can find to get out of paying taxes!

Depends on where you live.  If it's a rural area, like Antioch, Tennessee (where I use to live) you can shoot guns any time you want as much as you want.



I'll have to try that out, next time I'm at the Hickory Hollow Mall... not.  :o  (I'm guessing it's been awhile since you lived there? :) )

Hey, it's still legal in Massachusetts....


It's never been legal in Massachusetts.  The law in Massachusetts clearly states that anything that obstructs a license plate or covers it is illegal.  My cousin got pulled over for having a replacement plate surround on her car.  Trust me, if they tried to take a picture of your plate and it didn't work, they'd be more than happy to pull you over and inspect it, fine you, etc.  It's less of an issue in Massachusetts anyways, since the law prohibits you from receiving a ticket without being pulled over by the officer.

But, I don't think that even in Antioch, TN, they'd allow you to walk down Main street shooting your 9mm.


A mainstreet in Antioch?  Not from what I remember.

Besides you can carry a gun in pretty much any state as long as it's not concealed.  I could walk down the busiet street in Atlanta during rushhour with a huge rifle in my hands and the police couldn't do anything about it, though they probably wouldn't like it.

It's less of an issue in Massachusetts anyways, since the law prohibits you from receiving a ticket without being pulled over by the officer.

Now that's a good law!

As a side note, London has one of the most sophisticated systems for video surveilence.  Large areas of the city are constantly being recorded.  And those records are being used now to try and track down the people sho did the horrible bombing last week.  I will not be surprised if this is used as a key piece of evidence if/when the people who did it are caught.

Remember, this is a post 9/11 world.  The rules have been changed, so we have to change with them or perish.


And it seems that I was right.  Some of the key evidence being used to identify the bombers is the video from the cameras that are set up throughout London.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15922384-2,00.html

There is little doubt now that these people are the ones behind it.  They boarded public transportation with backpacks loaded with explosives and detonated them, killing themselves and many other people.

So which is more important GW, catching and identifying terrorists, or being paraniod because somebody knows you drive though a red light?  And as a warning, do not buy a new GM car, they often have OnStar, which tells them everywhere you go.

But to what point?  Should the police be able to walk into your house at any time and do a full search?  As long as you aren't doing anything illegal, you got nothing to worry about right?  It sets a bad precendent.


Of course the cops should not be able to enter your home withoiut a search warrent, which must specify the point of the search and thje areass to be searched.  But that isn't the point.  Should radar by prohibited in cop cars?  My point is, if you want enforcement of the laws (and in most cases I do) the cops should be able to use whatever technology is available to them within the constraints of the Constitution.  If these applications work, they are designed to avoid detection of speeding.  So, do the states have the right to impose speed limits?  Should the police inforce them?  Should drivers be allowed to use methods to allow them to break the law and avoid detection? 

A mainstreet in Antioch?  Not from what I remember.

I don't know about a street actually named "Main St.," (I'd have to check a map)  but Antioch is hardly rural... it's the home of Starwood Ampitheatre, Hickory Hollow Mall, a zillion car lots, fast food joints, hotels etc, heavy traffic occasionally stuck in gridlock that seems to last for-freakin'-ever... especially when there's something going on at Starwood.  I wouldn't recommend walking down any street in Antioch with guns a-blazin', these days!  (Unless, of course, you're hoping to be gunned down or arrested by the local constabulary.)  The Antioch you remember was gobbled up a long, long time ago.         

I don't know about a street actually named "Main St.," (I'd have to check a map)  but Antioch is hardly rural... it's the home of Starwood Ampitheatre, Hickory Hollow Mall, a zillion car lots, fast food joints, hotels etc, heavy traffic occasionally stuck in gridlock that seems to last for-freakin'-ever... especially when there's something going on at Starwood.   I wouldn't recommend walking down any street in Antioch with guns a-blazin', these days!  (Unless, of course, you're hoping to be gunned down or arrested by the local constabulary.)  The Antioch you remember was gobbled up a long, long time ago.           


I didn't know that, it's been only...I think 22 years.  I should have known it still wouldn't be rural since Antioch is in Davidson County, the same county where Nashville is.  By the way, how did you know?  Some internet map?

The whole south is becoming surburban except for maybe south Georgia.  Makes me want to move to Wyoming.

Just rereading this thread, the irony of my "Barretta" quote on page 2 struck me.  I think Blake DID "do the crime" but clearly isn't going to "do the time".  But seriously,  Several years back I had been working late past 5, on a film I wrote, photographed, produced, and directed (no, it wasn't a porn flick), was on my way to a dinner date, thinking about the work I had done (and dessert  ;)), looked up the road to see a state trooper cresting the hill, looked at my speedometer (it read 70 in a 40 zone).  I simply hit the breaks and pulled over, and was off the road before he even turned around, and all documents in my hand by the time he approached my car.  Have you been drinking? No, I was just distracted, I explained, not paying attention to my lead foot.  No excuses, just appolgies for my stupidity.  NO TICKET, not even a written warning.  Just a "pay more attention", with a bit of a wink - he understood what I meant by "dessert".

Of course he should have stopped me, for my good as wel;l as for the safty of others.  I can only thank him for being so generous.

So which is more important GW, catching and identifying terrorists, or being paraniod because somebody knows you drive though a red light?


Well it's good to have a balance, but cataching terrorists goes above some civil liberties.

Don't you think that one of the best ways to fight terrorism would be to secure our ports, and our northern and southern borders to the best of our ability?

Well it's good to have a balance, but cataching terrorists goes above some civil liberties.

Don't you think that one of the best ways to fight terrorism would be to secure our ports, and our northern and southern borders to the best of our ability?

Perhaps you could resign from your job, get your canteen and your rifle, and go join the Minutemen on the border.  It wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it would help.
???

Don't you think that one of the best ways to fight terrorism would be to secure our ports, and our northern and southern borders to the best of our ability?


That does not always make any difference.  Look at the number of "terrorists" that have come from our own country.  Tim McVeigh, Joynny Walker-Lynn, John Muhammad, Yaser Hamdi , and others.  Keeping our borders safe does no good when potential terroists enter our contry legally, or if they are US citizens by birth.  In fact, most of the "known terrorists" entered this country legally.  So tightening the boarders will do not good at all.

All of the known suspects in the London Bombings entered the UK legally.  Some of them had been long-time residents and even citizens.  And watching the tapes that have been released by the authorities there is chilling.  They were able to blend in, so nobody had any idea what was comming.

If we suddenly start to get a flood of terrorists that are sneaking in the country, then I might start to get more worried about that.  It is the unknown ones that live among us that makes me most nervous.

That does not always make any difference.  Look at the number of "terrorists" that have come from our own country.  Tim McVeigh, Joynny Walker-Lynn, John Muhammad, Yaser Hamdi , and others.  Keeping our borders safe does no good when potential terroists enter our contry legally, or if they are US citizens by birth.  In fact, most of the "known terrorists" entered this country legally.  So tightening the boarders will do not good at all.

All of the known suspects in the London Bombings entered the UK legally.  Some of them had been long-time residents and even citizens.  And watching the tapes that have been released by the authorities there is chilling.  They were able to blend in, so nobody had any idea what was comming.

If we suddenly start to get a flood of terrorists that are sneaking in the country, then I might start to get more worried about that.  It is the unknown ones that live among us that makes me most nervous.


I must agree.  We can argue about the economics of illegal peasants sneeking over the boarder for a better life, but they aren't "terrorists" by any definition that makes any sense, just poor folk.  Protecting the ports does make sense (but hasn't been done), but that's a different story.

Perhaps you could resign from your job, get your canteen and your rifle, and go join the Minutemen on the border.  It wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it would help.
???


Shows what you know.  The minutemen project leadership bans the use of rifles and shotguns, they're only allowed to carry handguns.

I must agree.  We can argue about the economics of illegal peasants sneeking over the boarder for a better life, but they aren't "terrorists" by any definition that makes any sense, just poor folk.  Protecting the ports does make sense (but hasn't been done), but that's a different story.

We can agree on the ports, that's good.

But there is no way of knowing just who is crossing, especially with an under funded and an under staffed border patrol.  I know some immigration is good for the economy, and I know we can't possibly secure the borders so that everyone attempting to cross illegally gets caught.  But it should be secure to the best of our ability, allow for more legal immigration, and deport those in illegally (no amnesty.)  That's just my opinion, it will never pass the U.S. senate even though it could pass the house of representatives.

Shows what you know.  The minutemen project leadership bans the use of rifles and shotguns, they're only allowed to carry handguns.


::)

Shows what you know.  The minutemen project leadership bans the use of rifles and shotguns, they're only allowed to carry handguns.

We can agree on the ports, that's good.

But there is no way of knowing just who is crossing, especially with an under funder and an under staffed border patrol.  I know some immigration is good for the economy, and I know we can't possibly secure the borders so that everyone attempting to cross illegally gets caught.  But it should be secure to the best of our ability, allow for more legal immigration, and deport those in illegally (no amnesty.)  That's just my opinion, it will never pass the U.S. senate even though it could pass the house of representatives.


Allow more legal immigration?  That's a shock.  We may have something else to agree on.  You gave me (at least) the impression that you opposed most immigration, especially of the poor.  I guess I was mistaken.

::)


::)

::)



::)


Oh for St Peter's sake, cur it out you two.  I know tempers get hot (especially with the temperatures we are having in Vermont) but can't we try to be civil?

Allow more legal immigration?  That's a shock.  We may have something else to agree on.  You gave me (at least) the impression that you opposed most immigration, especially of the poor.  I guess I was mistaken.


I myself favor immigration, as long as it is legal.

I think one of the greatest things about the "American Character" is that we do not all come from one country.  As the saying goes, we are the "Great American Melting Pot".  We take the best from cultures all over the world, and combine it to make something uniquely our own.  Where else could you have had something as great as Jazz or Blues develop?  Take a little of those 2, and mix them up and you get Rock.

Then again, mix them up a little more and you get Disco, so maybe that is not entirely a good thing.  ::)

I have never understood those that try to claim "America for Americans".  To me, anybody that wants to persue the dream and move here can be an "American".  And a great number of our ancestors left behind everything they knew and loved to move here, in persuit of a dream.  Others who came here unwilling were also able to join in the persuit of this dream.

My ex-wife is an immigrant herself.  It is the tens of thousands like her that help keep our country "fresh".  Unlike some countries which I will not name, we embrace change.  We take in new words and adopt them into our language.  Without the Hispanic influence, we would not have Rodeo, Canyon, Bonanza, or Tornado.  German gave us more great words, like Clown, Brake, Nickel, and Stroll.  Even the Basque gave us words like Bizare and Jingo.

We even picked up words from Asia.  Tycoon and Honcho (Japan), Gung Ho and Typhoon (China), Bangle and Jungle (India), Bazaar, Caravan, Khaki, Kiosk, Ounce, Shawl, and Tiara (Farsi).  There is still a lot of the Native American words still around, like Caribou, Raccoon, and Caucus from the Algonquins; Chipmunk, Moose, and Quebec form the Cree; Cigar and Shark from the Mayan; even Chicago from one of my ancestors, the Potawatomi (a word that ironically meant "Skunk").

Even our fast food shows this influence.  You can drive down the street and get Fried Chicken, Hamburgers, Hot Dogs, Tacos, Fish & Chips, Sushi, even Shish-Ka-Bob.  I doubt that there is any place in the world that has embraced such things as much as we have here.

Melting pot or salad bowl, I think the diversity of our culture is great.  And all those wonderful foods - have you ever had Afgani cuisine? Fantastic.  I agree that immigration should be legal, AND, our laws should encourage it.

If they can't read your license number, then how can they catch you? ::)