I inquired about this when someone on Gather cited a reference that Montana was listed as a Sanctuary State for Illegals. The following is a letter from one of our State's elected members of the House of Representitives. I suspect whoever listed Montana as a Sanctuary State was WRONG.
Dear George:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about "sanctuary cities" and our nation's immigration policy. Your suggestions and opinions are important as we consider how to address the complex issues of immigration policy.
Throughout last spring's immigration debate, I voted to increase enforcement-focused measures because the bill did not focus enough on beefing up border protection or employer-based enforcement. During the debate, I voted for a measure to empower local and state law enforcement officials to inquire about the immigration status of a person they encountered in the course of their work keeping our cities and towns safe. The law would have required the officer to have probable cause to believe that the individual is not lawfully present in the United States. The channels of information between federal, state, and local branches of law enforcement would have been opened up and this law would have nullified the protections granted by "sancturary cities".
The immigration bill before the Senate in 2007 also included references to REAL ID. As you know, the Montana Legislature overwhelmingly voted against implementation of the REAL ID Act. The REAL ID Act would put a financial burden on the states without offering any real security gains and it would threaten our individual privacy rights. I am proud, along with Senator Baucus, to have introduced a successful amendment to strike all the REAL ID requirements put forth in the immigration bill.
While that phase of the immigration debate has come to a close, the issue is far from resolved. Your input is a critical part of making sure that the laws we pass in the Senate reflect Montana priorities. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Jon Tester
United States Senator
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 73
Montana rebelled when the Patriot Act was passed and informed the administration that they were not going to honor any part of it. They also rejected Real ID. That is how they got on the Sancturary State list.
Montana is listed as a sanctuary state because Montana would not enact Real ID which was sold to the nation as a hedge against illegals. It actually is a blatant attempt to keep track of and control the movements of every person in the country. Montana rejected it.
Nothing out of context, George. I simply quoted the part relevant to the subject of immigration law enforcement. And I provided a link to your article so anybody who wanted to could read the entire thing.
"It actually is a blatant attempt to keep track of and control the movements of every person in the country. Montana rejected it. "
But if the government could keep track and control the movements of every person in the country, wouldn't that help them track and control the movements of any illegal immigrants who were in the country? I thought that's the kind of thing you'd really go for. I mean, why not throw away a few of your own rights if it means sticking it to those illegal immigrants, right?
And by the way, Senate Joint Resolution No. 19 doesn't say anything about Real ID. That's a different law, which was passed just last year.
Throwing away some of your rights for a greater good is nothing unusual. We have to wait at red lights, observe speed limits, not blast excessively loud radios, or go around
taking things from people we don't like, etc. etc. So, Real ID sounds OK to me, as well as the national ID database the FBI is compliling (they were last I heard).
As for Montana being a sanctuary state, it's hard to believe a city could openly operate
in violation of fedeeral law, let alone a whole state. It's equally hard to believe that the people of Montana would tolerate such an abomination in their state, and if this was slipped in somehow behind their backs, I'd reckon that they'll be quick to dump that ludicrous idea ASAP.
There is a devise already on the market to read them and anyone can get one for a price.
Any crook can learn all about a person in nothing flat. think ID theft. Giving up important freedom only makes one less free. It solves nothing.
What rights are we throwing away when we do those things, Robert?
"As for Montana being a sanctuary state, it's hard to believe a city could openly operate in violation of fedeeral law, let alone a whole state."
Maybe the people of Montana aren't as law-abiding as people in Florida. But wait, there are quite a few sanctuary cities in Florida, aren't there? And what about the people living in open adultery and having sex outside of marriage, both of which are in violation of Florida state law?
How can you live in the state of Florida, tolerating such "abominations"? You haven't whipped out your 9MM semi-automatic and shot somebody in the chest, or drawn and quartered anybody on TV, to put a stop to such illegal activities, Robert?
What rights are you willing to throw away to help the police in Florida make sure that nobody's screwing somebody they aren't married to?
Wilbur...have you screwed somebody in Florida who you weren't married to? Considering your picture, I find it unlikely that even the lowliest of creatures would spread his or her legs for you.
Perhaps I'm missing something here. Colonel...is this article about 9 mm pistols? Is it about drawning and quartering people on TV? If so, then perhaps I;m missing something or Wil is trying to derail the conversation.
Colonel....is this article about adultery? Or sex outside of marriage? Or is Wil living in some sort of fantasy world where chicks, both married and unmarried, are flocking all over him and he hopes that he doesn't get caught?
Be careful there Colonel. Wil has probably watched ' Deliverance ' and he might say..." Colonel, you look mighty cute in them jeans. Won't you bend over and let me..."well let's just leave the rest to Wilbur's imagination.
Probably a good idea Colonel since Wilbur appears to have some sort of unhealthy sexual fetish.
Colonel, maybe we can come up with enough to assist Wilbur with his bi-poloar disoirder
Question 1. No, none that I know of. Certainly not "quite a few".
Question 2. What about them ? Maybe the women are taking a big chance. Without a legal document to protect them, what's their recourse if "boyfriend boy" decides to split ? What are her chances then for child support or alimony ? Any at all ? You're a member of the ACLU. You often mention legal facts. What's a knocked-up woman's recourse for a
disinterested daddy ? Got any ideas ?
No? Most lists I've seen include Miami, Deltona, DeLeon Springs, and sometimes Sanford, although apparently there's some disagreement over whether Sanford is a sanctuary city or not.
"What's a knocked-up woman's recourse for a disinterested daddy ? Got any ideas ?"
Plenty of ideas. For starters, I'd advise women ("knocked up" or not) to avoid having any sort of relationship (sexual or otherwise) with gutless cowards, including those who won't refuse to accept their responsibilities as fathers, and also xenophobic, paranoid bigots who are pissed off and miserable, and want people to suffer and die because of it. If the "disinterested daddy" is that type of guy, it's probably best for the child if they never even meet him, and best for the woman if she never sees that particular "boyfriend boy" again. I think there's a fair chance that guys like that, who are so pissed off and miserable, and so full of hate and fear, are likely to be abusive towards women, children, and anybody else they think they can dominate and control.
But while I recognize that many women are perfectly capable of financially supporting a child without any need for any help from a "disinterested daddy", I know that for many others, being a single mother is extremely difficult in many ways, including financially. According to the Florida Dept. of Revenue, paternity can be established by voluntarily signing an affidavit, or by court order (which may include genetic testing).
And just to clarify, the question about sanctuary cities in Florida wasn't "Question 1". I asked another question before that, as well as several others after the one you've called "Question 2", in the same comment. Maybe you missed them. :)
Colonel...correct me if I'm wrong, but it siundsw like Wilbur thinks that you, Robert and myself are pissed off xenophobic, parnaoid bigots and he is going to make sure that we don't get laid...am I correct?
And after the genetic testing concludes that someone is a father to a child of unwed parents, what then ? Does this mean that proven father is now legally liable to provide for the child, or that simply he is the biological father (with no financial obligations) ?
How did all of this ranting and ragging get into a discussion about the legal rights of unwed mothers ? All this stuff is misplaced, and shows a considerable degree of hate, anger, and misery on the part of the writer of it.
You think? Because you're the one who brought the legal rights of unwed mothers into this discussion, Robert. I didn't think that was due to a considerable degree of hate, anger and misery on your part, but if you say it is, I won't argue.
Putting words in my mouth. Oh let's see that's number, Oh, 874th time ? or so ?
Who cares ? As you know very well, "the writer" I was referring to was you, and yes, you sound angry, miserable and hateful toward me and others in Gather.
As for who brought up the subject of unwed mothers, that came from your introduction of the idea of > "And what about the people living in open adultery and having sex outside of marriage" (your words not mine). I just took it and elaborated on it a little - the important part.
For my part, I'd rather stick to the topic of sanctuary for illegal aliens, and when that whole insane, illegal practice will be ended.
Right. You're the one who brought up unwed mothers. I brought up laws against adultery and sex outside of marriage. I did not bring up the subject of unwed mothers, so I can't imagine why you would've been referring to me and not yourself when you said that "the writer" was angry. miserable, and hateful.
"For my part, I'd rather stick to the topic of sanctuary for illegal aliens, and when that whole insane, illegal practice will be ended."
But that's not the topic of the discussion, Robert. The topic is whether the state of Montana is a sanctuary state or not. We were discussing a specific law in Montana until you made your comment about throwing away our rights by stopping at traffic lights and other such things. Which reminded me of those ridiculous laws in Florida. And so here we are.
Colonel, do you actually expect Wilbur to understand that.? After all, he seems to be so indulged in his foreign language classes that he has forgotten his native language.
I understand what George said just fine, Tim. I just don't believe him. And the reason I don't believe him is because, as I pointed out earlier, Senate Joint Resolution No. 19 doesn't say anything about Real ID, and has nothing to do with Real ID.
The answer to that is my Aug. 13, 11:22am post, especially the quote of your words in it. Sometimes entire comments need to be repeated.
you can also find plenty more in all those personal attack comments of yours, that I deleted out from my articles, which you said you republished somewhere, if you can find it.
I stand behind every word I said in the comment that you quoted. I fail to see how advising women not to get involved with pissed off, miserable, xenophobic, paranoid bigots is an indication that I'm angry, miserable, or filled with hate.
I have no trouble finding the article containing all the comments you removed, Robert. It's called, appropriately enough, Comments Removed by Robert F. Protectionist. Have you read it?
http://www.theterryandersonshow.com/MISC/SanctuaryCities080726.htm
1. Alaska
2. Oregon
3. Maine
http://sanctuarycities.info/
Here is the article that explains Tester's stand.
http://tester.senate.gov/Newsroom/04032008_indrecord_security.cfm
I know this will not make Wil happy, but in all fairness, what ever does?
Dan..I heard that Wil was happy when his family gave him one of those Jitterbug cellphones for XMAS.
According to this article at ConsumerAffairs.com, the number of states is up to 33. Including Montana. But none of that has to do with Montana's Joint Resolution No. 19, or whether or not it's considered a "sanctuary state."
As for the resistance to the Real ID scheme, I'm all for it. Real ID is a REAL bad idea.
No, because when I went to a list of your posts, it wasn't there.
You asked for a link in another discussion thread, and I provided it.
THere is nothing that shows it will actually help, and may be even easier to forge than current IDs.
It is a bad idea, that should not have passed.
"THere is nothing that shows it will actually help, and may be even easier to forge than current IDs."
Colonel and Dan,
I can't help getting the feeling that you all are more interested in
keeping spending (and therefore taxes) down, rather than if Real ID is the right thing.
If Real ID or the total US ID database the FBI has been compiling isn't right, then something does need to be enacted with biometric (fingerprints, eye iris scan, voice, etc)
capability to make ID positive, and stamp out document fraud. Social Security cards and driver's licenses don't cut it. They are both used fraudulently right now. Some government ID cards are even being sold in our local flea markets here for $10.
IRCA is the answer to mass deportsation and THE solution to illegal immigration. It will never happen though, as long as employers have the "knowingly" excuse. That's the
loophole that needs to be closed. If it's expensive, then raise taxes on the super rich.
We can survive a few less 300 ft. yachts, private jets, and multimillion dollar jewelry
collections, in order to preserve the nation that hundreds of thousands of US military folks
gave up their lives for in World War II, to prevent the things that are happening now (foreign invasion, occupation, extraction of billion$ from our economy & treasuries, and imposition of foreign languages and culture upon us).
Real ID would be great for tracking down illegals but what more will it be used to do? I can and would be used on everyone. Identity thieves will be able to get all of your account infomation and your ss card number. It would be a great boon to them. There is in existance a device to read a cc from a distance on the market right now. That and the government. I like being able to do as I please without getting permission from Unk. Sam. and that is just what this thing could lead to. It represents another freedom lost. How many do we loose before we say Enough?
Colonel, problem is that the open borders/ pro-amnesty advocates don't want those laws to be enforced..and they plead ignorance on the behalf of the illegals who are arrested and deported/imprisoned for violating Federal Law.
Stop and think about it, it all fits in with the North American Union (NAU) and sets their full service card in place ahead of time so we would all be used to it.
Think ' Terrorist Watch List '
So Wilbur, do you favor or prefer the links that you provided over the links that I provided, or don't you? Or do you or not? Or do you or don't you? Which way is it, or isn't it? Or is it or isn't in your favor or not? Or does it matter either way? Or doesn't it matter either way or does it or doesn't it?
Your links were to sites that listed "Sanctuary States" and "Sanctuary Cities". The link in the comment you quoted was to an article that discussed states that have enacted, or are planning to enact, legislation blocking the adoption of Real ID in their states.
You understand that those are two different things, don't you, Tim?
This is something I would have expected from the Liberal Dems not the Conservative Republicans.
This is why we need a new party, and get away from the Lefties and Rights, and just work on what America Needs.