How do you determine who is illegal?

[Into the Night]

Commercial air travel is not considered an absolute right in the USA.

Air travel is a right.

Here's why:

• Legal Framework: The right to travel, as recognized by U.S. courts, does not extend to a specific mode of transportation like air travel. According to judicial precedents, while there is a constitutional right to travel, this does not guarantee access to any particular form of transportation such as commercial airlines. For instance, in the case of Gilmore v. Ashcroft the court clarified that the Constitution does not guarantee travel by any particular form of transportation.

Rights don't come from a constitution or a court. No US court has ANY authority to change the Constitution. You are ignoring the 9th amendment as well.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other regulatory bodies have the authority to impose various restrictions and requirements on air travel for reasons including safety, security, and operational efficiency.

No, they don't. The FAA MUST issue a pilot's license to anyone that can show the ability to safely pilot an aircraft, and the FAA has NO RIGHT to prevent a passenger from travelling by air.

These regulations can affect who can fly, under what conditions, and how airlines operate. The "No Fly List" maintained by the U.S. government is one example where individuals can be barred from flying for security reasons, further illustrating that air travel is not an absolute right.

The "No Fly List" is unconstitutional. Traveling by air is a right.

Historically, air travel was a luxury and later became regulated under frameworks like the Civil Aeronautics Board until deregulation in 1978, which shifted the paradigm to market-driven operations but did not establish air travel as an absolute right. The evolution of air travel rights has been more about consumer protections (like compensation for overbooking) rather than establishing an absolute right to fly.

Irrelevant. Overbooking and similar fraud has nothing to do with the right to fly. Whether a mode of travel is a 'luxury' is also irrelevant.

In summary, while air travel is accessible to many in the U.S., it is regulated, and access can be restricted based on numerous factors, thereby not qualifying as an absolute right.

It is a right. The FAA has NO AUTHORITY to designate who can travel, when they can travel, or whether they can travel.

 

[Into the Night]

I said that?

Yes, Pretender. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

 

[Into the Night]

Or simply because they do not speak English.

Ignorance of our legal system astounds me.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

Thank you
For admitting that you may not be doing your job...

It's not his job. He's not a lawyer. He's a pretender.

 

[Jarod]

But u trust everyone 100% that u have testify


Should Banks trust everyone that are trying to cash a check are who they say they are?


Did u hire a secretary etc?

Why do you say I trust everyone 100% that I have testify?

I have a paralegal.

 

[volsrocks]

I have a paralegal.

Did u get ID and verify when u hired? As required by law

 

[Jarod]

Did u get her ID and verify when u hired?

No, but I filed some paperwork with an I9, so maybe, I do not remember.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sovereign Citizen morons notwithstanding. If I'm standing on the side of the road and some cop doesn't like the look of me and demands identification they do not have a right to just arrest me when I refuse. The police have lost a large number of lawsuits about this.

That's true. They have to have some probable cause first. I've been saying that all along. Not having a Real ID after being stopped for some other, legitimate probable cause would be a reason to suspect they might not be in the country legally. That could result in the officer asking for additional identification like a passport or alternate form of Real ID like a military ID or similar. A Native American might use a tribal issued ID for that purpose, for example.

Someone driving, they need to give a driver's license if they are pulled over by an officer for cause, and many (if not all) states issue licenses to folks that are illegal. They do not have to answer any questions, if the officer arrests them because he simply doesn't like that they do not speak English and/or refuses to answer questions they will lose in court, have consistently lost in court, and most officers go through some training nowadays to learn how to deal with folks that do 1st and 4th amendment "Audits".

And, if the driver's license is not a Real ID, but a state issued one without the Real ID features, then there is probable cause for the officer to further question the person about their legal presence / immigration status. That has zero to do with their ethnicity or whatever, but rather their lack of an ID that verifies their status as a legal citizen in the US. For someone legally in the US, they could produce their green card, a foreign passport with a visa stamp, a US issued day travel pass like many Mexicans use to come to the US for the day to shop in border cities, that sort of thing. They'd then be fine and on their way.
If they refuse to cooperate and answer any questions at that point, having been stopped for a traffic offense, the officer has the right to detain them on probable cause. But you would need Real ID in effect to do this. Right now, that's not the case. That's why Trump should implement Real ID. You've had over a decade to get one, and if you haven't that's on you.

 

[volsrocks]

No, but I filed some paperwork with an I9, so maybe, I do not remember.

I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification​

On the form, an employee must attest to their employment authorization. The employee must also present their employer with acceptable documents as evidence of identity and employment authorization. The employer must examine these documents to determine whether they reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the employee, then record the document information on the employee’s Form I-9.



So your employee had to prove their identity ..show you their papers

Thanks for playing...u stupid fuck!

 

[Lionfish]

I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification​

On the form, an employee must attest to their employment authorization. The employee must also present their employer with acceptable documents as evidence of identity and employment authorization. The employer must examine these documents to determine whether they reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the employee, then record the document information on the employee’s Form I-9.



So your employee had to prove their identity ..show you their papers

Stop preaching law to a receptionist at a phone bank. You are wasting your time unless you need an auto warranty renewal.

 

[TOP]

It's not his job. He's not a lawyer. He's a pretender.

I always trusted that he was.He said he had his own firm but i'm beginning to doubt that... If he "practices" what he preaches there is no way he could be in actual practice...

 

[Jarod]

But u trust everyone 100% that u have testify


Should Banks trust everyone that are trying to cash a check are who they say they are?


Did u hire a secretary etc?

I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification​

On the form, an employee must attest to their employment authorization. The employee must also present their employer with acceptable documents as evidence of identity and employment authorization. The employer must examine these documents to determine whether they reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the employee, then record the document information on the employee’s Form I-9.



So your employee had to prove their identity ..show you their papers

Thanks for playing...u stupid fuck!

I never said nobody ever had to prove identity, dumb fuck.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Under what grounds do you ask someone?
Are we going to use profiling?
How do you determine someone entered illegally?
How do you prove where someone was born if they will not even tell you their name?

Why do you support illegals in your country?

 

[volsrocks]

I never said nobody ever had to prove identity, dumb fuck.

Under what grounds did you ask the employee for this information?


How did you determine this person was illegally able to work for you?

 

[Jarod]

Under what grounds did you ask the employee for this information?


How did you determine this person was illegally able to work for you?

I assume I asked for his DL to provide the information. He voluntarily gave it to me.

 

[Jarod]

Why do you support illegals in your country?

why do you ASS-UME I do?

 

[volsrocks]

I assume I asked for his DL to provide the information. He voluntarily gave it to me.

Under what grounds did you ask for his DL?

 

[Phantasmal]

Why do you support illegals in your country?

I support asylum seekers, they come, we determine if they qualify, if not we deport them. Do you know Biden administration has surpassed Trump in deportations?

 

[TOP]

I assume I asked for his DL to provide the information. He voluntarily gave it to me.

You hired
Someoned simply because he handed you a driver's license?

 

[TOP]

Asylum seekers will have paperwork.... And identification... And if they're properly following the procedure for remaining in the country that they shouldn't be worried about giving identification when asked...