Melissa Morrison for State House District 19

[rockysmom]

Hmmmm.

Break into my home and you stand a good chance of getting shot.

Break into my country and you stand a good chance of getting WIC and support from ... well people who I guess think breaking the law is ok.

Ever try buying land in Mexico, a US citizen can't buy land there.

They can get a long term lease but they can't buy it.

Not entirely true. See attached.

http://www.mexico501.com/buying-land-in-mexico-as-a-foreigner/52/

[Foxmeister]

Sorry, but a drivers license is not proof of citizenship. That is pretty common knowledge that a drivers license is not proof.

 

5 or 7. Come on. The point that is being made is that there is a problem with the law.

 

Probable cause. DWH. Driving While looking Hispanic. "You were weaving. Lemme see your papers."

 

The problem isn't really with the law; it's with those who really fail to understand what it says. A good example is yourself. The law doesn't say a driver's license is proof of citizenship. What it does say is this:

 

A person shall be presumed to not be an illegal alien if the person provides to the law enforcement officer:

(1) A secure and verifiable document as defined in Code Section 50-36-2;

(2) A valid Georgia driver's license;

(3) A valid Georgia identification card issued by the Department of Driver Services; or

(4) If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid driver's license from a state or district of the United States or any valid identification document issued by the United States federal government.

Sheesh and you complain about people not paying attention.

[Cabe]

Illegals are not eligible for WIC or other welfare programs. Children born here are American citizens and they are entitled to assistance but not the illegal aliens themselves.

 

And if that's a newborn baby, who gets the benefit? That baby can't go buy formula.

[zoocrew]

The problem isn't really with the law; it's with those who really fail to understand what it says. A good example is yourself. The law doesn't say a driver's license is proof of citizenship. What it does say is this:

 

 

Sheesh and you complain about people not paying attention.

 

That's not what I said.

 

Let me help you because you obviously have such a difficult time with reading comprehension.

 

TNIamb said: A drivers license is proof of citizenship.

To which I replied: Sorry, but a drivers license is not proof of citizenship. That is pretty common knowledge that a drivers license is not proof.

Then you replied: The problem isn't really with the law; it's with those who really fail to understand what it says. A good example is yourself. The law doesn't say a driver's license is proof of citizenship. What it does say is this:

Please try to keep up.

 

And if that's a newborn baby, who gets the benefit? That baby can't go buy formula.

 

And if it is a newborn, that child is an American citizen. That baby was born here.

 

Only citizens get the benefit. Or is it that you had rather an American child starve?

[Foxmeister]

That's not what I said.

 

Let me help you because you obviously have such a difficult time with reading comprehension.

 

TNIamb said: A drivers license is proof of citizenship.

To which I replied: Sorry, but a drivers license is not proof of citizenship. That is pretty common knowledge that a drivers license is not proof.

Then you replied: The problem isn't really with the law; it's with those who really fail to understand what it says. A good example is yourself. The law doesn't say a driver's license is proof of citizenship. What it does say is this:

Please try to keep up.

 

 

 

And if it is a newborn, that child is an American citizen. That baby was born here.

 

Only citizens get the benefit. Or is it that you had rather an American child starve?

 

 

However, he did include a section of the actual law, which you did read, but chose to ignore the facts it contained about the GA driver's license. The issue isn't citizenship, but lawful residence and entry into the country, which the GA driver's license would show as an illegal immigrant would not be permitted to obtain a GA driver's license. Once again, I stand by my comment there is nothing wrong with the law; only those who fail to understand it. Keep up.

 

 

[zoocrew]

However, he did include a section of the actual law, which you did read, but chose to ignore the facts it contained about the GA driver's license. The issue isn't citizenship, but lawful residence and entrust into the country, which the GA driver's license would show as an illegal immigrant would not be permitted to obtain a GA driver's license. Once again, I stand by my comment there is nothing wrong with the law; only those who fail to understand it. Keep up.

Let's try this again. My comment is about the drivers license. You don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license. The point I made is answering the false statement that a drivers license it's proof of citizenship. It is not proof of citizenship. Please read what is said and not add, modify, assume, take from, or otherwise make up something that I didn't say. Please keep up and follow the line of discussion.

Edited June 20, 2012 by zoocrew

[DallasRed]

And if that's a newborn baby, who gets the benefit? That baby can't go buy formula.

 

 

Deny WIC and I bet she starts breastfeeding real QUICK!!!!!

[ThornwoodMom]

Sorry, but a drivers license is not proof of citizenship. That is pretty common knowledge that a drivers license is not proof.

 

5 or 7. Come on. The point that is being made is that there is a problem with the law.

 

Probable cause. DWH. Driving While looking Hispanic. "You were weaving. Lemme see your papers."

I only meant in the context of HB87. It was stated by Ms. Morrison, that a driver's license was not sufficient to prove citizenship under the provisions of HB87, when the bill clearly states that is not true.

ETA: Next time I will try to be more clear so that people who join the conversation in the middle of a post on page 5 will know what I'm talking about.

Edited June 20, 2012 by TNlamb

[zoocrew]

And that is the point Ms Morrison was making. The drivers license is not proof of citizenship meaning there are problems with the law as it is.

[+North of the Border]

d

Edited June 20, 2012 by Palm Trees Rock

[ThornwoodMom]

And that is the point Ms Morrison was making. The drivers license is not proof of citizenship meaning there are problems with the law as it is.

Considering how obviously mistaken she is about the entire content of the law, I don't think that was the point she was making at all. In fact, a driver's license is proof enough if the law says it is proof enough.

But I'm not here to debate that with you. I am trying to determine who I'm going to vote for. As of now, I have only concluded who I'm NOT going to vote for.

[Wineguy]

Am I the only person that felt that the questions were directly aimed to help Paulette out and give her an upper hand over the two non criminals in the race?

 

In what way does Zero base Budgeting have any major impact on the local people and government compared to what we would really like to focus on. And as for the second question about small business regulations, those are almost all Federally mandated or come from agencies such as OSHA, very little is impacted by the State House.

 

Paulette served on the Zero Based Budgeting Committee so mores than anyone, this put the ball directly in her court.

 

None of the questions for the D19 were anything that would directly impact 99% of the constituents of the area.

 

Something seems very fishy about how Paulette already had the response to all three questions written down before the debate even started and all of the questions were subjects she would consider her strengths.

[zoocrew]

Considering how obviously mistaken she is about the entire content of the law, I don't think that was the point she was making at all. In fact, a driver's license is proof enough if the law says it is proof enough.

But I'm not here to debate that with you. I am trying to determine who I'm going to vote for. As of now, I have only concluded who I'm NOT going to vote for.

 

I really think this is going right over your head. I'll just back out. You win.

Edited June 21, 2012 by zoocrew

[ThornwoodMom]

I really think this is going right over your head. I'll just back out. You win.

Oh? It's going over MY head? We have a candidate who can't or won't even read the proposed law as it is written but makes ridiculously false claims about it and you think it's going over my head...laughable.

[feelip]

Am I the only person that felt that the questions were directly aimed to help Paulette out and give her an upper hand over the two non criminals in the race?

 

In what way does Zero base Budgeting have any major impact on the local people and government compared to what we would really like to focus on. And as for the second question about small business regulations, those are almost all Federally mandated or come from agencies such as OSHA, very little is impacted by the State House.

 

Paulette served on the Zero Based Budgeting Committee so mores than anyone, this put the ball directly in her court.

 

None of the questions for the D19 were anything that would directly impact 99% of the constituents of the area.

 

Something seems very fishy about how Paulette already had the response to all three questions written down before the debate even started and all of the questions were subjects she would consider her strengths.

 

Hell, I'm impressed! I had no idea she could read.

[zoocrew]

Oh? It's going over MY head? We have a candidate who can't or won't even read the proposed law as it is written but makes ridiculously false claims about it and you think it's going over my head...laughable.

 

Yep. Right over your head. You missed the inconsistency. A drivers license can be granted to an illegal, but it is accepted as proof of citizenship? Yet, if Juan with an accent is suspected of being illegal, he can be asked to produce papers. If Bubba from Buchanan is accosted for any reason, will the police ask him to produce proof of citizenship? That was the point Ms Morrison made and you didn't even get it.

Edited June 21, 2012 by zoocrew

[glassdogs]

Yep. Right over your head. You missed the inconsistency. A drivers license can be granted to an illegal, but it is accepted as proof of citizenship? Yet, if Juan with an accent is suspected of being illegal, he can be asked to produce papers. If Bubba from Buchanan is accosted for any reason, will the police ask him to produce proof of citizenship? That was the point Ms Morrison made and you didn't even get it.

 

Really? You want to back that up with some facts? Please show me where illegals can get a drivers license. Please.

 

 

The requirements for immigrants to be granted a Georgia driver's license are:

 

• Valid (not expired) foreign passport with I-94 card or stamp or I-551 stamp
• Permanent resident alien card (I-551)
• Employment Authorization Card (I-766)
• Reentry Permit (I-327)
• For Refugees/Asylums: I-94 only (no passport required), or Refugee Travel Document (I-571)
• For F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2 status:
  I-94 with valid foreign passport
  AND
  I-20 (F-1/F-2) or DS-2019 (J-1/J-2)
• For customers from Visa I-94 waiver countries: Valid foreign passport with Visa I-94 Waiver stamp

Being an immigrant and therefore eligible for a GA DL is an entirely different status than being an illegal.

 

Surely even you can comprehend that? Or is it over your head?

[ThornwoodMom]

Yep. Right over your head. You missed the inconsistency. A drivers license can be granted to an illegal, but it is accepted as proof of citizenship? Yet, if Juan with an accent is suspected of being illegal, he can be asked to produce papers. If Bubba from Buchanan is accosted for any reason, will the police ask him to produce proof of citizenship? That was the point Ms Morrison made and you didn't even get it.

She was NOT making that point, read the rest of her post. And read the proposed law. If Juan, or Bubba, are pulled over for probable cause, and produces a valid driver's license, they are good to go, no further "papers" needed. Yes, there are a few problems nationwide with driver's licenses being fraudulent, but I see nothing unconstitutional in this law. What about the rest of Ms. Morrison's post, and what about the neighbors cousin causing you to get a felony charge? All BS. Care to use your extensive intellect to explain to me what she "actually" meant on that? Since you seem to be so intuitive about what she "meant" instead of what she posted.

And what does "Bubba being accosted" have to do with anything?

I don't appreciate your condescending attitude.

[zoocrew]

Really? You want to back that up with some facts? Please show me where illegals can get a drivers license. Please.

 

 

The requirements for immigrants to be granted a Georgia driver's license are:

 

• Valid (not expired) foreign passport with I-94 card or stamp or I-551 stamp
• Permanent resident alien card (I-551)
• Employment Authorization Card (I-766)
• Reentry Permit (I-327)
• For Refugees/Asylums: I-94 only (no passport required), or Refugee Travel Document (I-571)
• For F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2 status:
  I-94 with valid foreign passport
  AND
  I-20 (F-1/F-2) or DS-2019 (J-1/J-2)
• For customers from Visa I-94 waiver countries: Valid foreign passport with Visa I-94 Waiver stamp

Being an immigrant and therefore eligible for a GA DL is an entirely different status than being an illegal.

 

Surely even you can comprehend that? Or is it over your head?

 

"Illegal" as in the sense of non-citizen. One doesn't have to be a citizen to get a license but a license somehow lets everyone off the hook as being a citizen?

[zoocrew]

She was NOT making that point, read the rest of her post. And read the proposed law. If Juan, or Bubba, are pulled over for probable cause, and produces a valid driver's license, they are good to go, no further "papers" needed. Yes, there are a few problems nationwide with driver's licenses being fraudulent, but I see nothing unconstitutional in this law. What about the rest of Ms. Morrison's post, and what about the neighbors cousin causing you to get a felony charge? All BS. Care to use your extensive intellect to explain to me what she "actually" meant on that? Since you seem to be so intuitive about what she "meant" instead of what she posted.

And what does "Bubba being accosted" have to do with anything?

I don't appreciate your condescending attitude.

 

 

 

And that was the point she was making and you missed it entirely. You're missing it even more here. If you don't get that, there is no way there can be any meaningful dialogue.

 

You really need to read up on the court rulings thus far on all this. Really. You're waaaaay off base.

 

Granted the activist right wingers on the Supreme Court will most likely let it stand, but the lower courts have all said you're wrong on this.

Edited June 21, 2012 by zoocrew

[glassdogs]

"Illegal" as in the sense of non-citizen. One doesn't have to be a citizen to get a license but a license somehow lets everyone off the hook as being a citizen?

 

You REALLY ARE OBTUSE.

[ThornwoodMom]

"Illegal" as in the sense of non-citizen. One doesn't have to be a citizen to get a license but a license somehow lets everyone off the hook as being a citizen?

Nope. Only lets you off the hook as pertains to this law. There are other laws pertaining to fraudulently getting a driver's license.

[zoocrew]

Nope. Only lets you off the hook as pertains to this law. There are other laws pertaining to fraudulently getting a driver's license.

 

Point.

 

You.

 

Missed it again.

 

You REALLY ARE OBTUSE.

 

Do you not agree that non-citizens can have drivers licenses?

 

Do you not agree that the law says a drivers license is "good enough" to show citizenship?

 

Now tell me how that makes ANY sense at all?

[ThornwoodMom]

And that was the point she was making and you missed it entirely. You're missing it even more here. If you don't get that, there is no way there can be any meaningful dialogue.

 

You really need to read up on the court rulings thus far on all this. Really. You're waaaaay off base.

 

Granted the activist right wingers on the Supreme Court will most likely let it stand, but the lower courts have all said you're wrong on this.

Ooohhh I get it now! She was totally on point and read the case law extensively on that point, but then posted total made-up bs on the rest of the proposed law.

okkk.

 

PS: I'm done. If you support Ms. Morrison, that really tells me all I need to know about her.

Edited June 21, 2012 by TNlamb

[glassdogs]

[quote name='former member' timestamp='1340239773' post='3652341'

 

 

Do you not agree that non-citizens can have drivers licenses?

 

Do you not agree that the law says a drivers license is "good enough" to show citizenship?

 

Now tell me how that makes ANY sense at all?

 

What the law says is that possession of a driver's license is presumptive proof of being in the USA legally. It has nothing to do with citizenship.

 

 

Get it?

[zoocrew]

Ooohhh I get it now! She was totally on point and read the case law extensively on that point, but then posted total made-up bs on the rest of the proposed law.

okkk.

 

Like I said, you really should read up on what the lower courts have said about the AZ law that GA based ours on. What Ms Morrison said is what the lower courts have said. But I'm sure you're advising the courts on all this, right?

 

Now when the activists on the Supreme Court rule, I'm betting you're gonna be in the "right" since they have been much prone in the activist ways the last few years.

 

 

 

What the law says is that possession of a driver's license is presumptive proof of being in the USA legally. It has nothing to do with citizenship.

 

 

Get it?

 

But in the absence of that license, will Bubba from Buchanan have to show papers? How about Juan, an immigrant from Mexico? Which class of person is presumed to be illegal in the questioning of papers? That was Ms. Morrison's point.

[glassdogs]

.

But in the absence of that license, will Bubba from Buchanan have to show papers? How about Juan, an immigrant from Mexico? Which class of person is presumed to be illegal in the questioning of papers? That was Ms. Morrison's point.

 

Apparently you now have grasped the difference between immigrant and illegal. Good for you. It only took 20 posts or so.

 

I think I'll let Ms Morrison try to clarify her position without the Zoospin. She's confused enough without you "helping" with your interpretation

[zoocrew]

Apparently you now have grasped the difference between immigrant and illegal. Good for you. It only took 20 posts or so.

 

I think I'll let Ms Morrison try to clarify her position without the Zoospin. She's confused enough without you "helping" with your interpretation

 

Do what? If there is no drivers license, how is there ANY difference?

 

Perhaps you should re-read her post 143.

 

Mandates that all immigrants, legal and otherwise must ALWAYS have their documents on their person. Jim Crowe all over again.

Allows "Show me your papers" or "let's go to jail" by profiling. This includes US citizens who unknowingly have an illegal in their car if stopped.

Are we to require proof of residency/citizenship of anyone we allow into our automobile ?

Do you carry proof of residency/citizenship ?

 

I will ask again. But in the absence of that license, will Bubba from Buchanan have to show papers? How about Juan, an immigrant from Mexico? Which class of person is presumed to be illegal in the questioning of papers? That was Ms. Morrison's point.

Edited June 21, 2012 by zoocrew

[TabbyCat]

Apparently you now have grasped the difference between immigrant and illegal. Good for you. It only took 20 posts or so.

 

I think I'll let Ms Morrison try to clarify her position without the Zoospin. She's confused enough without you "helping" with your interpretation

 

ROFL!!

 

[Foxmeister]

Let's try this again. My comment is about the drivers license. You don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers license. The point I made is answering the false statement that a drivers license it's proof of citizenship. It is not proof of citizenship. Please read what is said and not add, modify, assume, take from, or otherwise make up something that I didn't say. Please keep up and follow the line of discussion.

 

Get it through your thick head, the HB never said a driver's license was proof of citizenship.

 

 

 

What the law says is that possession of a driver's license is presumptive proof of being in the USA legally. It has nothing to do with citizenship.

 

 

Get it?

 

Let's clarify for her that the law says a Georgia driver's license serves as proof the holder is in the USA legally.

[Foxmeister]

Like I said, you really should read up on what the lower courts have said about the AZ law that GA based ours on. What Ms Morrison said is what the lower courts have said. But I'm sure you're advising the courts on all this, right?

 

Now when the activists on the Supreme Court rule, I'm betting you're gonna be in the "right" since they have been much prone in the activist ways the last few years.

 

 

 

 

 

But in the absence of that license, will Bubba from Buchanan have to show papers? How about Juan, an immigrant from Mexico? Which class of person is presumed to be illegal in the questioning of papers? That was Ms. Morrison's point.

 

The law doesn't allow someone to be pulled over because they look Hispanic or from any other region of the world. They have to be pulled over for a violation of the traffic laws. If a LEO pulls over someone for speeding and that person happens to be Hispanic and produces a GA driver's license then checking into his immigration status further stops there.

[zoocrew]

 

Get it through your thick head, the HB never said a driver's license was proof of citizenship.

 

 

 

Get it through your thick head. I answered the statement that said a drivers license IS PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. Again, it is NOT proof. The bill simply says it will be accepted but it does NOT prove citizenship.

 

And that is EXACTLY the point Ms. Morrison made in her post 143. The point is that if Bubba from Buchanan is questioned without a drivers license, will he be asked to show citizenship proof? But if Juan is questioned and he has no drivers license, but is a naturalized citizen, will he be asked to produce papers? How hard is it to see that it makes a CLASS of people immediately suspect while another class is not, based solely on how they look or sound?

 

 

[Wineguy]

I feel sorry for anyone getting on this thread hoping to see Melissa's views on the topics raised. This thread has been hijacked with lots of senseless arguments.

[zoocrew]

The law doesn't allow someone to be pulled over because they look Hispanic or from any other region of the world. They have to be pulled over for a violation of the traffic laws. If a LEO pulls over someone for speeding and that person happens to be Hispanic and produces a GA driver's license then checking into his immigration status further stops there.

 

You're missing the ENTIRE point. Again.

 

There is no talking to you because you are not even listening but have already decided what the answer is.

 

This is not just about a traffic stop. Or a drivers license. It can be for ANYTHING. If 2 people are together and are questioned for ANYTHING --- do you get that? ANYTHING. Whether they are guilty or not is irrelevant. ANYTHING. Stop and think about it. STOPPED FOR ANYTHING. --- if Bubba and Juan are together, which one will be asked for papers?

[zoocrew]

I feel sorry for anyone getting on this thread hoping to see Melissa's views on the topics raised. This thread has been hijacked with lots of senseless arguments.

 

Same as in all the other threads. Someone will just make another one. I asked her my questions and got answers. I didn't like all the answers but at least I see where she is coming from. I didn't get an answer from the other guy. And Braddock is not on here for me to ask. So I am still undecided while I keep looking.

[ThornwoodMom]

I feel sorry for anyone getting on this thread hoping to see Melissa's views on the topics raised. This thread has been hijacked with lots of senseless arguments.

Wait a minute, here are her words:

So explain to me, under HB87, just what happens when a vehicle you are riding in is profiled, stopped, and everyone asked for their papers? Your driver’s license is NOT proof of citizenship or that you are here legally. Wrong. Under HB87 your driver's license is proof of legality

 

What do you do?

 

As written, LEOs can stop ANYONE and demand to see their papers.Wrong, must have probable cause If they do not have any proof of legally being in this country they can be taken to jail and detained until such time they can obtain proof of their citizenship. You would sit in jail until you were able to get someone to bring your passport to get you released. No passport or available birth certificate…then sit in jail. Wrong. Driver's license is proof under HB87

 

You really think that is constitutionally correct?

 

Take it a step further, and say your neighbor’s cousin is in the car with you, and it turns out the cousin is an illegal. Everyone in the car goes to jail, and can be charged and convicted of a felony with a 5 year sentence for harboring an illegal.Wrong! Must have 8 or more illegals in the car to be charged with this felony!

[TabbyCat]

You're missing the ENTIRE point. Again.

 

There is no talking to you because you are not even listening but have already decided what the answer is.

 

This is not just about a traffic stop. Or a drivers license. It can be for ANYTHING. If 2 people are together and are questioned for ANYTHING --- do you get that? ANYTHING. Whether they are guilty or not is irrelevant. ANYTHING. Stop and think about it. STOPPED FOR ANYTHING. --- if Bubba and Juan are together, which one will be asked for papers?

 

Under the LAW? Both will be.

 

As it should be.

 

Do you have some genie in every cop car in GA that makes you think they all shouldn't have to respond equally?

[zoocrew]

Under the LAW? Both will be.

 

As it should be.

 

Do you have some genie in every cop car in GA that makes you think they all shouldn't have to respond equally?

 

And that is not the way it is being applied. It is why it is before the Supreme Court now.

[Guard dad]

What was this thread about again?

[its mr sarcastic to you]

What was this thread about again?

 

Some kids painted a road....