-6 votes

This Should Be The Law In Every State

This Should Be The Law In Every State

You Gotta Love Texas

***The City of Dallas , Texas passed an ordinance
stating that if a driver is pulled over by law enforcement
and is not able to provide proof of Insurance, the car is towed.
To retrieve the car after being impounded, they must show
proof of insurance to have the car released. This has made
it easy for the City of Dallas to remove uninsured cars.

Shortly after the "No Insurance" ordinance was passed,
the Dallas impound lots began to fill up and were full
after only nine days.

Over 80% of the impounded cars were driven by illegals.
Now, not only must they provide proof of insurance to
have their car released, they have to pay for the cost of the tow,
a *$350 fine, and *$20 for every day their car is kept
in the lot.

Guess what?
Accident rates have gone down*47% and Dallas ' solution
gets uninsured drivers off the road *WITHOUT* making
them show proof of nationality.

I Wonder how the Holder's US Justice Department will get around this one.

* * * * *

** Just brings tears to your eyes doesn't it? **

*** GO Dallas



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Of Course This Was Sarcastic Guys..GOTCHA!!

BOOM!! BOOM!! BOOM!!

Well, you certainly got me. LOL!

BOOM, indeed!

Pro-illegal immigration crowd: 2 points!
IN Sculptor for Ron Paul: 0 (goose egg!)

I am against illegal immigration (which apparently makes me a sort of pariah here with respect to that issue), but I'm equally against the BS insurance scam (health and auto... and whatever the next one is they come up with).

(I've tumbled like a naive bear cub into your pot of honey. LOL! But you needn't waste your time scolding me on my views on illegal immigration; it will be fruitless, and I'll pay such efforts no mind!)

We'll hafta agree to disagree and move on to other issues on which we can work together.

Cheers, all!

: )

What would the Founders do?

So you think that insurance

So you think that insurance should be mandatory, and if you don't have proof on hand, your property should be confiscated...AND all this is good because we should all be presumed illegal aliens until we can prove we are not?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Wow. This is a tough one. I'm all for clamping down on

illegal immigration--which not only embodies the ultimate entitlement mentality (which is what most of us here are against, of course) but is also a huge plank in the NWO sink-the-US-to-bring-about-world-government manifesto... but I have always thought that the government forcing US citizens to buy insurance in order to exercise their right to travel is BS.

I'm not embarrassed to admit: I'm stuck! Ouch....

What would the Founders do?

sorry bro

There is no such thing as illegal immigration, only nationalists believe in citizenship is required to belong in a community.

If you believe in freedom and liberty, i don't care what country you are in, your are the real American. No papers required.

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

The Founders were nationalists, as they founded a nation.

Or rather a loose one in support of smaller nations (AKA: states). I am all for that nation, regardless of their (and its) imperfect evolution. Complete Liberty in this nation is my chief concern. If that makes me some sorta sloping forehead, knuckle-dragging primate, then so be it!

The nation is currently being sabotaged, and illegal immigration is a tool used in that effort (so long as we are a welfare state).

I envy you your smash-it-all-together approach in how you quantify freedom. And you use "American", so are you for the NAU then? Or does South America come into it? Or are you acknowledging in yourself the very citizenship you seem to view with skepticism?

[Bed time. Gotta put up the chickens. I'll check back tomorrow. Thanks!]

What would the Founders do?

I don't really see how this

I don't really see how this is a tough one. Aside from the stupid and illegal racketeering and theft in this law, "innocent until proven guilty" applies to immigration just as much as to any other law. If you don't want to be assumed a criminal or profiled at an airport, why would you want to be assumed a criminal or profiled in a border state?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Do routine traffic stops for observable violations constitute

profiling?

What would the Founders do?

Well, I know you weren't

Well, I know you weren't asking me; but I hope you don't mind if I give you my answer.

I don't believe in Drivers License, Registration, Insurance, Inspection, or Emissions. There is to found nowhere in either the Federal or State Constitutions this power granted to either governing body; therefore there is no reason to pull anybody over, if there is no actual harm being done.

Unfortunately State Constitutions

are terribly written in regard to individual liberty.
(and wonderfully written for powerful, totalitarian state)
Yes, the power is granted to the legislature in every state constitution, with only certain restrictions being reserved for the citizenry. They are the exact opposite of the Federal Constitution. One of the heart breaks I had when learning civics.

No, but the OP doesn't say

No, but the OP doesn't say anything about routine traffic stops for observable violations. It does however, talk about illegal immigration, and says your car should be impounded if you don't have proof on hand of corporatocratic permission to drive. The OP clearly states that the purpose of the law is to catch illegals, based on the fact that lots of people without proof on hand of corporatocratic permission to drive are also illegal aliens. That is profiling.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Fair enough.

I assumed the thing was legit. I don't disagree with what you've just said.

What would the Founders do?

yes, this post does bring tears to my eyes

not the good kind

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Was this a sarcastic post? if

Was this a sarcastic post? if not your at the wrong website buddy. People like this are allowed to make meaningless misguided post but im banned....smh the dailypaul has been off the rails for about 2 years now

Are you in favor of, "open

Are you in favor of, "open borders?"

If we as Americans have to play by the rules, then why should immigrants - legal or not, not have to follow the same rules?

If they don't have to follow the same laws as you and I, then isn't that a double standard?

Double standards and libertarians don't mix well together.

Allow immigrants access into America, illegally...okay, fine I'll budge on access alone. But once they're here, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else does.

Allowing illegal immigrants to have their own separate set of laws to abide by is ridiculous, and unfair to every American citizen that pays taxes and works their asses off every day.

If one wants to live in America, that's great...but they have to pay their way just like everyone else.

If an illegal immigrant without insurance killed your husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle after being given a drivers license in America....what would you do?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I want to address your comment:

"Allowing illegal immigrants to have their own separate set of laws to abide by is ridiculous,"
Yes.

"and unfair to every American citizen that pays taxes..."
Americans have taxes taken from them...if the government didn't TAKE as much, maybe we wouldn't have to work so hard to afford a 3rd world lifestyle.

Its a tangential comment, but its tax time and I want to square as many peoples thinking as possible.

Happens all the time here

Happens all the time here Bakersfield.

You do not have to follow the

You do not have to follow the rules; you are just afraid of the possibility of the ridiculous consequences of not obeying your master, unlike the illegal immigrants who have no other choice but to violate unjust laws.

If we do away with the welfare state, then what is the problem with illegal immigrants? It is not like they are really taking American jobs, they are only taking the jobs which most Americans don't want anyway.

If an illegal immigrant without insurance killed your husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle after being given a drivers license in America....what would you do?

Could the people on a PRO-LIBERTY website PLEASE quite using emotional arguments; it is unbecoming of any real liberty proponent.

1) I don't think that people should be mandated to have a Drivers License.

2) I don't think that people should be mandated to have insurance.

Seriously; where in either the Federal or State Constitutions does it give either government the authority to do these things? You people are just afraid of freedom, which is ironic since you are on a PRO-LIBERTY, PRO-FREEDOM website.

How quickly people forget about defending liberty when

the issue is the liberty of immigrants.

deacon's picture

sugar coating the "immigrant" status?

Or just twisting the meaning?
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

How do you define "immigrant?"

I define it as a person who moves from one place to another. I am currently an "immigrant" to Montana, who was born and raised in (and barely escaped from) California.

The Constitution's "Interstate Commerce" clause was originally meant, not to coercively "regulate" private Interstate Commerce, but rather to prevent the States from coercively regulating Interstate Commerce, allowing for free migration and trade between the States. If the concept of migratory liberty is good enough for movement between the States, why not between nations?

You have the right to use coercive force to keep an immigrant from another country off of your property. You DO NOT have the right to use coercive force to keep him off of MINE!

deacon's picture

You didn't immigrate

to Montana,you emigrated
but that is not what I asked,I asked why you changed the words from the op
and then used a different word in your comment.That was all i asked
in legal terms both them words mean something different
Illegal immigrant,ones here illegally,but you know who uses them words to define immigrants? the MSM,the fed gov,and any and all who want to cloud the issue of what is illegal and what isn't,and you did just that,you used the feds own words to change the narrative on this topic.
An illegal immigrant here is illegally, hence the word illegal.they did not migrate here legally.we as a nation of people do not have the right to own what the illegals have the right to in our own country.
So you are suggesting the interstate commerce clause includes people?
Is commerce people? in your eyes?I guess they can be,but that might mean which lens are you looking out of.
since when has there been free trade between the states,without fed involvement? What you are are suggesting is that clause can regulate people.if people are commerce,than yes,we can be sold on the stock market,and we can be used as collateral on a never ending false debt.
Look I didn't make the rules,and other nations do not have to honor the rules from here,but there are rules,and it is high time to set the playing field straight,and a start would be being able to live where you want to.get the benefits out of it all,then let the people decide where they want to live,then leave them alone.
You can define anything you want to,but it should be factual...right?
you emigrated from CAL to MT
immigrants move to another country,usually for permanent residence..or it is an organism found in a new habitat..take your pick
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I don't know where you're coming from,

it almost sounds like you are agreeing with me. The "regulation" of Interstate Commerce, as it was originally intended in the Constitution, was not to "regulate" people, it was to "regulate" (read - limit) the States' regulation of people, so as to ensure that there would be no legal barriers infringing on migration and trade between the States.

As far as "illegal" immigrants, there are also "illegal" raw milk producers and "illegal" medical marijuana users. How do you feel about them? For some reason you draw a distinction between illegal (in terms of natural law) statutory law governing immigrants, and illegal statutory law involving raw milk and medical marijuana (or do you feel those laws should be enforced too, to be "fair?").

The law is written onto our hearts: "First, do no harm." Any statutory laws which conflict with this one basic moral law are invalid from a moral and ethical perspective, and I will not feel any obligation to obey them. I would be proud to help an "illegal" immigrant find employment or housing, and refuge from the federal government's overbearing, tyrannical presence.

deacon's picture

I haven't been trying to disagree

It's funny,only on this site can one ask a question,get a down vote and no answers.Or get accused of questioning the personal intent of the poster,instead of asking something for clarification
First you asked me to define immigration....I did that
Then you say you migrated to MT....not according to dictionary.com
And I pointed that you emigrated.
Then I went on to say,the playing field should be level,and I qualified that statement with...by letting people live where they want,and leave them alone.
I then said,there are laws on the books,These are not my laws,my world has none.It is theirs,and if they are not going to follow them,then get rid of them.I never stated I like laws,or even need them. These are written for oppression,not to create a moral society.It has been proven,so far to me,that voting out the rats that cause this mess doesn't work,they are still in,and most of them should be tried in court.
I believe everyone should be able to go where they want,live where they want,and at the same time be left alone to live life the way they want,and yes I believe in no harm first and foremost. I hope this time i made myself clear,i wasn't being an A-hole
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

How is...

How is forcing people to buy auto insurance any different than forcing people to buy health insurance?

This doesn't mean insurance isn't a good idea. It can be. But no one has a right to force a product on someone that doesn't want it.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

and

stealing and impounding their property too. This is a terrible thing.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Wow, if you think this should

Wow, if you think this should be the law or that car insurance should even be mandatory, you know absolutely nothing about liberty and are just another pretender.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

scawarren's picture

Emalvini, I think this is the

Emalvini, I think this is the first post I've ever seen from you that I totally disagree with. I'm so disappointed how could you possibly think anyone in America needs another "law". The Dallas PD is corrupt to the core and I'd spend some more time with those figures if I were you :(

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

Ditto

...

deacon's picture

Them impounded

vehicles that are not gotten out are then sold,the proceeds go into the cops funds to buy more oppressive weapons,like maybe a 2nd or 3rd stryker
or some full auto arms
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence