Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act (Sedona: places to live, rail, build)

[SoldierBoyBliss]

What I find so amazing and funny about this whole issue, is the LAW is not racial or about race. It is about illegal immigration, and growing crime in Arizona. The fact you have put Mexicans into the mix speaks more to the issue than you know. Who is the raciest here, the law supporters, or the people who want to make this about race?

[UB50]

Originally Posted by revelated

Here's the problem with that line of thinking.

You know that a peace officer can ask you for your ID at any time. So why not carry it at all times? Why would you NOT carry it? What is your logical reason for not carrying ID? When you fly, you have to show ID. When you drive, you have to carry a license (ID). If you rent a car you have to show ID (license). Admitted to the hospital - ID. Apply (and be hired) for a job - ID. What's the problem here?

Invalid answers:

• "It's the principle" - we're not talking principle, we're talking practical. Why cause an issue if you can avoid one by carrying an ID card?
• "I forget it" - yet manage to remember your keys? Why not keep them with your keys so you're incapable of forgetting them when you walk out the door?
• "I have no pockets" - so how do you carry your keys?

Your California driver's license isn't proof that you are legally in this country. It's proof that you passed a driving test and can drive!

The Arizona law specifically states that you need an "ARIZONA Driver's License" to be considered legally in the country.

[jdm2008]

Originally Posted by rodomonte

Left-wing clergy who support amnesty/citizenship and are naturally against SB1070 and support the boycott of Arizona need to apply some ethical principles to determine whether this boycott is moral.

I have done some research and conclude this boycott is immoral for the following reasons:

1. This boycott is directed toward Arizona businesses who had no nexus to the Arizona state legislature that passed this law. The target of the boycott is inappropriate and many totally innocent people will be hurt.

2. Opponents of SB1070 claim this new law is unconstitutional. This law will be taken to court and adjudicated before it is ever allowed to go into effect. If it is judged unconstitutional, it will never go into effect, but the damage from the boycott will have already been done. Boycotters should at least wait for the courts to rule on this law.

3. The cure is worse than the disease in this case. The reaction to a law which just requires people to carry papers that they are in the country legally is to deprive innocent people of their property rights. This is worse than any alleged "racial profiling."

You seem to be confused. People who choose to spend money in Arizona or somewhere else are choosing to spends their money. No Arizona business has any "property rights" to it. That is absurd.

[SoldierBoyBliss]

WHAT, hahahahaha. Oh lord.

You have to prove citizenship to get a driver license in the form of a Social Security Card, most states also require more info than just a SSC.

Also would you please show me where in Bill SB 1070 is states it must be an Arizona Drivers LIC. only? I have gone over it several times now and have not seen were it states that the only acceptable ID is a Arizona Drivers License.

EXAMPLE: http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/pdf/dmv141.pdf

WA, as an example: http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense...ml#citizenship

EDIT: I should say any state that follows the Real ID act, requires proof of Citizenship.

Maybe its just me, but as a US Soldier, I am required to carry my military ID on me at all times, I dont see the issue with having it on you when you walk the dog, goto the corner store, or when you make a long trip. It should be second nature for all of us to have ID on us. Makes identifying the body easier. sorry cop humor.

Originally Posted by UB50

Your California driver's license isn't proof that you are legally in this country. It's proof that you passed a driving test and can drive!

The Arizona law specifically states that you need an "ARIZONA Driver's License" to be considered legally in the country.

[doctorjef]

Texas, NM and CA aren't going to be following the path taken by AZ. Although C-D forum tends to have a lot of loud voices on it clamouring for AZ-style immigration legislation, from living most of my life in Texas I can assure you that TX will not adopt the AZ type measures. My time spent in NM also convinces me that it won't happen there. In both cases, Hispanic residents are so deeply established culturally, economically and historically in those states (and politically) that no such legislation could probably even make it out of committee, much less reach a floor vote. I can't comment on CA from a standpoint of personal experience, but it seems unlikely to me that the state would pass similar legislation and have it signed into law. You guys can resent this reality, but the reality is that AZ has taken a step that is almost surely not going to be followed by any other border states. You're going to be politically isolated and appear to most people as an abberation.

[doctorjef]

This will be a flash in the pan and a quick media moment at most. More impotent noise.

[mauiwowie]

Originally Posted by revelated

Here's the problem with that line of thinking.

You know that a peace officer can ask you for your ID at any time. So why not carry it at all times? Why would you NOT carry it? What is your logical reason for not carrying ID? When you fly, you have to show ID. When you drive, you have to carry a license (ID). If you rent a car you have to show ID (license). Admitted to the hospital - ID. Apply (and be hired) for a job - ID. What's the problem here?

Invalid answers:

• "It's the principle" - we're not talking principle, we're talking practical. Why cause an issue if you can avoid one by carrying an ID card?
• "I forget it" - yet manage to remember your keys? Why not keep them with your keys so you're incapable of forgetting them when you walk out the door?
• "I have no pockets" - so how do you carry your keys?

No, that's not true. The law allows peace officers to obtain a name during a "Terry" stop. AZ "stop and identify" statute was only enacted after Hiibel, which continued the line of reasoning in Kolender v Lawson that a statute needs to be narrow in scope with regards to identifying oneself.

The Court held that States may arrest someone for not providing a name provided they have strict limitations on continued conversations that might violate 4th and 5th Amendment protections. An ID is not required.

The Court chose not to decide if giving his name was "testimonial", in which case even giving a name would be protected by the 5th Amendment. States that don't have "stop and identify" statutes may not detain or arrest a person for not providing a name and NO peace officer may arrest you for not providing ID beyond stating your name.

To your questions. Not all people fly or drive. A choice is made to engage in those activities and it is understood that a license is required to drive and ID is requisite to board commercial aircraft. If one is rushed to ER, then ID does not have to be provided before treatment. It would be gross malpractice to require ID before performing life-saving measures. I give my insurance card (a non-government form of ID) to my doctor for purposes of obtaining payment info.

The logical reason for a person not carrying ID is simple: We are not ordinarily required to do so. In general, there is no reason to carry ID when not engaged in an activity requiring it. It is strange reasoning to me that all people should carry ID at all times.

Of course many don't have handy ID. Children and those without driver's licenses come to mind easily. Some don't carry SS cards because they don't have them or are concerned about improper disclosure of that info. It is unreasonable to expect people to carry birth certificates.

[mauiwowie]

Originally Posted by revelated

And I'm going to go on record as saying...I don't like America. I think our government is in our business too much, I think our taxes are too high, I think we screw up the environment (oil spill anyone?), and I think the presidential system is all screwed up. But it's WAY better than it was in the 40's and the 50's. As an African American, if California passed a law today that said that everyone not descended from Germany or Italy had to provide their citizenship, I still wouldn't care, because I already have the ID anyway and would have no issues showing it; so what?. I just had to show ID at the pharmacy; it's NO different.

I swear, some of you people are so blinded by your morals that you don't understand that the law has always been there. Nothing's changed except that one state stepped up to enforce it.

Can you explain the bold text?

This post goes against many of your arguments. Sb 1070 and stop and identify create MORE government in our business. You come across as fairly libertarian except when you don't like the consequences.

I find it sad you don't like America. I love this country and will work to change the things I don't like.

[whitem3]

Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources

Arizona’s cry should force immigration issue | The Daily Illini (http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2010/05/05/arizona-s-cry-should-force-immigration-issue - broken link)

How to Report Illegal Aliens « American Chaos

[JLay36]

Originally Posted by revelated

Here's the problem with that line of thinking.

You know that a peace officer can ask you for your ID at any time. So why not carry it at all times? Why would you NOT carry it? What is your logical reason for not carrying ID? When you fly, you have to show ID. When you drive, you have to carry a license (ID). If you rent a car you have to show ID (license). Admitted to the hospital - ID. Apply (and be hired) for a job - ID. What's the problem here?

Invalid answers:

• "It's the principle" - we're not talking principle, we're talking practical. Why cause an issue if you can avoid one by carrying an ID card?
• "I forget it" - yet manage to remember your keys? Why not keep them with your keys so you're incapable of forgetting them when you walk out the door?
• "I have no pockets" - so how do you carry your keys?

Here's the thing..

With all of the instances that you mentioned, except for the hospital, there is a universal consequence for non compliance. No ID while driving (ticket), No ID at the airport (stay home), No ID at the Liquor Store (no sale). Now you can tell me all day that this law applies to everyone, but let's not be naive, it's motivated by a demographic therfore it's truly targeted at a demographic. Just like the "random" searches at airport security.