U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2010, 10:11 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Does any portion of Arizona law state that what documents are acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship (as in, if driver's licenses are automatically acceptable)?
What you fail to realize is that it isn't about proof of citizenship but proof of legality in this country. A legal immigrant is not a citizen but they are legally in this country and their green card proves it. As I already stated, a state issued DL or I.D. is sufficient reason not to question one's citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2010, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 16,203,701 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
yes in fact there is something you are missing. according to the federal law ALL non US citizens MUST carry some form of identification, and proof that they are in this country legally. this can be a passport, visa, green card, resident alien card, state issued drivers license, etc. so when an LEO makes a lawful contact, and asks for identification, once the proper ID has been presented, the question of a persons legal immigration status is answered. a reasonable suspicion that someone might be here illegally would be a fake ID, or information given does not match the person presenting the information. if you are stopped for speeding, the cop is going to ask for your license and registration, and proof of insurance. if you cant produce a license, then you need to give the cop more information, a soc sec number for instance, along with your name.

lets say you give a false name and a false soc sec number, the car you are driving is registered in someone else's name, and you have no proof of insurance. this gives the officer reason to investigate further. if he finds that you are lying because you have warrants out for you, then you are going to the station to be further processed. at that point your immigration status can be legally checked.

while there can be abuses in any law, that is what the courts are for, to fight those that abuse the law.
Oklahoma just came out with a new Law. Anyone found without Insurance or proof of, will have their vehicle impounded.

Last edited by mkfarnam; 07-01-2010 at 10:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 10:28 AM
 
19,445 posts, read 13,191,189 times
Reputation: 4873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
The people writing the law could be very crafty about it - they can say one thing in the law, but expect people's prejudices to allow another thing to happen. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a lawyer of the legal arm of FAIR drafted the law. Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling | Southern Poverty Law Center The SPLC accuses FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA as all being part of a racist conspiracy by John Tanton. Tanton has not sued FAIR for defamation. The people writing the law (not necessarily the people who are supporting the law - just the people who wrote it) probably intended to have a de facto racial profiling occur while stating in the law that racial profiling can't occur.

I think what might nail the law, though, is the federal government not wanting its role/powers usurped by the state. Even if the state is trying to enforce the same thing the feds are enforcing, the feds may not want the state trying to do its job. No matter how poorly the feds are perceived to be doing their immigration job, they cannot be upstaged or usurped by the state.
Isn't that what states are supposed to do, call ICE if they identify an illegal alien? How else can they determine if a person is an ilegal alien, if they do not go thru the effort of determining if they are an illegal alien?

As to how a law is crafted, we could create a law to make it illegal to drive above the speed limit, drive with broken headlights or tail lights, or not buckle your seat belt, and the racist, profiling cops can use those laws as an excuse to pull over the targeted race of their racist bigotry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 11:30 AM
 
4,271 posts, read 7,887,141 times
Reputation: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
What you fail to realize is that it isn't about proof of citizenship but proof of legality in this country. A legal immigrant is not a citizen but they are legally in this country and their green card proves it. As I already stated, a state issued DL or I.D. is sufficient reason not to question one's citizenship.
Chicagonut, "proof of legality in this country" in terms of non-citizens was already addressed (green card holders must carry their green cards - short term visitors must have passports), so now the question is proof of citizenship.

And you said "As I already stated, a state issued DL or I.D. is sufficient reason not to question one's citizenship." but unless a law says that police must consider those forms of ID as proof of citizenship, police will question people if they only have those forms, even if the IDs appear to be real, because police may believe that those documents are not sufficient proof of being in the country legally (citizens do not normally carry their passports and they do not have green cards).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkfarnam View Post
Oklahoma just came out with a new Law. Anyone found without Insurance or proof of, will have their vehicle impounded.
That's a good move - in terms of public safety it costs money to lock up people, so it makes more fiscal sense to simply take their vehicles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Isn't that what states are supposed to do, call ICE if they identify an illegal alien? How else can they determine if a person is an ilegal alien, if they do not go thru the effort of determining if they are an illegal alien?

As to how a law is crafted, we could create a law to make it illegal to drive above the speed limit, drive with broken headlights or tail lights, or not buckle your seat belt, and the racist, profiling cops can use those laws as an excuse to pull over the targeted race of their racist bigotry.
But in order to have the illegal arrested in the first place, there has to be an appropriate probable cause. Only after he or she is legitimately arrested can the state ask ICE to check the immigration status. If law enforcement uses inappropriate probable causes, the state should not have arrested the individuals to begin with.

Wapasha, I stated earlier that the complaint wasn't that the law could have an unintended side effect of racial profiling. I said that the critics believe that the law was deliberately, intentionally designed to allow racially profiling while also designed to appear, by the text, to not allow that. This is because of the fact that a FAIR lawyer wrote the bill.

Last edited by Vicman; 07-01-2010 at 12:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 01:11 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Chicagonut, "proof of legality in this country" in terms of non-citizens was already addressed (green card holders must carry their green cards - short term visitors must have passports), so now the question is proof of citizenship.

And you said "As I already stated, a state issued DL or I.D. is sufficient reason not to question one's citizenship." but unless a law says that police must consider those forms of ID as proof of citizenship, police will question people if they only have those forms, even if the IDs appear to be real, because police may believe that those documents are not sufficient proof of being in the country legally (citizens do not normally carry their passports and they do not have green cards).



That's a good move - in terms of public safety it costs money to lock up people, so it makes more fiscal sense to simply take their vehicles.



But in order to have the illegal arrested in the first place, there has to be an appropriate probable cause. Only after he or she is legitimately arrested can the state ask ICE to check the immigration status. If law enforcement uses inappropriate probable causes, the state should not have arrested the individuals to begin with.

Wapasha, I stated earlier that the complaint wasn't that the law could have an unintended side effect of racial profiling. I said that the critics believe that the law was deliberately, intentionally designed to allow racially profiling while also designed to appear, by the text, to not allow that. This is because of the fact that a FAIR lawyer wrote the bill.
Per Arizona Senator Sylvia Allen on SB1070 in regards to what citizen I.D. would satisfy LE as proof of legality in this country:

"Allen said Federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry their visas with them at all times. Normal identification cards would be accepted for others."

KXO RADIO - State Senator says valid reasons for SB 1070 (http://kxoradio.com/content/view/7099/2/ - broken link)

If you have proof from wordage in the bill that a valid DL or state I.D. from a citizen would not satisfy proof of legality in this country please provide it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 03:29 PM
 
4,271 posts, read 7,887,141 times
Reputation: 1551
In a response to Allen's statements, I would like to see the direct state and federal statutes in regards to this.

So if federal law allows normal identification cards, which statutes are they, and which ID cards are specified? And on the Arizona side what statutes support the idea that law enforcement will defer to federal practices in checking ID cards and accepting types of ID?

In regards to "If you have proof from wordage in the bill that a valid DL or state I.D. from a citizen would not satisfy proof of legality in this country please provide it." I searched a PDF of the Arizona bill ( http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf ) with the word "driver" (as in "driver's license") -- and the only results I found were existing portions of the Section 28-3511, which was amended by the Arizona 1070 bill. Those sections are not affected by the Arizona 1070 bill (modifications appear in another color). They do not specify whether or not a driver's license is a valid form of identity that proves that a person is legally in the United States. The words "passport," "green" ("green card") and "card" (any kind of card) do not appear in the document.

There are questions and comments I have regarding other statements made by Allen in the same document, but they do not directly relate to the topic of the "identity checking" - If you want I could ask questions and make comments about those too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Per Arizona Senator Sylvia Allen on SB1070 in regards to what citizen I.D. would satisfy LE as proof of legality in this country:

"Allen said Federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry their visas with them at all times. Normal identification cards would be accepted for others."

KXO RADIO - State Senator says valid reasons for SB 1070 (http://kxoradio.com/content/view/7099/2/ - broken link)

If you have proof from wordage in the bill that a valid DL or state I.D. from a citizen would not satisfy proof of legality in this country please provide it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 03:35 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
In a response to Allen's statements, I would like to see the direct state and federal statutes in regards to this.

So if federal law allows normal identification cards, which statutes are they, and which ID cards are specified? And on the Arizona side what statutes support the idea that law enforcement will defer to federal practices in checking ID cards and accepting types of ID?

In regards to "If you have proof from wordage in the bill that a valid DL or state I.D. from a citizen would not satisfy proof of legality in this country please provide it." I searched a PDF of the Arizona bill ( http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf ) with the word "driver" (as in "driver's license") -- and the only results I found were existing portions of the Section 28-3511, which was amended by the Arizona 1070 bill. Those sections are not affected by the Arizona 1070 bill (modifications appear in another color). They do not specify whether or not a driver's license is a valid form of identity that proves that a person is legally in the United States. The words "passport," "green" ("green card") and "card" (any kind of card) do not appear in the document.

There are questions and comments I have regarding other statements made by Allen in the same document, but they do not directly relate to the topic of the "identity checking" - If you want I could ask questions and make comments about those too.
What part of "normal" identification cards don't you understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 03:57 PM
 
4,271 posts, read 7,887,141 times
Reputation: 1551
Chicagonut: Unless I am mistaken, this bill does not even specify that "normal" IDs are okay for verification. It does not state what forms of identification are okay.

Again: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

This shall drive the point home:
The only instances of the word "normal" that appear have to do with forbidding people from entering cars while traffic on a street is being impeded by those cards.
Previous post explains the instances of "driver" I found
"Identification" is only found in one instance of Section 13-2319 where it explains that supplying false identification is an act that can be considered a part of smuggling - and this is in a section that was not modified by SB 1070 - "Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a
33 weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification,
34 or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as
35 defined in section 13-2322."
- There are no instances of "identify" in this document

And even then "normal" should be defined. When someone visits a secured institution (like a jail or a prison), the visiting rules specify appropriate forms of ID used for verification. Appropriate forms of ID for confirming that a citizen is a person legally in the country should be specified too.

What supporting document (state or federal) states which IDs are okay for this purpose? If is one is federal, then which state document states that it will fall back on federal standards?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
What part of "normal" identification cards don't you understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 04:19 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Chicagonut: Unless I am mistaken, this bill does not even specify that "normal" IDs are okay for verification. It does not state what forms of identification are okay.

Again: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

This shall drive the point home:
The only instances of the word "normal" that appear have to do with forbidding people from entering cars while traffic on a street is being impeded by those cards.
Previous post explains the instances of "driver" I found
"Identification" is only found in one instance of Section 13-2319 where it explains that supplying false identification is an act that can be considered a part of smuggling - and this is in a section that was not modified by SB 1070 - "Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a
33 weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification,
34 or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as
35 defined in section 13-2322."
- There are no instances of "identify" in this document

And even then "normal" should be defined. When someone visits a secured institution (like a jail or a prison), the visiting rules specify appropriate forms of ID used for verification. Appropriate forms of ID for confirming that a citizen is a person legally in the country should be specified too.

What supporting document (state or federal) states which IDs are okay for this purpose? If is one is federal, then which state document states that it will fall back on federal standards?
Oh, come on now. You are grasping at straws here. The law was written with the expectation of some common sense and logic to be used as to what constitutes proof of legality in this country. A valid DL or state I.D. except for about 4 states proves legality in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 04:22 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,026,086 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post

And even then "normal" should be defined. When someone visits a secured institution (like a jail or a prison), the visiting rules specify appropriate forms of ID used for verification. Appropriate forms of ID for confirming that a citizen is a person legally in the country should be specified too.
I'm going to address this paragraph because I have actually experienced it.
I lived in AZ and CA. I got my driver's license in CA and then in AZ a year later. I quit driving and my license expired.
Fast forward a lot of years and I needed to visit a brother in prison. I had to get an AZ state issued ID card to do so. All I needed to get into that prison was that one little ID card, nothing else. The prison considered the ID valid because they assumed (correctly) that I had to show proof of legality and birth.
I used that same ID card in the AZ and CA penal system with not one problem. Funny thing is, I've lived in OR for over six years now and my AZ ID card is still valid and I am still using it for identification purposes - without a single problem, because my AZ card never expires.
So, an AZ ID card is VALID ID no matter where one goes. One would assume ID cards and drive's licenses issued in any state (except the few who allow illegals to get them) would be valid country wide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top