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.
I'm continually amazed by those calling themselves "American", but willing to throw away key tenets of the Constitution in a brief moment...
And I am continually amazed by those calling themselves "Americans" but defend illegal aliens at every turn. I am continually amazed that anyone would defend someone who calls Americans for the rule of law all kinds of nasty names and consider it witty and funny. I am continually amazed that a white person would remain silent while a reconquista nut says that whites are here illegally in their own country.
Sorry but "Hiibel" has nothing to do with illegal aliens. He was in fact a Nevada Libertarian.
The Constitution protects us all from illegal search and seizure. That "illegals" are included in all is simply one of the things you have to deal with if you wish to have simple and universal rules.
The illegal problem is driven by the fact that the nation is unwilling to solve it either by expelling the illegals or by regularizing their status. So the two sides continue to maximize the damage.
Sorry but "Hiibel" has nothing to do with illegal aliens. He was in fact a Nevada Libertarian.
The Constitution protects us all from illegal search and seizure. That "illegals" are included in all is simply one of the things you have to deal with if you wish to have simple and universal rules.
The illegal problem is driven by the fact that the nation is unwilling to solve it either by expelling the illegals or by regularizing their status. So the two sides continue to maximize the damage.
Sorry, but YOU introduced Hiibel in this discussion. But, you’re right. That case is not related to illegal immigration.
I don’t recall anyone condoning illegal search and seizure. At issue, is whether police should have the right to question the legal status of suspected illegal aliens, or if it is a violation of their Constitutional rights.
According to our immigration laws, all foreign nationals are required to carry documentation at ALL times. If they are required to carry proof of legal status, naturally, they should be expected to produce said documents when requested. Or, are you suggesting the USCIS mandate is unconstitutional?
Quote:
"Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.
...At issue, is whether police should have the right to question the legal status of suspected illegal aliens, or if it is a violation of their Constitutional rights.
According to our immigration laws, all foreign nationals are required to carry documentation at ALL times. If they are required to carry proof of legal status, naturally, they should be expected to produce said documents when requested. Or, are you suggesting the USCIS mandate is unconstitutional?...
"Suspected illegal aliens" can also be U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents. At least your reference (it is not a "USCIS mandate") showed that the Resident Card must be carried when 18 years or older. U.S citizens, whether or not they are naturalized, do not have to carry proof of their citizenship within the boundaries of the United States.
Within this thread there has already been a comment that the searches should be focused on Hispanics. That won't fly on Constitutional grounds. And good luck getting it enforced as a nation-wide program that checks everyone.
Last edited by IBMMuseum; 05-29-2011 at 02:52 PM..
"Suspected illegal aliens" can also be U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents. At least your reference (it is not a "USCIS mandate") showed that the Resident Card must be carried when 18 years or older. U.S citizens, whether or not they are naturalized, do not have to carry proof of the citizenship within the boundaries of the United States.
Within this thread there has already been a comment that the searches should be focused on Hispanics. That won't fly on Constitutional grounds. And good luck getting it enforced as a nation-wide program that checks everyone.
So it appears that you are advocating that all an illegal has to do to cheat the system is to not carry any ID and claim to be a citizen. How very PC of you.
If a legal resident, foreign or natural born, cannot show or confirm proof of identity they tend to be held until confirmation can be ascertained. Why do you say that illegals should not conform to the same system?
So it appears that you are advocating that all an illegal has to do to cheat the system is to not carry any ID and claim to be a citizen. How very PC of you.
If a legal resident, foreign or natural born, cannot show or confirm proof of identity they tend to be held until confirmation can be ascertained. Why do you say that illegals should not conform to the same system?
I am stating the law as it exists, whatever you read into it is on you. Based on what is commonly carried by a U.S. citizen, there is often no way to prove their citizenship from their ID. Proving identity is different from proving citizenship.
Sorry, but YOU introduced Hiibel in this discussion. But, you’re right. That case is not related to illegal immigration.
I don’t recall anyone condoning illegal search and seizure. At issue, is whether police should have the right to question the legal status of suspected illegal aliens, or if it is a violation of their Constitutional rights.
According to our immigration laws, all foreign nationals are required to carry documentation at ALL times. If they are required to carry proof of legal status, naturally, they should be expected to produce said documents when requested. Or, are you suggesting the USCIS mandate is unconstitutional?
Of course I introduced Hiibel. It is the defining case from the USSC on the issue being discussed. The problem you appear to have with Hiibel is that it gives an answer you do not like.
Again read Hiibel. Even with an actual allegation of a crime the police can demand only your name. Otherwise they need a warrant.
A proper authority has a right to ask to see citizenship documents. A local cop does not qualify. Where is this requirement that they produce it on demand by anyone? A requirement does not lead to an automatic right for anyone to check it. Note that government regulations require that an immigration agent have a reasonable suspicion before asking.
So it appears that you are advocating that all an illegal has to do to cheat the system is to not carry any ID and claim to be a citizen. How very PC of you.
If a legal resident, foreign or natural born, cannot show or confirm proof of identity they tend to be held until confirmation can be ascertained. Why do you say that illegals should not conform to the same system?
Not legally. You are required to identify yourself. That is it. There is no requirement to supply ID. And virtually no natural born citizen carries proof of citizenship.
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.
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.
