immigration bill

So is Mexico going to invade Arizona now? Oh wait, they already have... ILLEGAL... I get the concept and I do understand Hopyard's tenacity in this issue. I see both sides but Arizona has stepped up to do what the Feds wouldn't and I for one think they are doing the right thing. I expect Texas to follow suit. The Constitution is supposed to exist for the States to give powers to the Feds not vice versa. The Feds have continued to drop the ball and Arizona has been invaded with ILLEGAL aliens. Illegal... That word keeps coming to mind for some reason. That word makes it sound like it's against the law of the land to even be there if you haven't went through the proper channels and have the proper documentation. I have insurance, car tag, drivers license, ccp, and SS card. If they want to stop and ask I'll show them. Wait they already do that fairly regularly. Guess I'm being racially profiled...

I thought this thread was dead or closed. Anyway, this quote from the John Lott article given above in post #193, if correct and true, does make a difference.

"The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver's license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or "any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification."

If on the other hand the proof of status required turns out to be a birth certificate or passport carried on your person, then the law will go down.

If it is correct that any State issued ID will be considered sufficient there really shouldn't be a problem.

I don't like the idea of people being required to walk around with state issued ID because as I understand it there has never before been a requirement that you actually have a state issued ID. [My mom lived to 86 without a DL and without any form of state issued ID, and she got along just fine until the need to produce an ID for air travel. I don't want people to lose that freedom.]
Therefore, AZ still becomes the first state to require folks who are doing nothing more than jogging in their neighborhood to have ID with them. Somewhat ironic now that cc permits aren't needed in AZ.

I still have deep concerns about the de facto manner in which DLs have become internal passports. It is a burr under my skin. I'm of an age when we made fun of the Russians and the French, and of course the wartime Germans, for their paper requirements on citizens. That was viewed as a hallmark of totalitarianism with regard to the Russians and Germans, and as well, we just made fun of the French on the matter.

Quote:

---

The alert recommends Mexicans travelling to Arizona to ensure they "act with prudence and respect local laws".

---

SOOOOO.....There was absolutely no requirement they act "with prudence" much less "respect local laws" before this??????? OBVIOUSLY NOT!!!!! As the Mexican government is providing the invaders with assistance in breaking our laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I thought this thread was dead or closed. Anyway, this quote from the John Lott article given above in post #193, if correct and true, does make a difference.

"The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver's license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or "any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification."

If on the other hand the proof of status required turns out to be a birth certificate or passport carried on your person, then the law will go down.

If it is correct that any State issued ID will be considered sufficient there really shouldn't be a problem.

I don't like the idea of people being required to walk around with state issued ID because as I understand it there has never before been a requirement that you actually have a state issued ID. [My mom lived to 86 without a DL and without any form of state issued ID, and she got along just fine until the need to produce an ID for air travel. I don't want people to lose that freedom.]
Therefore, AZ still becomes the first state to require folks who are doing nothing more than jogging in their neighborhood to have ID with them. Somewhat ironic now that cc permits aren't needed in AZ.

If on the other hand the proof of status required turns out to be a birth certificate or passport carried on your person all the time, then the law will go down.

I still have deep concerns about the de facto manner in which DLs have become internal passports. It is a burr under my skin. I'm of an age when we made fun of the Russians and the French, and of course the wartime Germans, for their paper requirements on citizens. That was viewed as a hallmark of totalitarianism with regard to the Russians and Germans, and as well, we just made fun of the French on the matter.

---

I do think your reaching on your idea.The new law is almost the same as the Fed laws that they don't enforce. :tumbleweed:

Just want to point this one out--- for whoever might still be following the thread.

While columnists Susan Estrich and John Lott have provided some interesting insight, how about this comment by a senior Senator:

"Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, meanwhile, suggested the law is unconstitutional, though he said it reflects "what good people will do" when they are left without better options."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I thought this thread was dead or closed. Anyway, this quote from the John Lott article given above in post #193, if correct and true, does make a difference.

"The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver's license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or "any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification."

If on the other hand the proof of status required turns out to be a birth certificate or passport carried on your person, then the law will go down.

If it is correct that any State issued ID will be considered sufficient there really shouldn't be a problem.

I don't like the idea of people being required to walk around with state issued ID because as I understand it there has never before been a requirement that you actually have a state issued ID. [My mom lived to 86 without a DL and without any form of state issued ID, and she got along just fine until the need to produce an ID for air travel. I don't want people to lose that freedom.]
Therefore, AZ still becomes the first state to require folks who are doing nothing more than jogging in their neighborhood to have ID with them. Somewhat ironic now that cc permits aren't needed in AZ.

I still have deep concerns about the de facto manner in which DLs have become internal passports. It is a burr under my skin. I'm of an age when we made fun of the Russians and the French, and of course the wartime Germans, for their paper requirements on citizens. That was viewed as a hallmark of totalitarianism with regard to the Russians and Germans, and as well, we just made fun of the French on the matter.

---

Hey HOP, here in Kentucky it has been mandentory to have an ID on ypur person anytime you are out and about. Now its not really enforced with a heated fervor, but if I stop someone walking down the street for something and they are 18, they must have either a state ID or DL. I would not doubt that its like that in many other states also.

In case you want to immigrate to MEXICO.


1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language

2. You have to be a professional or an investor.
No unskilled workers allowed.

3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no
special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted
in our language.

4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they
are here.

5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no
food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be OK, BUT
options will be restricted.
You are not allowed waterfront property.
That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down
and sent straight to jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Just want to point this one out--- for whoever might still be following the thread.

While columnists Susan Estrich and John Lott have provided some interesting insight, how about this comment by a senior Senator:

"Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, meanwhile, suggested the law is unconstitutional, though he said it reflects "what good people will do" when they are left without better options."

---

I'm sorry, I don't live my life based on Lindsey Graham's interpretation of the constitution. He has changed his opinions way too many times to suit me. He needs to form HIS opinions based on the constitution and not what will get him re-elected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

Hey HOP, here in Kentucky it has been mandentory to have an ID on ypur person anytime you are out and about. Now its not really enforced with a heated fervor, but if I stop someone walking down the street for something and they are 18, they must have either a state ID or DL. I would not doubt that its like that in many other states also.

---

Will take your word for it.

However, a few years back there was an ID case from Colorado that went to the Supreme CT. I think there were also an additional ID case that went to the Supremes, one in which a black man was stopped for jogging in an upscale neighborhood and didn't have ID with him.

Perhaps my recollection of it isn't correct, but I seem to recall that the bottom line from those two cases was there was an obligation to identify yourself to an officer but that there is no obligation to carry identification with you.

We'll need someone like MitchelCT who is a real lawyer to chime in; or maybe someone who has carefully researched this issue to chime in.

There may be a law on your state's book that can be upheld or not; depending on how it squares with the Supreme's ruling. As almost everything else in law is very situational specific this one too may be.

Anyway, that is the perspective I was coming from and don't have the time to research it at the moment, and could do so only in an amateur way.

Someone out there knows for sure, for sure. Maybe you do, and in that case the argument stops right here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bumper

Sneaking into this country is a crime but it is NOT a victimless crime. With identity theft, YOU could be the one that turns out being the victim.....

---

We certainly agree on this, and it is more than identity theft. It distorts the employment market, it distorts wages, it interferes with fair competition among small businesses.

An honest business person who has to pay legal wages and taxes is at a huge disadvantage bidding against a company that uses illegal labor. The bad companies drive the good ones out of business this way.

So, yes, being here illegally is not a victimless crime, far from it.

I think there are plenty of things everyone on here pretty much agree with.

1) The problem needs to be solved.
2) Uncle hasn't done its job
3) Unscrupulous business people make the market for illegal migration
4) Drug markets make a market for human traffic as well
5) If it were practical to deport wholesale, that should be done with minor exceptions for humanitarian reasons

Where we disagree is not on the intent of the AZ law, but on its potential for causing serious civil rights violations against US citizens.

If John Lott is right, then there is no issue. If Lindsay Graham is right, then there is an issue.

And maybe, neither are right. Maybe things will have to play out so we can determine how meticulously AZ LEs protect people's rights or not, and if they are meticulous about it then nothing will go to court and the constitutional issue won't ever need to be decided. Wouldn't that one be nice?

That seems to be what your Governor wants. I hope she can pull it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Will take your word for it.

However, a few years back there was an ID case from Colorado that went to the Supreme CT. I think there were also an additional ID case that went to the Supremes, one in which a black man was stopped for jogging in an upscale neighborhood and didn't have ID with him.

Perhaps my recollection of it isn't correct, but I seem to recall that the bottom line from those two cases was there was an obligation to identify yourself to an officer but that there is no obligation to carry identification with you.

We'll need someone like MitchelCT who is a real lawyer to chime in; or maybe someone who has carefully researched this issue to chime in.

There may be a law on your state's book that can be upheld or not; depending on how it squares with the Supreme's ruling. As almost everything else in law is very situational specific this one too may be.

Anyway, that is the perspective I was coming from and don't have the time to research it at the moment, and could do so only in an amateur way.

Someone out there knows for sure, for sure. Maybe you do, and in that case the argument stops right here.

---

I only know what we enforce, or can enforce, if you know what I mean. Some officers like to throw everything that they can on someone and hope something sticks. I have never been that way, instead lets say I caught you breaking into cars, you were in possesion of stolen property, and you had perscription drugs on you, plus you did not have an ID. I would charge you with the main 3 and not worry about the misdemeanor, knowing from experience, that it is usually dismissed in the process of pleading out in court. We are a commonwealth state also, and things are a little different here. But we have had an ID law as long as I have been on the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

I only know what we enforce, or can enforce, if you know what I mean. Some officers like to throw everything that they can on someone and hope something sticks. I have never been that way, instead lets say I caught you breaking into cars, you were in possesion of stolen property, and you had perscription drugs on you, plus you did not have an ID. I would charge you with the main 3 and not worry about the misdemeanor, knowing from experience, that it is usually dismissed in the process of pleading out in court. We are a commonwealth state also, and things are a little different here. But we have had an ID law as long as I have been on the job.

---

Since this is drifting off topic, would you be kind enough to pm the statute to me. I'd like to see it. Thanks.

Hopyard, et al - here's a link to AZ SB1070, the new law that is causing all the hubub.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf


Note that the bill states clearly in the first 2 pages that:

- in the context of any "legal contact" by AZ law enforcement (e.g., a "Terry stop"), IF the LEO has reasonable cause to question a detainee's immigration status, then he may make a reasonable attempt to determine that person's immigration status.

- an identification document issued by any federal, state or local government agency which requires proof of US citizenship prior to issuance (as most currently do) is sufficient to satisfy the legal status requirement.

Read the bill and satisfy yourselves. Predictions of wholesale "may I see your papers, please" LE stops are greatly exaggerated. A legitimate U.S. driver's license will satisfy most LE requests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gasmitty

Hopyard, et al - here's a link to AZ SB1070, the new law that is causing all the hubub.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf


Note that the bill states clearly in the first 2 pages that:

- in the context of any "legal contact" by AZ law enforcement (e.g., a "Terry stop"), IF the LEO has reasonable cause to question a detainee's immigration status, then he may make a reasonable attempt to determine that person's immigration status.

- an identification document issued by any federal, state or local government agency which requires proof of US citizenship prior to issuance (as most currently do) is sufficient to satisfy the legal status requirement.

Read the bill and satisfy yourselves. Predictions of wholesale "may I see your papers, please" LE stops are greatly exaggerated. A legitimate U.S. driver's license will satisfy most LE requests.

---

So does anybody know what a Identification Document that requires proof of citizenship would be? Others on here have brought up that you don't necessarily have to be a citizen to get a S.S. card or a drivers license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QKShooter

In case you want to immigrate to MEXICO.


1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language

2. You have to be a professional or an investor.
No unskilled workers allowed.

3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no
special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted
in our language.

4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they
are here.

5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no
food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be OK, BUT
options will be restricted.
You are not allowed waterfront property.
That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down
and sent straight to jail.

---

Where in the world did you get that from?

I tell you, the things people come up with...