Arizona has done the nation a favor.

Originally posted by chuckk
COMMENT: ARE YOU KIDDING!? Drivers's Licenses are carried by almost everyone. ID cards are available for all US Citizens of any age at the same place you get driver's license. American Indians have US ID cards, Tribe ID Cards, Driver's licenses, Passports, and Casino Owner IDs

too.

A driver's license does not prove citizenship and therefore will be insufficient ID.

Originally posted by tungus


I have to display my ID badge at all times, so does everyone else as at work. Where is the ACLU decrying this injustice? I don't see them rushing to my defense and no one can mistake me for a white dude, believe me.

If I can have multiple immunizations, fingerprints at various federal agencies, background checks and now the new "biometrics" maybe the guy hanging out at the home depot parking lot can at least carry an ID.

Is this too much to ask? I don't know maybe it is.

You have a right in this country to be outside in a public area and the constitution prevents you from being detained for doing just that.

You have no "right" to your job.

Originally posted by RedskinWally
Not many natives have the documentation to really prove they are US citizens.

Now see "This IS What stated the whole mess". I'm not gonna get into a drawn out debate here. But I'm just gonna make this statement. The good ole USA is the only country I know of, that doesn't require you HAVE a passport. GO TO ANY other country and see where ya go my friends, "when ya don't have your so called": papers.

WTF Happened to this country. When I was a kid, growing up. YOU HAD to have your I.D. Simple as that. O.K Enough on that.

My Great Great Great Grand Father immigrated from Ireland to the USA, Their was a process, he went through it.

I have dual citizenship you could say. Let me explain: I'm retired military, I have a home in Florida. My wife being Dutch, we also have a home in Holland, and live their 6 months of the year, "I have permission from the Dutch Government To Live and Be Here". When I visit the US Bases and purchase goods, I have to go back and pay taxes on these goods to the Dutch Government. (The System)

The same goes for my wife, we live in the US part of the year, she has a immigration card,so she's legal, she has a ssn, she pay's tax's like everyone else. (well, like most everyone else). (The System)

SO, what I'm saying is their USE to be a system and it "worked quit well"
until everyone stopped enforcing it for there own benefit.

I wanna reiterate: "Come To Europe And See What Happens When You Don't Have Your Passport". (Papers)


And for you trolls and illegal sympathizers, "Get Your Papers"

reply to post by K J Gunderson


KJ - If we concede the case that asking for ID just because we suspect someone is illegal is wrong, can we now ask for citizenship when someone is asking for the use of public services? Can we now ask for proof of citizenship for social services and public schools use? How about when someone wants to visit a National Park? Do the illegal immigrants have rights to these services? Does the Constituation prevent the asking of ID's for these reasons?

Now I'm sure we get back into the debate that law enforcement should be the one's handling immigration right? But not local law or state law...only Federal law enforcement? But what if the state and local officials determine the Federal officials are not doing their jobs? Thus we are where we are today grasping for a solution and none being provided by the Federal Government.

Lastly, the audacity of Mexico to declare a travel ban on AZ is beyond belief. Mexico has the most stringent immigrant laws in the world. They only want you there if you can benefit the country. We should declare an immediate travel ban to Mexico from the US until they repeal this. See Article 67:

news.yahoo.com...

At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

reply to post by Janky Red


Gotcha.

Yes, I can see how this whole incident does play well for the Democrats in the mid terms. Even though most Republicans are likewise disinclined to tackle illegal immigration for other reasons, the fact that Arizona's Republican Governor is signing this bill could very well be used to mobilize not only Hispanic voters, but also those who cheer for anyone they perceive to be and underdog.

And, I would not be surprised at all that what is good for the American people would be sacrificed on the alter of vote whoring.

Originally posted by Bazarocka

Originally posted by RedskinWally
Not many natives have the documentation to really prove they are US citizens.

Now see "This IS What stated the whole mess". I'm not gonna get into a drawn out debate here. But I'm just gonna make this statement. The good ole USA is the only country I know of, that doesn't require you HAVE a passport. GO TO ANY other country and see where ya go my friends, "when ya don't have your so called": papers.

WTF Happened to this country. When I was a kid, growing up. YOU HAD to have your I.D. Simple as that. O.K Enough on that.



And for you trolls and illegal sympathizers, "Get Your Papers"

"Native Americans not having papers started the whole mess? What happened to this country?" You should ask them. I think any cop should be able to tell the difference between a native american and an illegal, but that's assuming all cops always have good intentions...maybe, maybe not. Looking illegal is now reasonable suspicion. That's pure and simple racism, and it could apply to any native american who jumped into the back of a truck headed for fast food or whatever without a thought of having the proper paperwork until it becomes a forced habit. 24 hours in custody will ruin anyones day. I rarely have my wallet with me if I am not driving.

I knew something like that was coming. I started to mention in my earlier post. My Great Great Great Grandfather that immigrated to the good Ole USA. Took hands in matrimony with a Seneca Indian. (Herring Tribe) "Awi Oku"

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Bazarocka]

This is just another example of how the Federal Government does not read its own Laws. Arizona adopted the Federal Law as their own state law. I find it funny when the Federal Leaders come out and complain about how racist / unconstitutional the state law is, when they themselves are jsut as guilty.

This is also an example of what happens when our elected representatives FAIL to represent their consituents, and instead represent foriegn nationals. I have not objection to anyone coming to this country to live.. All I ask is you follow the damn process that others have.

As far as Mexicos concern, they are so Hhypocritical its not even funny.. Their immigration laws are more draconian than ours. So before they get all in a huff, then need to look in a mirror.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is just another example of how the Federal Government does not read its own Laws. Arizona adopted the Federal Law as their own state law. I find it funny when the Federal Leaders come out and complain about how racist / unconstitutional the state law is, when they themselves are jsut as guilty.

This is also an example of what happens when our elected representatives FAIL to represent their consituents, and instead represent foriegn nationals. I have not objection to anyone coming to this country to live.. All I ask is you follow the damn process that others have.

As far as Mexicos concern, they are so Hhypocritical its not even funny.. Their immigration laws are more draconian than ours. So before they get all in a huff, then need to look in a mirror.

Mexicos immigration laws are not more draconian than the US they're about the same.

Actually all countries have immigration laws that are about the same. The details mare vary from country to country but they are more alike than different.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by daskakik]

reply to post by daskakik


when the state suffers injury or loss its responability is to the soverign men and woman of that state before consideration is given to anyone or anything else (the constitution says the state MUST provide for the soverigns FIRST)

when the law was enacted it was to show the states responce to their consitutional responability to the people of that state first

this forces federal govenment to do something or loose the illusion of durisdiction

it is about using state law to trump federal law in an effort to get something done about the problem so the state doesnt get sued by the people

XPLodER

reply to post by anameisbutaname


I know this was a while ago, but a driver's license isn't sufficient identification. You actually need your citizenship papers or a birth certificate. Anyone can get a driver's license, there is no citizenship requirement.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by daskakik

 

when the state suffers injury or loss its responability is to the soverign men and woman of that state before consideration is given to anyone or anything else (the constitution says the state MUST provide for the soverigns FIRST)

when the law was enacted it was to show the states responce to their consitutional responability to the people of that state first

this forces federal govenment to do something or loose the illusion of durisdiction

it is about using state law to trump federal law in an effort to get something done about the problem so the state doesnt get sued by the people

XPLodER

I totally agree with you. What is even better is that us immigration law agrees with you. And, not as good but still, ICE is deporting illegals (not saying alot much less enough but they are deporting). 2 problems though.

1. Unsecure border = deported illegals back soon.

2. Immigration law doesn't matter to illegals.

Here is US immigration law:

Chapter 8

It's rather large but no where in any of it have I read that someone in the US illegaly gets to stay without proving that they will face danger if deported.

Not low wages, poor housing or poor social services but actual political prisoner, torture and/or death dangers.

If found they will be deported but see #1 above.

The laws are there and they are even being enforced (could be better) but until the border is secure it is all pointless.

As to Mexican immigration law since 2008 illegal immigration has been decriminalized and seeing that half a million illegal immigrants flow through it every year from central and south american countries I would say it's undraconian enough.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is just another example of how the Federal Government does not read its own Laws. Arizona adopted the Federal Law as their own state law. I find it funny when the Federal Leaders come out and complain about how racist / unconstitutional the state law is, when they themselves are jsut as guilty.

This is also an example of what happens when our elected representatives FAIL to represent their consituents, and instead represent foriegn nationals. I have not objection to anyone coming to this country to live.. All I ask is you follow the damn process that others have.

As far as Mexicos concern, they are so Hhypocritical its not even funny.. Their immigration laws are more draconian than ours. So before they get all in a huff, then need to look in a mirror.

Mexicos immigration laws are not more draconian than the US they're about the same.

Actually all countries have immigration laws that are about the same. The details mare vary from country to country but they are more alike than different.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by daskakik]

You need to check their immigration law and then compare it to ours. We allow immigrants to own property in this country.. They do not in certain areas. Under mexican law, their nationals are given preference when they are hiring, ours do not. They complain about what we do on our Southern Border, when they are doing the exact same on theirs.


Plain and simple, all people are asking for is enforcement of current Federal Law. If you want to immigrate to this country, we welcome you.. The Statue of Liberty is in the front yard like a huge lawn jockey.. All we ask is it be done legally.

That is not so much to ask.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by daskakik

 

when the state suffers injury or loss its responability is to the soverign men and woman of that state before consideration is given to anyone or anything else (the constitution says the state MUST provide for the soverigns FIRST)

when the law was enacted it was to show the states responce to their consitutional responability to the people of that state first

this forces federal govenment to do something or loose the illusion of durisdiction

it is about using state law to trump federal law in an effort to get something done about the problem so the state doesnt get sued by the people

XPLodER

I totally agree with you. What is even better is that us immigration law agrees with you. And, not as good but still, ICE is deporting illegals (not saying alot much less enough but they are deporting). 2 problems though.

1. Unsecure border = deported illegals back soon.

2. Immigration law doesn't matter to illegals.

Here is US immigration law:

Chapter 8

It's rather large but no where in any of it have I read that someone in the US illegaly gets to stay without proving that they will face danger if deported.

Not low wages, poor housing or poor social services but actual political prisoner, torture and/or death dangers.

If found they will be deported but see #1 above.

The laws are there and they are even being enforced (could be better) but until the border is secure it is all pointless.

As to Mexican immigration law since 2008 illegal immigration has been decriminalized and seeing that half a million illegal immigrants flow through it every year from central and south american countries I would say it's undraconian enough.

Keep in mind US immigration has exceptions based on country as well..Cuba comes to the forefront in terms of once they make it here, they are granted asylum due to what they would face if deported. Plus its a propoganda tool for us to use against Fidel that his people dont love him all that much...

Anyone detinaed under immigration is given due process in terms ofbeing able to make a case for emergency stay inside the United States.

The underlying argument comes down to resources (Health Care, School etc). People who pay taxes (income) into the system vs illegals who do not (or not nearly as much as if they were legal).

The US does not hate Mexico.. if we did I think we would of stayed when we went after Poncho Vila What some of its citizens are saying though is enough with the double standard. If you want to come live here, do so legally, jsut as our citizens do when they move to mexico or where ever.

Originally posted by NumberNone
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

KJ - If we concede the case that asking for ID just because we suspect someone is illegal is wrong, can we now ask for citizenship when someone is asking for the use of public services?

Are you trying to have a real conversation or frame this in way not in line with the reality at hand? I never once said that anyone should be able to conduct any kind of business without having to comply with the rules of said business. I have no problem with people having to prove who they are if they want something that requires them to be who they say. That is a completely different issue from walking to the park.

Can we now ask for proof of citizenship for social services and public schools use?

Did I ever argue against any of that?

How about when someone wants to visit a National Park?

Sure, I know how high your taxes must be due to the huge increase in National Park costs do to illegal immigration and all so of course. Look, I could care less about that stuff. You want ID to let me into your park, go for it. None of this has anything to do with the point I was making.

Do the illegal immigrants have rights to these services?

Why should they? Now I see where you have lost the argument with false assumptions. I never once defended illegal immigrants "rights" to anything in the US so your argument is moot.

I am not sticking up for illegals "rights" to do, have, get, be anything. I have not once made that argument and do not plan to. Maybe you need to read my posts and try this little ruse again.

Does the Constituation prevent the asking of ID's for these reasons?

Not that I know of but since they have nothing to do with my point, I do not even care. Besides, this is not about providing ID. This is about providing proof of citizenship. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!

Now I'm sure we get back into the debate that law enforcement should be the one's handling immigration right?

That is not an English sentence. Do I have enough reason to ask for your papers now? Seriously though. I see a question mark but no real question so I am moving on.

But not local law or state law...only Federal law enforcement?

Again, papers please?

But what if the state and local officials determine the Federal officials are not doing their jobs? Thus we are where we are today grasping for a solution and none being provided by the Federal Government.

Yes, but just because people are desperate and feel their needs are not being met does not mean that just any solution they come up with is a good one.

Lastly, the audacity of Mexico to declare a travel ban on AZ is beyond belief. Mexico has the most stringent immigrant laws in the world. They only want you there if you can benefit the country. We should declare an immediate travel ban to Mexico from the US until they repeal this. See Article 67:

I really do not care what Mexico has to say about it. I am not worried about how Mexico feels. Sorry but the only people I am concerned about with respect to this are the American citizens who will be detained and questioned in complete conflict with their constitutional rights.

If you want to get upset over something Mexico has to say, that is your own issue.

news.yahoo.com...

At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

Who cares?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

You need to check their immigration law and then compare it to ours. We allow immigrants to own property in this country.. They do not in certain areas. Under mexican law, their nationals are given preference when they are hiring, ours do not. They complain about what we do on our Southern Border, when they are doing the exact same on theirs.


Plain and simple, all people are asking for is enforcement of current Federal Law. If you want to immigrate to this country, we welcome you.. The Statue of Liberty is in the front yard like a huge lawn jockey.. All we ask is it be done legally.

That is not so much to ask.

I have checked Mexican and US immigration law and they are very similar. I am also not Mexican or American so I guess that makes me a bit more unbiased.

You are right about the restricted land ownership and the mexican version of affirmative action (which mandates a certain percentage of a companies workforce to be mexican) but that is not immigration law.

The US has certain requirements to be eligable for federal government jobs one of which is US citizenship. This means foreigners with a work permit or resident alien status cannot hold these positions. That seems fair to me.

Asking a goverment to look out for it citizens and uphold laws that are already in place is not something that should be asked for. It is something that should be demanded.

Problem is that when some of the citizens feel one way and others feel in oposition there is conflict amongst yourselves.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by tungus


I have to display my ID badge at all times, so does everyone else as at work. Where is the ACLU decrying this injustice? I don't see them rushing to my defense and no one can mistake me for a white dude, believe me.

If I can have multiple immunizations, fingerprints at various federal agencies, background checks and now the new "biometrics" maybe the guy hanging out at the home depot parking lot can at least carry an ID.

Is this too much to ask? I don't know maybe it is.

You have a right in this country to be outside in a public area and the constitution prevents you from being detained for doing just that.

You have no "right" to your job.

Actually, and to be frank, YOU DO HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK. The Supreme Court has stated in many cases that your labor IS your property and you may trade it for whatever you want. Part of the description of the "right to life" INCLUDES the right to labor for food and clothing. I am sorry sir but you are definitely wrong on that statement. This is part of the survival of every man.

Edit to add; And this is all under the "color of law", this law does not apply to flesh and blood living souls. You CAN file a federal complaint against ANY officer for violating your rights. 18 USC 241 and 242 protect the populace in general from States and federal government employees overstepping their bounds of authority. This law is just more corporate policy and does not apply to flesh and blood living souls. Period. Know what you are and WHO you are. No ID required!!!

[edit on 3-5-2010 by daddio]

So after many posts we have some information about this new law.

1. It mirrors the fed law.
2. An amendment was added to further restrict/define what is considered a legal check.
3. Has the feds looking hard (finally) at this issue.
4. Other states are watching and thinking of doing the same.


So now with that spelled out we have opponents still that see it as an infringement of their rights/freedom, and all that is only based on an official who just might abuse the law. If the law is done correctly then there is no abuse, but what law is there that is immune from abuse if an official wanted to abuse it? So here we are, I think that the people who continue to fight this law and not support it do so because the law actually personally affects them or their friends/family when it is enforced correctly.

The idea that if you are brown then you are screwed is so generalized that if racial profiling is already deeply embedded this law doesn’t change much since any law on the books can be used very loosely to stop and question someone. If anything, this law will reduce that racial profiling just due to the extra training and sensitively it has created.