Arizonans and The Nation Torn On Immigration Bill

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's federal law to carry your GC on you at all times, anyway, though.

it is, but so what? Who would know? The police wouldn't, at least not from a cursory examination.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's federal law to carry your GC on you at all times, anyway, though.

And anyway, if someone was here illegally, I don't even know if they could obtain a driver's license (I could be wrong, I've never attempted it, myself) and, immigrant or not, driving without a license is also a felony.

Actually, many couples here have experience with the foreign spouses getting driver's license without being a U.S. citizen. A driver's license of a state is not recognized as valid proof of someone's legal status as it is a state issued identification and not federal.

[Andy and Kayla 45]

Actually, many couples here have experience with the foreign spouses getting driver's license without being a U.S. citizen. A driver's license of a state is not recognized as valid proof of someone's legal status as it is a state issued identification and not federal.

Then I stand corrected on the driver's license. It doesn't change the fact that legal immigrants are already required by federal law to have their GC with them at all times. I am someone who will one day be one of these legal immigrants who will hold a GC and have no issues with it; should I get pulled over and don't have it on me and it's asked of me, Ill have to go to the police station where they can run my license and my immigrant information will show on the computer system. I'll go home and remember to have it on me for next time. I would be breaking the law by not having it so the inconvenience would be my own fault.

If someone can't produce a card and they have no records of legal immigration, that's an entirely different situation.

[Peikko 1,575]

Then I stand corrected on the driver's license. It doesn't change the fact that legal immigrants are already required by federal law to have their GC with them at all times. I am someone who will one day be one of these legal immigrants who will hold a GC and have no issues with it; should I get pulled over and don't have it on me and it's asked of me, Ill have to go to the police station where they can run my license and my immigrant information will show on the computer system. I'll go home and remember to have it on me for next time. I would be breaking the law by not having it so the inconvenience would be my own fault.

If someone can't produce a card and they have no records of legal immigration, that's an entirely different situation.

You really don't seem to get the problem. How does a perfectly legal US citizen prove that they are legal with the production of a driving license? It's not proof of citizenship but somehow the police are at that point obliged to make a judgment as to whether or not they are.

On a separate issue, for me personally I think it's onerous to be expected to have to carry identity around at all times. When you 'pop out to the shops' for a pint of milk or loaf of bread, or cycle to the gym, or walk to the beach or park or whatever in the normal course of life, should one really be expected to make sure one has one's proof of legality? Would anyone who hasn't ever had to do this in their life always remember to do so? It's all very draconian.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Then I stand corrected on the driver's license. It doesn't change the fact that legal immigrants are already required by federal law to have their GC with them at all times. I am someone who will one day be one of these legal immigrants who will hold a GC and have no issues with it; should I get pulled over and don't have it on me and it's asked of me, Ill have to go to the police station where they can run my license and my immigrant information will show on the computer system. I'll go home and remember to have it on me for next time. I would be breaking the law by not having it so the inconvenience would be my own fault.

If someone can't produce a card and they have no records of legal immigration, that's an entirely different situation.

I don't think you fully understand the difference of jurisdiction between state and federal authorities. States do not have the authority to determine a person's legal status. While a non USC may be federally required to carry their greencard with them at all times, U.S. citizens don't so how does a USC 'prove' their citizenship to local law enforcement who suspect them to be here illegally?

There are also many couples here who know what it is like to be Out-of-status while waiting for their GC. What this Arizona law means for them that if the police were to suspect them of being here illegally, they would be detained without bail until federal immigration authorities handle the matter, which could take weeks or months even - something that anyone who has gone through the USCIS knows of. This backwards azz law tries to circumvent the authority of federal immigration to local law enforcement even though they can do nothing but detain a suspect until federal authorities step in. Local law enforcement cannot deport anyone or even charge them with a crime related to immigration.

Edited April 30, 2010 by El Buscador

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think you fully understand the difference of jurisdiction between state and federal authorities. States do not have the authority to determine a person's legal status. While non USC may be federally required to carry their greencard with them at all times, USC don't so how does a USC 'prove' their citizenship to local law enforcement who suspect them to be here illegally?

There are also many couples here who know what it is like to be Out-of-status while waiting for their GC. What this Arizona law means for them that if the police were to suspect them of being here illegally, they would be detained without bail until federal immigration authorities handle the matter, which could take weeks or months even - something that anyone who has gone through the USCIS knows of. This backwards azz law tries to circumvent the authority of federal immigration to local law enforcement even though they can do nothing but detain a suspect until federal authorities step in. Local law enforcement cannot deport anyone or even charge them with a crime related to immigration.

Not to mention how long it takes to get a replacement GC should it be lost/stolen. Of course, one should not only carry one's GC at all times, but ensure that it can't be lost or stolen at one and the same time - because responsible people can do that, you know?

[Andy and Kayla 45]

Then like I said, what's the issue with throwing an extra card or certificate or whatever else you need in your wallet? I don't see the outrage over that, I guess.

But assuming it was a lot to ask to carry one or two extra pieces of documentation in your wallet, if driver's licenses are so useless as identification then the regulations on them should be changed; not this law.

Cracking down on something that is pretty rampant in an imperfect way is better than allowing the government systems already in place to be undermined day in and day out.

[Peikko 1,575]

Then like I said, what's the issue with throwing an extra card or certificate or whatever else you need in your wallet? I don't see the outrage over that, I guess.

But assuming it was a lot to ask to carry one or two extra pieces of documentation in your wallet, if driver's licenses are so useless as identification then the regulations on them should be changed; not this law.

Cracking down on something that is pretty rampant in an imperfect way is better than allowing the government systems already in place to be undermined day in and day out.

I'll try again. If I was stopped for a traffic offense and produced my driving license why should I be asked for anything further?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Then like I said, what's the issue with throwing an extra card or certificate or whatever else you need in your wallet? I don't see the outrage over that, I guess.

But assuming it was a lot to ask to carry one or two extra pieces of documentation in your wallet, if driver's licenses are so useless as identification then the regulations on them should be changed; not this law.

Cracking down on something that is pretty rampant in an imperfect way is better than allowing the government systems already in place to be undermined day in and day out.

U.S. citizens do not and should not have to be ready to prove their citizenship to local law enforcement. Like I stated earlier, citizenship is outside of their jurisdiction for one. Second, we live in a country that was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty. Requiring all citizens to prove their citizenship by carrying with them documentation at all times goes against those principles, not to mention our civil rights.

[Andy and Kayla 45]

I'll try again. If I was stopped for a traffic offense and produced my driving license why should I be asked for anything further?

Assuming you were a legal citizen, then yes, it would be inconvinient to have to have that information.

That being said, from the standpoint of trying to correct problems in a country, I don't see the inconvenience outweighing reduction of that problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Assuming you were a legal citizen, then yes, it would be inconvinient to have to have that information.

That being said, from the standpoint of trying to correct problems in a country, I don't see the inconvenience outweighing reduction of that problem.

What specific problem(s) that you refer to, which you believe would be worth sacrificing our liberties for?

[Andy and Kayla 45]

What specific problem(s) that you refer to, which you believe would be worth sacrificing our liberties for?

"Sacrificing our liberties" is a little dramatic when what you're referring to is carrying an extra card or paper in your wallet, IMO.

And the problem, in this case, is illegal immigration. Not because I'm racist, or I think they took our jobs or whatever else; it's a problem because of tax reasons, because it hurts the people like the ones on this forum who want to legitimately start a life in the US and because, in case everyone forgot, it's illegal.

There is no perfect law, or perfect system or perfect policy; it isn't going to happen. Someone is always going to be upset or offended in some way. We just need to do our best, outweigh the negatives with positives and be willing to make (small) sacrifices in the interest of solving issues in our countries. No one is asking anyone to take a bullet so we can crack down on immigration; these are minor, minor things to ask of citizens. There always has been and always needs to be a balance of give and take in things like this. It would be nice if there was a solution that would make everyone happy, but there isn't.

[Peikko 1,575]

Assuming you were a legal citizen, then yes, it would be inconvinient to have to have that information.

That being said, from the standpoint of trying to correct problems in a country, I don't see the inconvenience outweighing reduction of that problem.

I'm sorry, are you saying that every time you have interaction with the police your legal status must be determined prior to any further action being taken beyond incarceration until it is determined? That seems to be your position. Currently, the police have no duty to determine legal status. Under this law they are not demanded to determine legal status under all circumstances but only if they suspect that someone might be illegal. So again, what should this judgment be based upon? When should a police officer demand someone produces something other than a driving licence? For some, that judgment should be based on one's ability to speak English (presumably in an accent that a cop recognizes as American) and whether or not one appears to be 'nervous'. Does that seem reasonable?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Sacrificing our liberties" is a little dramatic when what you're referring to is carrying an extra card or paper in your wallet, IMO.

And the problem, in this case, is illegal immigration. Not because I'm racist, or I think they took our jobs or whatever else; it's a problem because of tax reasons, because it hurts the people like the ones on this forum who want to legitimately start a life in the US and because, in case everyone forgot, it's illegal.

There is no perfect law, or perfect system or perfect policy; it isn't going to happen. Someone is always going to be upset or offended in some way. We just need to do our best, outweigh the negatives with positives and be willing to make (small) sacrifices in the interest of solving issues in our countries. No one is asking anyone to take a bullet so we can crack down on immigration; these are minor, minor things to ask of citizens. There always has been and always needs to be a balance of give and take in things like this. It would be nice if there was a solution that would make everyone happy, but there isn't.

You're oversimplifying the act of "carrying papers to prove your citizenship" as a mere inconvenience without thinking that out as to what could happen to anyone who didn't have such proof under the right circumstances. That is a huge infringement on our liberties.

As for illegal immigrants - here's some facts that you might not be aware of:

• The estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are
  now providing the Social Security system with a subsidy of about $7 billion a year. (The New York Times)
• Immigrants contribute billions of dollars annually but receive no public pension in retirement, are not eligible for Medicare, and are not entitled to any other benefits. (Social Security Administration)
• Most undocumented workers pay taxes, and they pay a variety of taxes. (The New York Times)
• The money that undocumented immigrants paid in 2004 added up to about 10 percent of that year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it pays in pension benefits. (Social Security Administration)
• Undocumented immigrants have become a new source of economic growth as giant U.S. consumer companies like banks, insurers, mortgage lenders, credit-card outfits, phone carriers, and others aggressively market to over 11 million undocumented customers. (BusinessWeek)
• Undocumented immigrants add 600,000 to 700,000 new consumers to the economy every year. (Pew Research Center)
• In 2004, Arizona suffered severe labor shortages and huge quantities of lettuce went unpicked because growers lacked pickers. In 2005, the Central Valley in California had 70,000 to 80,000 labor positions that were unfilled. Legalizing workers would alleviate such labor shortages. (Benjamin Powell, economist at the Independent Institute)

http://jifm.tamu.edu/imfacts.htm

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're oversimplifying the act of "carrying papers to prove your citizenship" as a mere inconvenience without thinking that out as to what could happen to anyone who didn't have such proof under the right circumstances. That is a huge infringement on our liberties.

IF you have interaction with the police, you have to be able to identify yourself legally already. This is nothing new...

As for illegal immigrants - here's some facts that you might not be aware of:

http://jifm.tamu.edu/imfacts.htm

Those "facts" (which I use that lightly) don't take into consideration a variety of factors, including the # of illegals right off the bat is wrong. On top of that the "labor" shortage is a half-truth as it doesn't take into effect the supply/demand factor, nor does it take into question the fact that we DO HAVE a migrant/guest worker program for farm workers to take advantage of. a LEGAL way.