Oklahoma targets illegal immigrants with tough new law

[no name 1]

I know that I'm no scholar, so can somebody point me to where I can read about who can ask me for what because right now I am feeling kind of, well.....violated. You know people asking about driving licences, proof of insurance, proof to register to vote, show me your passport, show me a birth certificate etc., etc. Also, has anybody successfully used this infringement of liberties approach with USCIS? I'll admit I haven't had the nerve to try it.

With USCIS? Are you joking?

USCIS - United States Citizenship and IMMIGRATION SERVICES

They need all that info to process your LEGAL STATUS documents.

Go ahead & try it, you'll get denied or an RFE if you're lucky.

Edited November 4, 2007 by devilette

[buckeye6976 0]

Would I joke with you???? Sorry I'm way past that point of the journey

[Marc and Olga 0]

Under this law, if USCIS screwed up and rejected your spouse's application, as happens from time to time due to a missed appointment letter, you'd have committed a felony for having knowingly harbored an illegal alien.

Oh...come on now. Anybody with some common sense knows darned well what the intent of the law really is and who the law is going after.

Sure, but what the intent is and what the statute are two different things. The statute says 'knowingly harbor illegal', not 'but it's okay if it's your spouse and it was USCIS's fault your petition was rejected' or 'we didn't have the money to file AOS right away' or 'I wanted to make sure she wasn't using me for a greencard first so I delayed filing a year.'

The kid that was just released after serving two years because when he was 17 his 15 year-old girlfriend gave him a ####### probably would have liked the statute to have been revised when the legislature accidentally made blowjobs (but not sex) between underage people a sex crime, not told 'oh, they won't arrest you, just bad people.'

I don't like laws that depend on people saying 'oh, don't worry, they're not really after you, you're not invading the country, you don't look like the sort they'd arrest', because in my experience, tightening up laws leads not to illegals leaving but lots of people posting that they can't get their legal spouse a driver's license, or a bank account, or a social security number, because they can't prove she's here legally because their AOS hasn't processed and no one knows what that K-1 thingy is. The last thing legal immigrants need on top of this are businesses refusing to allow them to rent or stay in the property because they can't prove they're legally here for the term of a lease.

I've personally been through the "process" from one end to the other. My wife just filed for US citizenship last week. My stepdaughter came here to the USA on a K-2 as an 18 year old adult. At no time during the process did I ever not have any proof that they weren't in the USA legally. In due time we got all the necessary Social Security cards, driver's licenses, bank accounts, credit cards, etc., etc. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt to prove it.

I don't see any problem with the Oklahoma law. It never would have caused me or mine any problems if we had to live under it.

It just pisses off the crowd that thinks anybody that sneaks into the USA on an innertube should be able to live, thrive, and survive illegally with impunity in the USA and that they are untouchable. They can ruminate forever thinking of reasons not to do anything about anything because...the sky will fall and the world will end.

At least some folks aren't sitting around with their heads in the sand waiting for another 20 million illegal aliens to invade.

If you read, I think the part of the law restrict illegals from public benefits makes sense. The rest, however, is not something I'm willing to say 'well, it won't bother me and mine, why should I care?' I think it's a bad law that could affect a lot of people who are here legally as immigrants, not to mention relatives of illegals.

By the way -- carrying a driver's license isn't proof of legal presence. It's relatively easy to secure a driver's license if you have proof that you're here legally, but the license doesn't expire if the person goes out of status. (Four million illegals entered legally.) C. got a license that's good for six years based on the NOA for our AOS, not an approval. If we divorce tomorrow and cancel the AOS, he'll have that driver's license for another six years. They are most certainly *not* asking you for citizenship or legal presence when they ask for your driver's license.

When Olga arrived she wanted an ID, so we got her one, her FIRST ID card was good until the I-94 expired, her second one is good until the 2 year green card expires. This, I believe is a different Arizona law.

[Ban Hammer 12,904]

I agree. The idea that I as a U.S. citizen may have to prove my citizenship everytime I'm pulled over by a traffic cop is an infringement on my civil liberties.

you poor thing

That smiley rocks!

Well, angry noob, this is a site about IMMIGRATION, and legal immigration at that. Anything relevant to immigration usually gets posted.

Are you agreeing again, BFF?

[SMOKE 1,426]

oklahoma suxs

our law makers kick a$$!

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

GOOD ON OKLAHOMA!

Allowing local Govt. Agencies to police immigration laws and hold those responsible for enabling these Criminal Aliens

Too Bad California doesn't follow suit.

restrict illegals from public benefits makes sense

All Illegals Heads Up times are changing AMericans DO NOT

NEED YOU HERE

Do NOT WANT YOU HERE

AND WILL NOT BE QUIET AND LET YOU STAY HERE

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

I know that I'm no scholar, so can somebody point me to where I can read about who can ask me for what because right now I am feeling kind of, well.....violated. You know people asking about driving licences, proof of insurance, proof to register to vote, show me your passport, show me a birth certificate etc., etc. Also, has anybody successfully used this infringement of liberties approach with USCIS? I'll admit I haven't had the nerve to try it.

Our Constitution is a beautiful thing... I wouldn't dismiss anyone for standing up for what they believe to be their rights under our Constitution. That to me is what it means to be an American.

PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona today announced today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order that will enjoin Arizona from implementing Proposition 200’s voter ID requirements in connection with the upcoming November 7 elections.

“This court ruling means that thousands of eligible voters who would have been turned away from the polls because of this misguided and unnecessary law will now be able to exercise their fundamental right to vote in this upcoming election,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona, which has joined a coalition of groups challenging Proposition 200.

According to the ACLU, the court’s ruling will help ensure the fundamental right to vote for tens of thousands of Arizonans who otherwise would have faced unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal and state elections. It will remain in effect until the court considers an appeal that will be decided after the election.

Passed in 2004, Proposition 200 dramatically altered Arizona election law by requiring citizens to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, and by imposing a restrictive identification requirement as a condition of casting a ballot at the polls. For those voters who cannot meet its strict and unnecessary requirements, Proposition 200 imposes a 21st century poll tax by requiring that voters purchase acceptable forms of identification.

By creating a price tag to vote, Proposition 200’s unconstitutional burden disproportionately disenfranchised Arizona’s minority voters, Native Americans, the elderly, the disabled and students, said the ACLU. In addition, women who have changed their names, citizens who use a P.O. Box, and people who have moved but not received new identification may have been prevented from voting in the election. Notably, no one has ever uncovered an incident in Arizona of the kind of voting fraud that the polling identification requirement would prevent, i.e., someone impersonating a registered voter at the polls.

http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/27012prs20061005.html

Edited November 4, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[buckeye6976 0]

I know that I'm no scholar, so can somebody point me to where I can read about who can ask me for what because right now I am feeling kind of, well.....violated. You know people asking about driving licences, proof of insurance, proof to register to vote, show me your passport, show me a birth certificate etc., etc. Also, has anybody successfully used this infringement of liberties approach with USCIS? I'll admit I haven't had the nerve to try it.

"Our Constitution is a beautiful thing... I wouldn't dismiss anyone for standing up for what they believe to be their rights under our Constitution. That to me is what it means to be an American".

"Passed in 2004, Proposition 200 dramatically altered Arizona election law by requiring citizens to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote"

I absolutely agree with you and would gladly defend your right as a citizen to do so. But then as I read your quote I must say that I am surprised. I believe that the right to vote is a very special privilege for citizens and that deserves special protection. If that means proving in the first instance your entitlement to vote to keep others who do not have the right to vote from doing so, then to me it makes sense. To be asked to show a birth certificate for instance to register to vote doesn't on the face of it seem an undue hardship for a citizen. The alternative seems to be to allow anyone in this country to vote which takes away my special rights as a citizen and that would not make me happy. And why is it that tens of thousands of Arizonans don't have birth certificates to show? Is this the hanging chads of the South West situation?

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

I know that I'm no scholar, so can somebody point me to where I can read about who can ask me for what because right now I am feeling kind of, well.....violated. You know people asking about driving licences, proof of insurance, proof to register to vote, show me your passport, show me a birth certificate etc., etc. Also, has anybody successfully used this infringement of liberties approach with USCIS? I'll admit I haven't had the nerve to try it.

"Our Constitution is a beautiful thing... I wouldn't dismiss anyone for standing up for what they believe to be their rights under our Constitution. That to me is what it means to be an American".

"Passed in 2004, Proposition 200 dramatically altered Arizona election law by requiring citizens to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote"

I absolutely agree with you and would gladly defend your right as a citizen to do so. But then as I read your quote I must say that I am surprised. I believe that the right to vote is a very special privilege for citizens and that deserves special protection. If that means proving in the first instance your entitlement to vote to keep others who do not have the right to vote from doing so, then to me it makes sense. To be asked to show a birth certificate for instance to register to vote doesn't on the face of it seem an undue hardship for a citizen. The alternative seems to be to allow anyone in this country to vote which takes away my special rights as a citizen and that would not make me happy. And why is it that tens of thousands of Arizonans don't have birth certificates to show? Is this the hanging chads of the South West situation?

The issue isn't over showing proper identification for registering to vote, but having to show a specific voter ID. As I recall, you can register to vote at the DMV. I'm not sure what the requirements are, but my guess is that your name and social security number is checked for citizenship and then you are mailed confirmation that you are registered.

Requiring an additional voter ID that you'd have to present at the voting booth is unnecessary and as pointed out above, unconstitutional because it's making citizens have to pay for special ID in order to vote.

[buckeye6976 0]

Steven, if I got this all wrong then I apologize. But as I bolded in your quote and in the quote below, that's where I was getting my information. I also thought that you were using the information about the ACLU suit re: Voting rights of convicted felons. See also below

Sunday November 4

Report - RenewTheVRA.org

Voting Rights in Arizona, 1982-2006

May 18, 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Dr. James Tucker, Dr. Rodolfo Espinio, Tara Brite Shannon Conley, Ben Horowitz, Zak Walter, and Shon

Voting Rights in Arizona, 1982-2006

Executive Summary

Since 1965, the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act have applied to portions of Arizona. During that time, Arizona has made great progress toward providing Latino and American Indian voting-age citizens with equal access to the political process. Arizona has discontinued the use of its English-only literacy test. Latino and American Indian voting-age citizens are registering and turning out in record numbers and are increasingly making a difference in state and local elections. Nevertheless, Arizona's record since 1982, when the temporary provisions were last reauthorized, shows that the state still has a long way to go.

Recent examples of measures with a discriminatory effect on language minority voting-age citizens illustrate the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act in Arizona:

In November 1988, Arizona voters approved an "English as the Official Language" amendment that was struck down by the Arizona Supreme Court under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because of the barriers it created for Spanish and American-Indian speaking citizens and their representatives.

In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 203, banning bilingual education in public schools to the detriment of tens of thousands of English Language Learner (ELL) students.

In 2004, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 200, which has made it increasingly difficult for voting-age citizens, particularly elderly American Indian voters, to register or vote because of lack of requisite documentation including birth certificates and other federal or state forms of identification.

Now if it means that special arrangements should be made to help the American Indians vote then I certainly agree something should be done.

American Civil Liberties Union : Voting Rights

ACLU Files Lawsuit to Restore Right to Vote for Former Felons in Arizona (5/31/2007) ... lawsuit seeking to restore the voting rights of Arizona citizens who have ...www.aclu.org/votingrights/index.html - 27k

[mybackpages 0]

The issue isn't over showing proper identification for registering to vote, but having to show a specific voter ID. As I recall, you can register to vote at the DMV. I'm not sure what the requirements are, but my guess is that your name and social security number is checked for citizenship and then you are mailed confirmation that you are registered.

Requiring an additional voter ID that you'd have to present at the voting booth is unnecessary and as pointed out above, unconstitutional because it's making citizens have to pay for special ID in order to vote.

I agree with you on additional voter ID card, but Motor Voter laws put the responsibiity on the regeristing voter to declare he/she is legally allowed to vote. States/local officials do not verify voters in any place as far as I know. Imagine the resources needed to vertify this.

Local officials will try to purge their records- remember the fiasco caused in forida when local officials tried to rid convicted felons from the roll?

Edited November 4, 2007 by mybackpages

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The ACLU is really the ICLU - Illegal Civil Liberties Union. They have yet to move to protect national sovereignty or the distinction between legals and illegals, instead they work to destroy American citizen's rights. They are open borders traitors.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The ACLU is really the ICLU - Illegal Civil Liberties Union. They have yet to move to protect national sovereignty or the distinction between legals and illegals, instead they work to destroy American citizen's rights. They are open borders traitors.

word!!!

[peejay 327]

The ACLU is really the ICLU - Illegal Civil Liberties Union. They have yet to move to protect national sovereignty or the distinction between legals and illegals, instead they work to destroy American citizen's rights. They are open borders traitors.

word!!!

Ditto!!!

The ACLU mostly caters to a small cadre of the far Left that is out of sync with most of mainstream America. I don't want, need, or desire their efforts to subvert America into their twisted image while they purport to claim they are protecting my civil liberties.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Fact is, Prop. 200 required showing proper ID to register to vote, such as a State Issued ID card. the ACLU decided that people who (for whatever reason) could not get one ($12 at the MVD, and I believe EVERYONE should have 1!) or a Birth Certificate (should have one of these also, if not, whose fault is that?)

These were NOT special voter ID cards but merely State issuded ID cards.