Actually, a passport would do better than a birth certificate to prove nationality. We have a problem of getting too many unskilled workers and not enough skilled workers coming into the country. Also, we need to know who has come into the country.

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

(07-07-2010 05:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

Assuming you don't have a passport either then. Well, you are one of few who would have an issue. While I live in Texas, I have my passport so I could just carry it with me. Granted, not planning on committing a crime, so not too worried, but I should follow the state's law that I will be visiting.

Responding to a number of people in re: D1's comments.

Yes, one can be accused of crimes without intending to commit them, or without doing so. The Arizona law doesn't make this any more or less likely

If you have a valid Drivers license, the suspicion that you are here illegally now becomes suspect, so the barrier or "reasonability" becomes an issue that is now prosecutable by the victim. It isn't technically proof, but it erases that suspicion as reasonable.

If you're arrested for something... i.e. you are "booked", they will run a background check including immigration anyway. This is SUPPOSED to be part of the process even before the Az law. If you are merely pulled over on suspicion of a different crime but let go, they still have to suspect you're here illegally to run you. I don't think they can legally run your immigration status because they pulled you over for suspicion of drunk driving. If you pass the breathalizer, they can't run your status without additional suspicion, which a valid license (which you'd already have to have presented) would alleviate that suspicion.

Did I say that clearly? I'm not sure.

(07-07-2010 05:28 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

Assuming you don't have a passport either then. Well, you are one of few who would have an issue. While I live in Texas, I have my passport so I could just carry it with me. Granted, not planning on committing a crime, so not too worried, but I should follow the state's law that I will be visiting.

I wasn't planning on commiting a crime, not sure if I did, but still ended up looking down the muzzles of a bunch of machine guns wielded by 4 jeeploads of soldiers. Got out of it the Mexican way - called a local friend.

Don't remember if I showed papers or not - scared to move. I don't think it was racial, so that made it OK.

Stuff can happen even in your own hometown, in your backyard. I don't leaave home without ID, no matter how much cash I am carrying or how short the trip is. In my case, that is DL and voter registration, passport for out of state trips (except Oklahoma - no extradition).

(07-07-2010 05:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

So, you don't HAVE to dig up your birth certificate, you CHOOSE to do so rather than use other ID.

And quite frankly, if your intent were "to get a ticket just to see what happens," I for one would have little sympathy for you, whatever consequences you incurred.

By the way, why don't you explain exactly what risk you are concerned about, that you don't already have under pre-existing law. And how do your remedies under pre-existing law stack up to those under the new law?

Just wondering.

(07-07-2010 05:28 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

Assuming you don't have a passport either then. Well, you are one of few who would have an issue.

Really? "One of the few"? I don't know too many people who carry their U.S. passport or their SS card as a matter of habit -- nor should they. In fact, the Social Security Administration says:

Quote:Do not carry your card with you. Keep it in a safe place with your other important papers.

See http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ (emphasis in original)

It would be pretty sad if it takes more documentation to travel from Utah to Arizona than it does to travel from France to Germany.

(07-07-2010 05:28 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  While I live in Texas, I have my passport so I could just carry it with me. Granted, not planning on committing a crime, so not too worried, but I should follow the state's law that I will be visiting.

(07-07-2010 05:58 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Really? "One of the few"? I don't know too many people who carry their U.S. passport or their SS card as a matter of habit -- nor should they.

My comment about one of the few was in reference to the fact that valid Driver's Licenses from 39 states outside of Arizona would work as valid forms of ID. And probably many of those from those unlucky 10 states have passports they could carry with them if they traveled to Arizona. I'm not talking about carrying a 10 pound weight...it is a passport.

And yeah, probably not a good idea to carry your SS Card, but it is an idea. I did miss an easier one...voter registration card. It should be higher up on the list I cited. That would have been a better idea and what I should have suggested.

Look, do I like that I would have to carry more ID? Not really. But, am I happy someone is trying to enforce FEDERAL statute? Yes I am. And, if I travel to Arizona and this law is still enforced as such, I don't have a problem with carrying the extra ID.

Here are some thoughts on proving one's legality:
- Apparently some of the folks on this forum like to carry all kinds of papers and documents with you at all times -- even going out for a jog. That's OK if you want to. But legally, you don't have to, and it shouldn't be held against you if you don't.
- Arguably, the idea we are talking about is that failure to produce ID would be held against a person ONLY IF the person is "reasonably suspected" of being here illegally. A troubling aspect is the concern that, in practice, the primary indicia used to give rise to "reasonable suspicion of being here illegally" would be ethnic appearance and accent. Those indicia are not only extremely over-inclusive (they would implicate many people who are here legally) but also very likely under-inclusive. So the concern is that, in practice, some people would live under a de facto "must carry ID at all times so I can prove my legality in case I get questioned for something" scenario, while others would not -- with the basis of the distinction being appearance and accent, rather than specific conduct. And that doesn't seem right.

(07-07-2010 06:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  - Arguably, the idea we are talking about is that failure to produce ID would be held against a person ONLY IF the person is "reasonably suspected" of being here illegally. A troubling aspect is the concern that, in practice, the primary indicia used to give rise to "reasonable suspicion of being here illegally" would be ethnic appearance and accent. Those indicia are not only extremely over-inclusive (they would implicate many people who are here legally) but also very likely under-inclusive. So the concern is that, in practice, some people would live under a de facto "must carry ID at all times so I can prove my legality in case I get questioned for something" scenario, while others would not -- with the basis of the distinction being appearance and accent, rather than specific conduct. And that doesn't seem right.

Understood, and it is a problem with it. They should treat everyone the same and get rid of that reasonable suspicion that could lead to the possible racial profiling.

(07-07-2010 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

So, you don't HAVE to dig up your birth certificate, you CHOOSE to do so rather than use other ID.

And quite frankly, if your intent were "to get a ticket just to see what happens," I for one would have little sympathy for you, whatever consequences you incurred.

By the way, why don't you explain exactly what risk you are concerned about, that you don't already have under pre-existing law. And how do your remedies under pre-existing law stack up to those under the new law?

Just wondering.

The social security card is not intended to be used as id (it even used to say so right on the card) and as George noted, you aren't supposed to carry it with you.

I'm white. I'm not worried about anything. I'm willing to bet nothing would happen to me, even though my driver's license doesn't count (if they are going by the rules on the website d1owls4life linked to which I'm not sure they are). I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't concern themselves with my immigration status. That's what I'm curious about. Would they make me verify my status?

Of course, my bigger issue is with the federal law. I've yet to see a good argument showing where in the Constitution the government is allowed to restrict immigration.

(07-07-2010 07:11 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

So, you don't HAVE to dig up your birth certificate, you CHOOSE to do so rather than use other ID.
And quite frankly, if your intent were "to get a ticket just to see what happens," I for one would have little sympathy for you, whatever consequences you incurred.
By the way, why don't you explain exactly what risk you are concerned about, that you don't already have under pre-existing law. And how do your remedies under pre-existing law stack up to those under the new law?
Just wondering.

The social security card is not intended to be used as id (it even used to say so right on the card) and as George noted, you aren't supposed to carry it with you.
I'm white. I'm not worried about anything. I'm willing to bet nothing would happen to me, even though my driver's license doesn't count (if they are going by the rules on the website d1owls4life linked to which I'm not sure they are). I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't concern themselves with my immigration status. That's what I'm curious about. Would they make me verify my status?
Of course, my bigger issue is with the federal law. I've yet to see a good argument showing where in the Constitution the government is allowed to restrict immigration.

Keep in mind that the statute requires "reasonable presumption" that there is a problem as a precondition for going further. Possession of a valid driver's license issued by a US state pretty much defeats reasonable presumption.

Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

That has been held to give the power to control immigration since almost day one of the republic.

(07-07-2010 07:11 PM)jh Wrote:  Of course, my bigger issue is with the federal law. I've yet to see a good argument showing where in the Constitution the government is allowed to restrict immigration.

If you mean "government" in its most general sense, the general legal theory is that a sovereign state has plenary to power to make any law it wants, unless there is pre-existing restriction on that power, such as a constitution (written or unwritten), treaty, or some sort of international norm (the last being a fuzzy concept but one that scholars like to talk about). Most jurists would probably agree that the power to regulate entry into one's territory is an inherent power of sovereignty which every nation, including the United States, has. Indeed, the ability to exercixe exclusivity -- i.e. to keep people out -- is arguably at the very core of what sovereignty means.

Given that the nation as a whole has that power, then if your question is where does Congress get the authority to legislate in furtherance of that power, there are a few Constitutional sources:

First, Article 1, Section 8.
"The Congress shall have Power
...
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

Second, the 14th Amendment:
"1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....
...
5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Third, and least explicitly, from either:
- Article I, Section 8, clause 10, which says Congress has the power "To define and punish...Offences against the Law of Nations"; or
- the combination of Article II ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America") and Article I, section 8, clause 18 "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution...all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

George, thanks for a more complete and thorough analysis.

(07-07-2010 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 07:11 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 05:11 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-07-2010 04:45 PM)jh Wrote:  As a side note, I can't believe I have to dig up my birth certificate to legally pass through Arizona. If I ever went to Arizona (other than flying through Phoenix), I'd be sorely tempted to get a ticket just to see what happens.

Don't have your social security card?

I don't believe in using that as id.

So, you don't HAVE to dig up your birth certificate, you CHOOSE to do so rather than use other ID.
And quite frankly, if your intent were "to get a ticket just to see what happens," I for one would have little sympathy for you, whatever consequences you incurred.
By the way, why don't you explain exactly what risk you are concerned about, that you don't already have under pre-existing law. And how do your remedies under pre-existing law stack up to those under the new law?
Just wondering.

The social security card is not intended to be used as id (it even used to say so right on the card) and as George noted, you aren't supposed to carry it with you.
I'm white. I'm not worried about anything. I'm willing to bet nothing would happen to me, even though my driver's license doesn't count (if they are going by the rules on the website d1owls4life linked to which I'm not sure they are). I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't concern themselves with my immigration status. That's what I'm curious about. Would they make me verify my status?
Of course, my bigger issue is with the federal law. I've yet to see a good argument showing where in the Constitution the government is allowed to restrict immigration.

Keep in mind that the statute requires "reasonable presumption" that there is a problem as a precondition for going further. Possession of a valid driver's license issued by a US state pretty much defeats reasonable presumption.

Yes, but...
(1) The reasonable presumption has to arise in the first place from something. If that something is nothing more than appearance and accent, that is troubling.
(2) If we say that possession of an ID defeats the presumption, then we're effectively saying that failure to possess an ID confirms it. That, too, is troubling: it's one thing to require an ID in order to board a plane or drive a car, but to say that one must have an ID (or more precisely, that there is something legally suspect about not having one) merely to walk around is not right.

Here's a scenario that concerns me: A guy goes out for a walk and ends up witnessing a car accident, or a hold-up, or something like that. Police officer on the scene questions him and asks for ID. Guy gives reasonable answers to the questions, but does not have an ID on him. Should the police officer now presume that he is here illegally? If so, on what basis?
- If the basis is failure to carry an ID, then you're essentially saying that a person has to carry an ID at all times just to walk around. That's not a good law.
- If the basis is failure to carry an ID in combination with the guy's appearance and accent, that's a problem too: you're saying that people with one type of appearance and accent don't really have to carry IDs at all times, but other people do. One doesn't have to reach back too far to find that pretty disturbing.

(07-07-2010 08:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Yes, but...
(1) The reasonable presumption has to arise in the first place from something. If that something is nothing more than appearance and accent, that is troubling.
(2) If we say that possession of an ID defeats the presumption, then we're effectively saying that failure to possess an ID confirms it. That, too, is troubling: it's one thing to require an ID in order to board a plane or drive a car, but to say that one must have an ID (or more precisely, that there is something legally suspect about not having one) merely to walk around is not right.
Here's a scenario that concerns me: A guy goes out for a walk and ends up witnessing a car accident, or a hold-up, or something like that. Police officer on the scene questions him and asks for ID. Guy gives reasonable answers to the questions, but does not have an ID on him. Should the police officer now presume that he is here illegally? If so, on what basis?
- If the basis is failure to carry an ID, then you're essentially saying that a person has to carry an ID at all times just to walk around. That's not a good law.
- If the basis is failure to carry an ID in combination with the guy's appearance and accent, that's a problem too: you're saying that people with one type of appearance and accent don't really have to carry IDs at all times, but other people do. One doesn't have to reach back too far to find that pretty disturbing.

Look at what happens now. If the guy is illegal, he flees the scene. Therefore if he stays around to talk, the presumption is that he's not here illegally. You're conjuring up hypotheticals that aren't realistic because they take things out of context.

Look, you're a cop, you're sent to investigate a crime or an accident. You have a dead body on the ground and one eyewitness. You're not going to squirrel up the case because the guy has dark skin. If he is illegal, it'll come up at some point and you'll deal with it then.

+1 to 69/70's comment. The argument against the law is always a straw man of possibilities.

(07-07-2010 06:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Here are some thoughts on proving one's legality:
- Apparently some of the folks on this forum like to carry all kinds of papers and documents with you at all times -- even going out for a jog. That's OK if you want to. But legally, you don't have to, and it shouldn't be held against you if you don't.
- Arguably, the idea we are talking about is that failure to produce ID would be held against a person ONLY IF the person is "reasonably suspected" of being here illegally. A troubling aspect is the concern that, in practice, the primary indicia used to give rise to "reasonable suspicion of being here illegally" would be ethnic appearance and accent. Those indicia are not only extremely over-inclusive (they would implicate many people who are here legally) but also very likely under-inclusive. So the concern is that, in practice, some people would live under a de facto "must carry ID at all times so I can prove my legality in case I get questioned for something" scenario, while others would not -- with the basis of the distinction being appearance and accent, rather than specific conduct. And that doesn't seem right.

I don't disagree, but minorities including Hispanics already face this. There is nothing NEW in this bill, other than the requirement of reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. They didn't need reasonable suspicion of this to harass you for "driving while black" or hispanic or Asian... or for wandering through the wriong neighborhood at the wrong time. They do now.

(07-07-2010 07:11 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm white. I'm not worried about anything. I'm willing to bet nothing would happen to me, even though my driver's license doesn't count (if they are going by the rules on the website d1owls4life linked to which I'm not sure they are). I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't concern themselves with my immigration status. That's what I'm curious about. Would they make me verify my status?

Only if
A) you're arrested for another crime, which they're supposed to do anyway or
B) they have reason to suspect you are here illegally...

My scenario is not unrealistic at all. You could easily have a situation in which everyone wants to leave but can't: e.g. the accident is on a subway, or the hold-up is in a bank or office building. Or there could be other reasons why a person is properly stopped and questioned by police even though he himself is not suspected of any crime. And in any case, the person I'm really worried about is not the illegal alien, but the citizen or legal alien who gets treated like an illegal just because he doesn't have an approved ID with him. Should mere failure to carry an ID type listed on some list be considered evidence of illegal status? I say no (in fact, hell no) - just as failure to testify at trial should not be considered evidence of guilt. And that's exactly the kind of question a court would have to consider in evaluating such a law.

(07-07-2010 10:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  My scenario is not unrealistic at all. You could easily have a situation in which everyone wants to leave but can't: e.g. the accident is on a subway, or the hold-up is in a bank or office building. Or there could be other reasons why a person is properly stopped and questioned by police even though he himself is not suspected of any crime. And in any case, the person I'm really worried about is not the illegal alien, but the citizen or legal alien who gets treated like an illegal just because he doesn't have an approved ID with him. Should mere failure to carry an ID type listed on some list be considered evidence of illegal status? I say no (in fact, hell no) - just as failure to testify at trial should not be considered evidence of guilt. And that's exactly the kind of question a court would have to consider in evaluating such a law.

But what part of your scenario doesn't already exist under pre-existing law?

(07-07-2010 09:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  +1 to 69/70's comment. The argument against the law is always a straw man of possibilities.

It's not a straw-man. He's illustrating the issue (that the law encourages racial discrimination and harassment) with an example for those who lack imagination on how this could suck for some people. (As you said: the LEGAL immigrant won't flee. That means he's around to be harassed.) I'm sure cops where you're from are entirely logical, egalitarian, and not at all hung up on their sense of power. Oh wait, you mention below that people "already face" this kind of profiling, so clearly you don't. So you want to give these authorities legal justification for these actions?

Do you actually defend profiling, and treating people different because of their race?

Remember, the key population that I (and others) are interested are the LEGAL immigrants who will now be treated like another class of citizen. I'm not upset about sending illegals home, though I do think the "problem" is blown out of proportion. Just listening to right-wing talk radio, you would think illegal (hispanic) immigrants are the cause of all our problems. They are apparently mostly criminals, drunks, rapists; taking money from our pockets and food form our children's mouths. It's a very hate-filled and disturbing set of arguments for many, and strangely many of the pro-people seem to be in honest denial of their own subconscious racism.

(Before everyone gets upset: I'm not saying everyone for this law is racist, but I certainly put the question out there - why do you care so much about this? There's a rancor with many that outstrips the misdemeanor "crime" in question)

(07-07-2010 09:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't disagree, but minorities including Hispanics already face this. There is nothing NEW in this bill, other than the requirement of reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. They didn't need reasonable suspicion of this to harass you for "driving while black" or hispanic or Asian... or for wandering through the wriong neighborhood at the wrong time. They do now.

Great, I'll comfort my hispanic friends with that one. "They already target you because of your skin anyway, better get used to it!"