Proof of Citizenship

[Anonymous]

Just a question, are we not required by law to carry identification on us at all times? I thought that the police were allowed to request you producue identification at any time without establishing any criteria. Its not common practice but still the law.

If a person is requested to produce a government issued ID and cannot do so, do you think it would be alright for further inquiry?

I feel as though there is an emphasis on latin american illiegals but they are not the only illegals in this country. And I just don't understand what's so wrong with requiring people to enter this country legally.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Just a question, are we not required by law to carry identification on us at all times?

No, we are not.

Anonymous wrote:I thought that the police were allowed to request you producue identification at any time without establishing any criteria. Its not common practice but still the law.

No, your understanding is incorrect. There is no federal law requiring you to produce identification due to a simple police request. Some states have "stop and identify" laws, but as far as I know, those states do not include MD, VA, or DC.

Anonymous wrote:If a person is requested to produce a government issued ID and cannot do so, do you think it would be alright for further inquiry?

It depends on the circumstances. Is the person running down the street with a television in the middle of the night or simply walking down the street while Hispanic?

Anonymous wrote:I feel as though there is an emphasis on latin american illiegals but they are not the only illegals in this country. And I just don't understand what's so wrong with requiring people to enter this country legally.

Your first point is correct and your second is not objectionable as far as it goes. The topic of this discussion goes well beyond that, however. The Arizona law stands the US justice system on its head by requiring individuals to prove their innocence rather than having their innocence presumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The Arizona law stands the US justice system on its head by requiring individuals to prove their innocence rather than having their innocence presumed.

But how does this postition work with the immigration laws already in place? If this is the objection then how does the government enforce immigration laws? Are you suggesting that immegration laws are unconsitutional? At what point would the government request proof of citizenship? By all accounts there are objections at all levels of inquiry except at points of legal entry. This does not work. What then is the solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of anonymous commenters who come in and try to "sum it all up", but let me sum it up for you:

If there were anything like a majority of Americans who supported stopping the immigration of undocumented foreigners, we'd beef up the INS with a DEA-like enforcement arm, and pass legislation making the criminal penalties for hiring undocumented workers similar to the penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine. Say mandatory minimum of 5 years in Federal prison. Everything else is a smokescreen designed to gull the painfully uninformed into thinking the political Right has any interest whatsoever in curtailing the problem. They don't.

The fact that there is absolutely no public support for such a course tells you everything you need to know about the American public's commitment to stopping the problem.

Notice how I said, "the American public's commitment", not Obama's commitment, Nancy Pelosi's commitment, or Al Franken's commitment. If you're one of the small percentage of Americans who do care, let me tell you right now, your neighbors don't give a shit. Not when balanced against cheap daycare and landscaping.

You can give away your civil liberties piecemeal if you like, but this has fuck-all to do with stopping illegal immigration, and everything to do with certain politicians in Arizona making you feel good that they're "doing something."

I think you are wrong about this. If there were a national referendum on exactly this point, I'd be betting it would pass, and if the penalty was 6 months instead of 5 years it would pass like 60/40. IMO, the reason nothing happens on immigration is that the current D leadership is not as concerned about the views of the white working class at it once was, and it sees legalizing current illegals as an opportunity for a long-term majority, and the Rs are hopelessly divided between the open borders/cheap labor business types (who like immigration) and the more populist right (who don't). Hence, neither party really wants immigration restrictions, although all the polling I've ever seen shows a solid majority of people in favor of substantially decreased immigration.

Well as it turns out a slim majority of 51% polled agree with the Arizona law. The public as a whole is not as committed as you think. They want immigration reform, but only half want it this way.

[Anonymous]

This does not work. What then is the solution?

We've already been over this: Crushingly punitive sanctions against those who hire undocumented workers.

I don't care one way or the other whether hard-working folks sneak into the US and get jobs washing dishes or laying bricks. But if we decide, as a nation, that it's important to stop it, then lets stop it. The idea that we should detain anyone with a tan and black hair who's wearing cheap shoes is just about the most un-American thing I can imagine. But that's what we're talking about in Arizona.

[Anonymous]

"It’s only a law; we shouldn't have to obey a law if we don't like it. I mean it’s not necessary to be held accountable for laws we don't agree with. Since the price of gasoline is hurting us all, why not just pump and drive away. Why should we have to pay for it if we don't agree with the price? We shouldn’t have to carry insurance on our vehicles; it’s discriminatory of lower income families. Everything in Wal-Mart should be free for the taking after all we don't think it is fair to have to pay for things we really need. While we are at it, stop police from investigating robberies and burglaries, the people doing these things are only trying to have a better life."

Comment to Yahoo's "Could Arizona's Furor Create Positive Evolution?"

There was far more than 51% in agreement with this comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of anonymous commenters who come in and try to "sum it all up", but let me sum it up for you:

If there were anything like a majority of Americans who supported stopping the immigration of undocumented foreigners, we'd beef up the INS with a DEA-like enforcement arm, and pass legislation making the criminal penalties for hiring undocumented workers similar to the penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine. Say mandatory minimum of 5 years in Federal prison. Everything else is a smokescreen designed to gull the painfully uninformed into thinking the political Right has any interest whatsoever in curtailing the problem. They don't.

The fact that there is absolutely no public support for such a course tells you everything you need to know about the American public's commitment to stopping the problem.

Notice how I said, "the American public's commitment", not Obama's commitment, Nancy Pelosi's commitment, or Al Franken's commitment. If you're one of the small percentage of Americans who do care, let me tell you right now, your neighbors don't give a shit. Not when balanced against cheap daycare and landscaping.

You can give away your civil liberties piecemeal if you like, but this has fuck-all to do with stopping illegal immigration, and everything to do with certain politicians in Arizona making you feel good that they're "doing something."

I think you are wrong about this. If there were a national referendum on exactly this point, I'd be betting it would pass, and if the penalty was 6 months instead of 5 years it would pass like 60/40. IMO, the reason nothing happens on immigration is that the current D leadership is not as concerned about the views of the white working class at it once was, and it sees legalizing current illegals as an opportunity for a long-term majority, and the Rs are hopelessly divided between the open borders/cheap labor business types (who like immigration) and the more populist right (who don't). Hence, neither party really wants immigration restrictions, although all the polling I've ever seen shows a solid majority of people in favor of substantially decreased immigration.

Well as it turns out a slim majority of 51% polled agree with the Arizona law. The public as a whole is not as committed as you think. They want immigration reform, but only half want it this way.

Heck, I'm surprised even 51% said they are in favor of the Arizona law given the relentless media attention talking about how bad and racist it is. ;-p

I don't think that it can really be disputed in good faith that a majority of people in this country would prefer lower levels of immigration (illegal or otherwise) than what we currently have, but the majority of politicians in both parties nationwide have a different view, if for different reasons depending on ideology. That tension seems to me to be what is driving Arizona -- where the costs of higher immigration are much more acutely felt than in many other places, but where federal action of any sort is lacking due to the competing political pressures at that level -- and my guess the Arizona approach will prove much more popular than you think. Time will tell, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of anonymous commenters who come in and try to "sum it all up", but let me sum it up for you:

If there were anything like a majority of Americans who supported stopping the immigration of undocumented foreigners, we'd beef up the INS with a DEA-like enforcement arm, and pass legislation making the criminal penalties for hiring undocumented workers similar to the penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine. Say mandatory minimum of 5 years in Federal prison. Everything else is a smokescreen designed to gull the painfully uninformed into thinking the political Right has any interest whatsoever in curtailing the problem. They don't.

The fact that there is absolutely no public support for such a course tells you everything you need to know about the American public's commitment to stopping the problem.

Notice how I said, "the American public's commitment", not Obama's commitment, Nancy Pelosi's commitment, or Al Franken's commitment. If you're one of the small percentage of Americans who do care, let me tell you right now, your neighbors don't give a shit. Not when balanced against cheap daycare and landscaping.

You can give away your civil liberties piecemeal if you like, but this has fuck-all to do with stopping illegal immigration, and everything to do with certain politicians in Arizona making you feel good that they're "doing something."

I think you are wrong about this. If there were a national referendum on exactly this point, I'd be betting it would pass, and if the penalty was 6 months instead of 5 years it would pass like 60/40. IMO, the reason nothing happens on immigration is that the current D leadership is not as concerned about the views of the white working class at it once was, and it sees legalizing current illegals as an opportunity for a long-term majority, and the Rs are hopelessly divided between the open borders/cheap labor business types (who like immigration) and the more populist right (who don't). Hence, neither party really wants immigration restrictions, although all the polling I've ever seen shows a solid majority of people in favor of substantially decreased immigration.

Well as it turns out a slim majority of 51% polled agree with the Arizona law. The public as a whole is not as committed as you think. They want immigration reform, but only half want it this way.

Heck, I'm surprised even 51% said they are in favor of the Arizona law given the relentless media attention talking about how bad and racist it is. ;-p

I don't think that it can really be disputed in good faith that a majority of people in this country would prefer lower levels of immigration (illegal or otherwise) than what we currently have, but the majority of politicians in both parties nationwide have a different view, if for different reasons depending on ideology. That tension seems to me to be what is driving Arizona -- where the costs of higher immigration are much more acutely felt than in many other places, but where federal action of any sort is lacking due to the competing political pressures at that level -- and my guess the Arizona approach will prove much more popular than you think. Time will tell, though.

I don't think you have the data to say that a majority of people want lower levels of legal immigration. We are a country of immigrants, so a lot of people have family elsewhere who want to come here. Many of us depend upon immigrants in our professions as well. If you are an academic, you see how our policies are forcing some of the best and brightest worldwide to study and work abroad when they used to come here. The H1B visa restrictions have really put technology companies in a bind. In a few years we are going to really feel the impact of immigration restrictions on health care, because we were benefitting from foreign students studying and then working here as doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you have the data to say that a majority of people want lower levels of legal immigration. We are a country of immigrants, so a lot of people have family elsewhere who want to come here. Many of us depend upon immigrants in our professions as well. If you are an academic, you see how our policies are forcing some of the best and brightest worldwide to study and work abroad when they used to come here. The H1B visa restrictions have really put technology companies in a bind. In a few years we are going to really feel the impact of immigration restrictions on health care, because we were benefitting from foreign students studying and then working here as doctors.

I think the PP meant to say "a majority of REAL AMERICANS want lower levels of legal immigration."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of anonymous commenters who come in and try to "sum it all up", but let me sum it up for you:

If there were anything like a majority of Americans who supported stopping the immigration of undocumented foreigners, we'd beef up the INS with a DEA-like enforcement arm, and pass legislation making the criminal penalties for hiring undocumented workers similar to the penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine. Say mandatory minimum of 5 years in Federal prison. Everything else is a smokescreen designed to gull the painfully uninformed into thinking the political Right has any interest whatsoever in curtailing the problem. They don't.

The fact that there is absolutely no public support for such a course tells you everything you need to know about the American public's commitment to stopping the problem.

Notice how I said, "the American public's commitment", not Obama's commitment, Nancy Pelosi's commitment, or Al Franken's commitment. If you're one of the small percentage of Americans who do care, let me tell you right now, your neighbors don't give a shit. Not when balanced against cheap daycare and landscaping.

You can give away your civil liberties piecemeal if you like, but this has fuck-all to do with stopping illegal immigration, and everything to do with certain politicians in Arizona making you feel good that they're "doing something."

I think you are wrong about this. If there were a national referendum on exactly this point, I'd be betting it would pass, and if the penalty was 6 months instead of 5 years it would pass like 60/40. IMO, the reason nothing happens on immigration is that the current D leadership is not as concerned about the views of the white working class at it once was, and it sees legalizing current illegals as an opportunity for a long-term majority, and the Rs are hopelessly divided between the open borders/cheap labor business types (who like immigration) and the more populist right (who don't). Hence, neither party really wants immigration restrictions, although all the polling I've ever seen shows a solid majority of people in favor of substantially decreased immigration.

Well as it turns out a slim majority of 51% polled agree with the Arizona law. The public as a whole is not as committed as you think. They want immigration reform, but only half want it this way.

Heck, I'm surprised even 51% said they are in favor of the Arizona law given the relentless media attention talking about how bad and racist it is. ;-p

I don't think that it can really be disputed in good faith that a majority of people in this country would prefer lower levels of immigration (illegal or otherwise) than what we currently have, but the majority of politicians in both parties nationwide have a different view, if for different reasons depending on ideology. That tension seems to me to be what is driving Arizona -- where the costs of higher immigration are much more acutely felt than in many other places, but where federal action of any sort is lacking due to the competing political pressures at that level -- and my guess the Arizona approach will prove much more popular than you think. Time will tell, though.

I don't think you have the data to say that a majority of people want lower levels of legal immigration. We are a country of immigrants, so a lot of people have family elsewhere who want to come here. Many of us depend upon immigrants in our professions as well. If you are an academic, you see how our policies are forcing some of the best and brightest worldwide to study and work abroad when they used to come here. The H1B visa restrictions have really put technology companies in a bind. In a few years we are going to really feel the impact of immigration restrictions on health care, because we were benefitting from foreign students studying and then working here as doctors.

I do agree with this actually. I think immigration would be less controversial if people thought it was actually being managed for the benefit of those who are already citizens, but it is pretty clear to me that this is not the case. If I were king, I'd substantially limit the immigration of unskilled people, but would go to great lengths to actively recruit the H1B types you are talking about. Instead, we tolerate via lack of enforcement the immigration of anyone who can find a way to show up and, while I'm not an expert in exactly how the system works, I think that family reunification is a higher priority than attracting skilled immigrants in making decisions to grant permanent residency. I think this is wrongheaded.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that US citizens are under no requirement to carry ID, but non-citizens are required by law to have proof that they are legally here. If this is the case, there is the paradox that a non-citizen without papers can claim to be a citizen, and therefore not required to have papers.

The solution to this paradox is that a citizen may be required to produce ID if there is reason to doubt citizenship. How strong a reason is needed is what we are discussing here, and many think the Arizona law sets the bar too low and/or is too vague in setting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This does not work. What then is the solution?

We've already been over this: Crushingly punitive sanctions against those who hire undocumented workers.

I don't care one way or the other whether hard-working folks sneak into the US and get jobs washing dishes or laying bricks. But if we decide, as a nation, that it's important to stop it, then lets stop it. The idea that we should detain anyone with a tan and black hair who's wearing cheap shoes is just about the most un-American thing I can imagine. But that's what we're talking about in Arizona.

That might eventually help deter people from coming here. But what about the ones who are already here? The ones who have children and family they need to support here in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This does not work. What then is the solution?

We've already been over this: Crushingly punitive sanctions against those who hire undocumented workers.

I don't care one way or the other whether hard-working folks sneak into the US and get jobs washing dishes or laying bricks. But if we decide, as a nation, that it's important to stop it, then lets stop it. The idea that we should detain anyone with a tan and black hair who's wearing cheap shoes is just about the most un-American thing I can imagine. But that's what we're talking about in Arizona.

That might eventually help deter people from coming here. But what about the ones who are already here? The ones who have children and family they need to support here in the US?

There is a basic principle in the law that stands for the idea that you cannot reep the benifits, regardless if obtained lawfully, from illegal conduct. It is an unfortuant situation but there should be no exceptions. This would also act as a deterent a very unpleasant one but one none-the-less.

[Anonymous]

That might eventually help deter people from coming here. But what about the ones who are already here? The ones who have children and family they need to support here in the US?

Well, actually if you read up on the issue, people "go back" across the border all the time if they have trouble finding work, seasonally, etc... It's not a matter of those "already here" staying around regardless of whether they can actually find work.