Va. police can ask about immigration status

[Anonymous]

You flouters are actually flaunting. Misuse of English is grounds for an ID check, right?

Just a joke; stay cool.

[Anonymous]

My point is that, traditionally, we have not required people to carry ID. You need a drivers license to drive, but that is because you are actively seeking out driving. You don't need an ID just to live here. At least, traditionally you didn't. Did you not see the part where I acknowledged that non-drivers IDs are possible but demonstrate an unfair burden? Aren't conservatives all about SMALLER government and LESS intervention? Interesting how quickly they abandon this principal.

And if they really think about immigrants from the world over, why do they refer to "border states" as only meaning the SW US. What about the Canadian border? What about coastal states? Aren't those "border states" as well? Why does so much of the outrage play on Mexican stereotypes (20 people in a house, speaking Spanish, day laborers)? Why did the law specifically target professions held by migrant laborers?

Yes, I fully realize there are good reasons to support stricter enforcement of existing immigration laws. There are good reasons to support various forms of immigration reform.

If you really cared about all that you say you do, you would see that the current legislation isn't even a bandaid, but simply a witch hunt meant to pacify fear and hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You flouters are actually flaunting. Misuse of English is grounds for an ID check, right?

Just a joke; stay cool.

You're right. Thanks for the correction. Whoops!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My point is that, traditionally, we have not required people to carry ID. You need a drivers license to drive, but that is because you are actively seeking out driving. You don't need an ID just to live here. At least, traditionally you didn't. Did you not see the part where I acknowledged that non-drivers IDs are possible but demonstrate an unfair burden? Aren't conservatives all about SMALLER government and LESS intervention? Interesting how quickly they abandon this principal.

And if they really think about immigrants from the world over, why do they refer to "border states" as only meaning the SW US. What about the Canadian border? What about coastal states? Aren't those "border states" as well? Why does so much of the outrage play on Mexican stereotypes (20 people in a house, speaking Spanish, day laborers)? Why did the law specifically target professions held by migrant laborers?

Yes, I fully realize there are good reasons to support stricter enforcement of existing immigration laws. There are good reasons to support various forms of immigration reform.

If you really cared about all that you say you do, you would see that the current legislation isn't even a bandaid, but simply a witch hunt meant to pacify fear and hate.

Are you for real? I have one...took an hour. People are concerned about California and the border with Canada. AZ is the state actually acting though, which is why its the topic du jour. I would have thought that fairly obvious. Soon we will be talking about VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point is that, traditionally, we have not required people to carry ID. You need a drivers license to drive, but that is because you are actively seeking out driving. You don't need an ID just to live here. At least, traditionally you didn't. Did you not see the part where I acknowledged that non-drivers IDs are possible but demonstrate an unfair burden? Aren't conservatives all about SMALLER government and LESS intervention? Interesting how quickly they abandon this principal.

And if they really think about immigrants from the world over, why do they refer to "border states" as only meaning the SW US. What about the Canadian border? What about coastal states? Aren't those "border states" as well? Why does so much of the outrage play on Mexican stereotypes (20 people in a house, speaking Spanish, day laborers)? Why did the law specifically target professions held by migrant laborers?

Yes, I fully realize there are good reasons to support stricter enforcement of existing immigration laws. There are good reasons to support various forms of immigration reform.

If you really cared about all that you say you do, you would see that the current legislation isn't even a bandaid, but simply a witch hunt meant to pacify fear and hate.

Are you for real? I have one...took an hour. People are concerned about California and the border with Canada. AZ is the state actually acting though, which is why its the topic du jour. I would have thought that fairly obvious. Soon we will be talking about VA.

I am for real. There is something very problematic about the government REQUIRING people to carry an ID, especially if this requirement, in practice, only applies to certain people. I'm not saying it's not possible or even hard to get one. But no one should be required to.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps a number that could be input into a computer? We all have SS #. I am sure there are bigger brains than ours that could find a solution to a quick immigration check without going all Big Brother or infringing. In the meantime, we have what we have. What I don't understand is actively disallowing police or booking to inquire into status during an already ongoing inquiry into possible criminal activity. Aren't you in for a hassle then anyway?

[Anonymous]

If ID becomes a requirement, then a non-drivers ID will have to be free and easily obtainable (as in at any library, post office, govt building, DMV office, etc., etc.)

Otherwise it becomes a poll tax or something of that nature.

And yes, if you're already arrested, not sure why you can't investigate into legal presence or not. But ONLY after the 48 hours or however long the police can hold you. OTOH, if this reduces the willingness of legal/citizen Asians/Hispanics/whatever to work with the police, this might not work quite as well as intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a number that could be input into a computer? We all have SS #. I am sure there are bigger brains than ours that could find a solution to a quick immigration check without going all Big Brother or infringing. In the meantime, we have what we have. What I don't understand is actively disallowing police or booking to inquire into status during an already ongoing inquiry into possible criminal activity. Aren't you in for a hassle then anyway?

SS #s are numbers, not proof of identity. Real ssn's are easily obtained, there are no pictures that go with them to associate the number with the person in front of you. And yes, there are ways we could do this electronically, but they are offensive to too many Americans. They will not register hand prints or iris scans or one day DNA fingerprints that can be checked with a portable device against a national computer database. There are any number of things that would be convenient, but they are intrusive and offensive to Americans.

This is why we need reliable ID cards. And since Americans are not ready to accept national identity cards, they need to come from the states.

As for your second question, current law allows a check on anyone who gets arrested, in all 50 states and the District.. The reason it is not for any inquiry is that you don't want police officers harassing mexican-american citizens or legal residents just because they don't like the you and make up a "busted tail light" excuse to pull a background check. Now what would you, or your kids, pull out of your purse or wallet to prove your identity? A DL does not show citizenship. A fistful of credit cards? Your gym ID? No, the only practical answer is to carry a passport. If we make that a de facto requirement for proving residency, then we are requiring national ID, but only for people who appear to be possible illegals. And no one is going to ask some blonde haired kid for ID. But if you look Mexican and you have an accent, your odds go way up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a number that could be input into a computer? We all have SS #. I am sure there are bigger brains than ours that could find a solution to a quick immigration check without going all Big Brother or infringing. In the meantime, we have what we have. What I don't understand is actively disallowing police or booking to inquire into status during an already ongoing inquiry into possible criminal activity. Aren't you in for a hassle then anyway?

SS #s are numbers, not proof of identity. Real ssn's are easily obtained, there are no pictures that go with them to associate the number with the person in front of you. And yes, there are ways we could do this electronically, but they are offensive to too many Americans. They will not register hand prints or iris scans or one day DNA fingerprints that can be checked with a portable device against a national computer database. There are any number of things that would be convenient, but they are intrusive and offensive to Americans.

This is why we need reliable ID cards. And since Americans are not ready to accept national identity cards, they need to come from the states.

As for your second question, current law allows a check on anyone who gets arrested, in all 50 states and the District.. The reason it is not for any inquiry is that you don't want police officers harassing mexican-american citizens or legal residents just because they don't like the you and make up a "busted tail light" excuse to pull a background check. Now what would you, or your kids, pull out of your purse or wallet to prove your identity? A DL does not show citizenship. A fistful of credit cards? Your gym ID? No, the only practical answer is to carry a passport. If we make that a de facto requirement for proving residency, then we are requiring national ID, but only for people who appear to be possible illegals. And no one is going to ask some blonde haired kid for ID. But if you look Mexican and you have an accent, your odds go way up.

This poster hits the nail on the head. There is no "reasonable suspicion" that someone is illegal that doesn't play on ethnic, racial, or cultural stereotypes. And checking someone's citizenship is a LOT harder than just punching a number or a name into a computer. Perhaps that should be changed and the process should be streamlined but, as of now, it is not. And what do you do with people pending the result of this check? Are they detained? What if the process takes days or weeks? Are we comfortable jailing people while this process plays out? You might say that is all well and good for people who are here illegally but what about for people who are here legally but get caught up in the net? Just hang them out to dry all in the name of deporting a few more people?

And, again, I challenge ANYONE in support of these measures to demonstrate what difference they will make in illegal immigration. This will do nothing except satisfy bloodlust. There is certainly a need to reform immigration policy but this will not have any appreciable impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a number that could be input into a computer? We all have SS #. I am sure there are bigger brains than ours that could find a solution to a quick immigration check without going all Big Brother or infringing. In the meantime, we have what we have. What I don't understand is actively disallowing police or booking to inquire into status during an already ongoing inquiry into possible criminal activity. Aren't you in for a hassle then anyway?

SS #s are numbers, not proof of identity. Real ssn's are easily obtained, there are no pictures that go with them to associate the number with the person in front of you. And yes, there are ways we could do this electronically, but they are offensive to too many Americans. They will not register hand prints or iris scans or one day DNA fingerprints that can be checked with a portable device against a national computer database. There are any number of things that would be convenient, but they are intrusive and offensive to Americans.

This is why we need reliable ID cards. And since Americans are not ready to accept national identity cards, they need to come from the states.

As for your second question, current law allows a check on anyone who gets arrested, in all 50 states and the District.. The reason it is not for any inquiry is that you don't want police officers harassing mexican-american citizens or legal residents just because they don't like the you and make up a "busted tail light" excuse to pull a background check. Now what would you, or your kids, pull out of your purse or wallet to prove your identity? A DL does not show citizenship. A fistful of credit cards? Your gym ID? No, the only practical answer is to carry a passport. If we make that a de facto requirement for proving residency, then we are requiring national ID, but only for people who appear to be possible illegals. And no one is going to ask some blonde haired kid for ID. But if you look Mexican and you have an accent, your odds go way up.

"Allows for" and then localities make up their own rules. For example, semi-sanctuary DC doesn't check or submit fingerprints of those who have been arrested to ICE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a number that could be input into a computer? We all have SS #. I am sure there are bigger brains than ours that could find a solution to a quick immigration check without going all Big Brother or infringing. In the meantime, we have what we have. What I don't understand is actively disallowing police or booking to inquire into status during an already ongoing inquiry into possible criminal activity. Aren't you in for a hassle then anyway?

SS #s are numbers, not proof of identity. Real ssn's are easily obtained, there are no pictures that go with them to associate the number with the person in front of you. And yes, there are ways we could do this electronically, but they are offensive to too many Americans. They will not register hand prints or iris scans or one day DNA fingerprints that can be checked with a portable device against a national computer database. There are any number of things that would be convenient, but they are intrusive and offensive to Americans.

This is why we need reliable ID cards. And since Americans are not ready to accept national identity cards, they need to come from the states.

As for your second question, current law allows a check on anyone who gets arrested, in all 50 states and the District.. The reason it is not for any inquiry is that you don't want police officers harassing mexican-american citizens or legal residents just because they don't like the you and make up a "busted tail light" excuse to pull a background check. Now what would you, or your kids, pull out of your purse or wallet to prove your identity? A DL does not show citizenship. A fistful of credit cards? Your gym ID? No, the only practical answer is to carry a passport. If we make that a de facto requirement for proving residency, then we are requiring national ID, but only for people who appear to be possible illegals. And no one is going to ask some blonde haired kid for ID. But if you look Mexican and you have an accent, your odds go way up.

"Allows for" and then localities make up their own rules. For example, semi-sanctuary DC doesn't check or submit fingerprints of those who have been arrested to ICE.

You should talk to your representatives in government. That's really a District government issue. The federal government cannot direct state and local law enforcement. The best they can do is withhold federal funding in certain situations.

[Anonymous]

Legal residents have to carry their Green cards with them at all times. What is the big deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legal residents have to carry their Green cards with them at all times. What is the big deal?

But CITIZENS don't have to, and that's the change that rankles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a number that could be input into a computer? We all have SS #. I am sure there are bigger brains than ours that could find a solution to a quick immigration check without going all Big Brother or infringing. In the meantime, we have what we have. What I don't understand is actively disallowing police or booking to inquire into status during an already ongoing inquiry into possible criminal activity. Aren't you in for a hassle then anyway?

SS #s are numbers, not proof of identity. Real ssn's are easily obtained, there are no pictures that go with them to associate the number with the person in front of you. And yes, there are ways we could do this electronically, but they are offensive to too many Americans. They will not register hand prints or iris scans or one day DNA fingerprints that can be checked with a portable device against a national computer database. There are any number of things that would be convenient, but they are intrusive and offensive to Americans.

This is why we need reliable ID cards. And since Americans are not ready to accept national identity cards, they need to come from the states.

As for your second question, current law allows a check on anyone who gets arrested, in all 50 states and the District.. The reason it is not for any inquiry is that you don't want police officers harassing mexican-american citizens or legal residents just because they don't like the you and make up a "busted tail light" excuse to pull a background check. Now what would you, or your kids, pull out of your purse or wallet to prove your identity? A DL does not show citizenship. A fistful of credit cards? Your gym ID? No, the only practical answer is to carry a passport. If we make that a de facto requirement for proving residency, then we are requiring national ID, but only for people who appear to be possible illegals. And no one is going to ask some blonde haired kid for ID. But if you look Mexican and you have an accent, your odds go way up.

"Allows for" and then localities make up their own rules. For example, semi-sanctuary DC doesn't check or submit fingerprints of those who have been arrested to ICE.

You should talk to your representatives in government. That's really a District government issue. The federal government cannot direct state and local law enforcement. The best they can do is withhold federal funding in certain situations.

Well, perhaps they should. If they are so willing to go after AZ for being 'inconsistent' to a federal goal, why not DC and SF? Boggle the imagination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legal residents have to carry their Green cards with them at all times. What is the big deal?

But CITIZENS don't have to, and that's the change that rankles.

Exactly! There are many legal citizens who otherwise should not be required to carry ID who, de facto, will need to. If you are of Latin American descent and have any type of accent, you may have your immigration status question, even if you are a native born citizen. If you don't carry the right ID, you could be detained. So this burden falls not only onto citizens, but likely will be shouldered unfairly by only a certain segment of the population because of racial/ethnic/cultural identifiers.