I'm a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:

TerryRC wrote:To renew a driver's license you must present 1 document from the list of identity documents, along with 1 proof of WV residency from the residency requirements.

So we agree that you don't have to show proof of citizenship to renew a DL in WV as one of the documents that you can use is "An original, valid, current West Virginia driver's license, permit, or ID card, that is expired less than six (6) months with photograph..."

No, what I'm telling you is they're checking your SS# now, Terry. They're verifying it's a valid SS# and that it belongs to you. Sheesh it's all part of the Real ID thing. The Feds are making the states do this to keep us all safe from terrorists, don'tchya know. When you go in, they're going to verify that number. They're closing the fraud loopholes, one expired license at a time.

No, what I'm telling you is they're checking your SS# now, Terry.

And I'm telling you that it appears you don't need your SS card for a renewal and you DIDN'T, pre '05, need it to get a new license or to transfer one from another state. As long as the number you give them corresponds with what is already in the system, onward you roll.

I renewed my license in '08 or '09 (in truth I disremember and I don't want to get up - it expires in 2013, you do the math). I had to fill out the application, surrender my soon-to-be-expired license and have two proofs of address.

New applicants may have their actual SS cards checked, but once you are in the system, I don't know if they do. They didn't with me.

I was also able to refuse putting my fingerprint on it - they told me it was for "security" reasons, but didn't force the issue.

Anyway, my point is that there are loopholes and, at least for me, my WV DL is not proof of citizenship as I have never had to show my birth record nor my SS card at the WV DMV or the NY DMV where I first got my license. We will see what happens when it is up for renewal again.

TerryRC wrote:Anyway, my point is that there are loopholes and, at least for me, my WV DL is not proof of citizenship as I have never had to show my birth record nor my SS card at the WV DMV or the NY DMV where I first got my license. We will see what happens when it is up for renewal again.

It is however, proof of residency and establishes your legal right to be in the United States of America so if you're pulled over in WV or AZ you have nothing to worry about.

It is however, proof of residency and establishes your legal right to be in the United States of America so if you're pulled over in WV or AZ you have nothing to worry about.

It is legal proof, not actual proof, but I'll concede the point. I established my residency with a couple of bills that I could have been put in anyone's name and then cancelled, so it really isn't even good legal proof.

Anyway, how about people that don't drive? There is no law, at least in this state, that says citizens have to carry ANY ID.

The point is that, if I am here in WV legally, I don't need any ID to walk to the newspaper machine. If the AZ law was here and I looked mexican, that could be a real problem between the state and the COTUS.

The AZ law is not a good one. It is a window dressing that doesn't address the real problem while possibly discriminating against US citizens that may look hispanic.

That is my take on it. Time will tell.

TerryRC wrote:It is legal proof, not actual proof, but I'll concede the point. I established my residency with a couple of bills that I could have been put in anyone's name and then cancelled, so it really isn't even good legal proof.

What is actual proof? Someone coming to your house and observing you living in a fixed structure for 21 days?

TerryRC wrote:Anyway, how about people that don't drive? There is no law, at least in this state, that says citizens have to carry ANY ID.

You don't have to carry one but you certainly have to prove who you are starting with compulsory school attendance laws.

TerryRC wrote:The point is that, if I am here in WV legally, I don't need any ID to walk to the newspaper machine. If the AZ law was here and I looked mexican, that could be a real problem between the state and the COTUS.

It wasn't a problem for the other 22 states that have stop and identify laws. As for the constitutionaliy of such laws, it's been settled by at least 2 cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. Had you done some research, you would know that.

TerryRC wrote:The AZ law is not a good one. It is a window dressing that doesn't address the real problem while possibly discriminating against US citizens that may look hispanic.

The AZ law is our national law, which wasn't being enforced by federal authorities. Given the problems the state of AZ is experienceing with illegal immigrants, what would you have them do?

TerryRC wrote:That is my take on it. Time will tell.

Your take is wrong and yes, time will prove it as such.

What is actual proof? Someone coming to your house and observing you living in a fixed structure for 21 days?

The fact remains that is how I established my residency.

You don't have to carry one but you certainly have to prove who you are starting with compulsory school attendance laws.

My parents had to show a birth cert and vaccination record. How about home schoolers? Regardless, in this state, I do not have to prove my ID merely for walking down a public street.

It wasn't a problem for the other 22 states that have stop and identify laws. As for the constitutionaliy of such laws, it's been settled by at least 2 cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. Had you done some research, you would know that.

Point me to that reference, if you please, and I'll do that research. If it got settled the first time, how did it make it back for a second?

The AZ law is our national law, which wasn't being enforced by federal authorities. Given the problems the state of AZ is experienceing with illegal immigrants, what would you have them do?

Try something that doesn't amount to racial profiling.

Since you bring up the rights of AZ, how about the full faith and credence clause? If AZ determines that someone IS in this country legally, on whatever evidence, must other states accept that status, or do they have the right to ask for better evidence?

Determining US citizenship and who has it and who should get it falls under the province of the Feds, like it or not. That is another way the AZ law may be ruled unconstitutional.

Your take is wrong and yes, time will prove it as such.

Says you. I speak with uncertainty about the subject and you speak from "certain knowledge". Speaking of that "hubris" thing...

Terry, you didn't read the law. That is obvious.

Terry, you didn't read the law. That is obvious.

I read what you posted.

You don't agree with my opinion and that is fine.

I think that the AZ law doesn't close some big loopholes. I think that it will face constitutional challenges. I think that it leaves room for discrimination.

I gave my reasons for those things. If it is clear that I am mistaken, in my opinion or my understanding of legislation, please enlighten me rather than dismiss me out of hand with a nine word statement.

Again: The point we are missing here is that the list that Terry H. originally posted is a list of privileges, not a list of basic rights.

I expect to show ID to exercise a privilege. I don't expect to show an ID for merely existing.

TerryRC,

Let's say that you are right and cops will harass someone for being Latino. Is there some reason that such cops are not already doing so? If cops are as racist as you think they are, what prevents them without the law?

Fact is, state and local governments must bear the costs of illegal immigration, and finally a state government has decided to pass a law that addresses the present influx of illegal immigrations, ONLY in the cases of another legal encounter in the first place. If Arizona's public schools must educate children of illegal immigrants, and ER's must treat them, it is only fair that the state be allowed to pick up the slack presently being left by a federal government that is increasingly (if such were possible) incompetent and borderline malevolent.

TerryRC wrote:Again: The point we are missing here is that the list that Terry H. originally posted is a list of privileges, not a list of basic rights.

I expect to show ID to exercise a privilege. I don't expect to show an ID for merely existing.

TerryRC,

And the Arizona law prevents demanding an ID for "merely existing." If cops will break THIS provision of this law, then again I must ask why you think they aren't doing this anyway, and if they ARE (caps merely for emphasis), then your concerns about the AZ law are unfounded.

It seems to me Terry that instead of thinking as much, perhaps you should do a little more research. Had you, you would have known that the issue is legal residency and not citizenship.

You would also know that the intent of the law is not to stop citizens walking down the street seeking ID but is to establish legal residency when interacting lawfully with a citizen.

You attempt to could the conversation by claiming that immigrants are now being required to carry their ID just to walk down the street but for immigrants in this country, that as been established law long before the Arizona law was enacted.

You claim that AZ's "stop and identify" statute is unconsitutional but had you done your research, you would realize that issue was settled in Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District when the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that Nevada's "stop and entify "allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer."

It seems to me that instead of getting to the bottom of the issue, in addition to your failed attempts of clouding the issue with talk of citizenship, you're more interested in spouting the same tripe put out by the DNC and liberals in general instead of dealing with a problem that is overwhelming most if not all of the southwestern United States.

So my question is, why is that?

Let's say that you are right and cops will harass someone for being Latino. Is there some reason that such cops are not already doing so? If cops are as racist as you think they are, what prevents them without the law?

Do you think the cops will be verifying the legal status of many caucasians?

You are right, though. Before, I wasn't aware of AZ's stop and identify laws. Apparently in AZ, you may have to present your papers just to walk your dog, no matter who you are. I think it most anti-freedom, but that is me.

In light of that law, the "immigration law" doesn't change the rights of cops or give them more flexibility. It does, however, give them more incentive.

Fact is, state and local governments must bear the costs of illegal immigration, and finally a state government has decided to pass a law that addresses the present influx of illegal immigrations, ONLY in the cases of another legal encounter in the first place.

Fact is, that documenting, determining and processing illegals is the job of the feds, not the states.

I'm not saying that AZ should do nothing. What they are doing here, however, would appear to step on the feds toes, as defined by the Constitution. Perhaps they should seek an amendment or try a different way of dealing with the problem.

Crack down on the people that employ illegal workers and there wouldn't be any.

You claim that AZ's "stop and identify" statute is unconsitutional but had you done your research, you would realize that issue was settled in Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District when the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that Nevada's "stop and entify "allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer."

How is walking down the street and looking hispanic probable cause of a crime? I looked it up this exact case, after you posted it and "identity himself" doesn't mean that you have to show any form of ID, merely give your name. That is it.

It seems to me that instead of getting to the bottom of the issue, in addition to your failed attempts of clouding the issue with talk of citizenship, you're more interested in spouting the same tripe put out by the DNC and liberals in general instead of dealing with a problem that is overwhelming most if not all of the southwestern United States.

Blah, blah, blah.

I did use the word citizenship when, perhaps, I should have said "legal status". It depends on which statement you are referring to.

The reason I keep referring to citizenship is that citizens do not have to prove anything when questioned unless there is probable cause but legal aliens do. Legal aliens MUST carry ID at all times, US citizens don't. The only way I COULD prove MY legal status is with a proof of citizenship. I don't usually carry my birth certificate.

My point, the bottom of the issue, is under the AZ law, there is nothing to keep US CITIZENS from being held because they went out without their wallet and look 'rican? It is a violation of their right to be secure in their person.

That is the issue. Get it?

So my question is, why is that?

Why should I answer when you ignore this: The point we are missing here is that the list that Terry H. originally posted is a list of privileges, not a list of basic rights.

I expect to show ID to exercise a privilege. I don't expect to show an ID for merely existing.

You don't accuse Terry H. of blurring the issues. So my question is, why is that?

You want to fix the illegal immigration problem? Go after the employers that use them.

Your fallacy is in that you think police officers somehow have the authority to randomly stop citizens for no reason and that simply is not the case.

The AZ law is no different then what WV police officers do when they see someone acting suspicious or committing a crime, establish residency status and if it is detirmined you are illegal, act accordingly.

There is not randomly stopping citizens as you imply and US citizens are no more likely to be held for going out without identification in AZ as a result of this law then they are in WV because of federal immigration laws and its a bit dishonest that you continue to spout the tripe that they are.

You stated the point we are missing here is that the list that Terry H. originally posted is a list of privileges, not a list of basic rights but what you're failing to mention is that in many of those privileges that Terry H listed, Hispanics are not held to the same standards as others are simply because the government doesn't want to find illegal’s. Students are being enrolled in school without proper registration papers. Immigrants are being allowed to not only cash checks but to open checking accounts without proper identification and/or residency papers and are treated in hospitals without those same papers. They are being let go by police even though they are know illegal’s, given loans and credit cards and if some had their way would even be given driver's license.

Like it or not, illegal immigration is a huge problem in the west and our government is doing nothing about it because all they see is another voting block. They don't see the strain on our medical industry, schools and state resources with the added cost to taxpayers to care for these non-residents, much less the strain they place on our natural resources and they certainly aren't willing to address the problem.

And then to add insult to injury and rub salt in the wound, when a state finally gets fed up, the federal government is trying to stop them and the first method of attack is by spreading the very lies that you have repeated all day today.

Hispanics are not held to the same standards as others are simply because the government doesn't want to find illegal’s. Students are being enrolled in school without proper registration papers. Immigrants are being allowed to not only cash checks but to open checking accounts without proper identification and/or residency papers and are treated in hospitals without those same papers. They are being let go by police even though they are know illegal’s, given loans and credit cards and if some had their way would even be given driver's license.

If hispanics are doing that, why not go after the schools the cops and the banks that look the other way. Fine them and that practice will stop.

And then to add insult to injury and rub salt in the wound, when a state finally gets fed up, the federal government is trying to stop them and the first method of attack is by spreading the very lies that you have repeated all day today.

First, immigration does fall under the auspices of the fed. I didn't make that law but that IS the law.

Second, do you have a list of my lies, or is that another one of your "opinions" that you seem to think allows you to say anything about anyone without backing it up?

Your fallacy is in that you think police officers somehow have the authority to randomly stop citizens for no reason and that simply is not the case.

If I am walking down the street, a cop has every right to stop me and ask my name. That is considered a lawful interaction. No law against it. In AZ, that lawful interaction now allows the cop to check my immigration status as if I were a legal alien, you know, on a visa and the like.

The problem is that, if I am a citizen, they don't have the right to ask me for ID unless they suspect I have committed a crime.

That is my problem with the law. Please point out the lie in either of the two preceding paragraphs.

Arizona tried to go after them and the feds said no and have been saying no for years. When AZ tried to enforce federal laws, the government forced them to stop, hence the current state law. And now people like you are bitching and complaining because the state is willing to do what the federal government is not.

As for your lie, it’s that cops will be stopping Hispanics for no reason simply to check immigration status. That's simply not true and you know it yet you keep singing that same tired song and dance. Mistruths like that are the reason you’re simply not credible PAL.

The next lie is that states cannot enforce immigration laws because they fall under federal jurisdiction. I've already corrected you once on this when I explained that if a law doesn't attempt to override or supersede federal law, then it is not unconstitutional. What about that is so difficult that you can’t understand it?

As for your lie, it’s that cops will be stopping Hispanics for no reason simply to check immigration status. That's simply not true and you know it yet you keep singing that same tired song and dance. Mistruths like that are the reason you’re simply not credible PAL.

I said: If I am walking down the street, a cop has every right to stop me and ask my name. That is considered a lawful interaction. No law against it. In AZ, that lawful interaction now allows the cop to check my immigration status as if I were a legal alien, you know, on a visa and the like.

The problem is that, if I am a citizen, they don't have the right to ask me for ID unless they suspect I have committed a crime.

I think it likely that hispanic CITIZENS will be targeted unfairly.

None of those statements is a lie, but the last one is an opinion.

Arizona tried to go after them and the feds said no and have been saying no for years. When AZ tried to enforce federal laws, the government forced them to stop, hence the current state law. And now people like you are bitching and complaining because the state is willing to do what the federal government is not.

I am bitching about it because US citizens shouldn't have to show papers to a cop without probable cause for any reason.

The next lie is that states cannot enforce immigration laws because they fall under federal jurisdiction. I've already corrected you once on this when I explained that if a law doesn't attempt to override or supersede federal law, then it is not unconstitutional. What about that is so difficult that you can’t understand it?

Again, that is not what I said.

What I said is that the Fed is the sole final authority on immigration status. What AZ proposes would seem to say that they are taking authority over that.

If I am mistaken on that, show me where it is writ.

If being mistaken is the same as lying, you would be as big a liar as any of us.

Arizona tried to go after them and the feds said no and have been saying no for years.

So the feds said that AZ couldn't go after the banks or the schools or the employers of the illegals?

Sorry if I don't buy that.

Then why did the Congress fund and annually support the LESC (Law Enforcement and Support Center), a call center that accepts nearly 500,000 calls annually from local law enforcement centers regarding the status of illegal aliens?

http://www.ice.gov/partners/lesc/index.htm

What's more, Arizona issued a law that went after the employers of illegals that was upheld by the ultra-liberal ninth circuit.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/march-18-2009/ninth-circuit-upholds-arizona-illegal-hiring-law.html

TerryRC wrote:I think it likely that hispanic CITIZENS will be targeted unfairly.

Prove it.

TerryRC wrote:If being mistaken is the same as lying, you would be as big a liar as any of us.

What, do you have a mouse in your pocket.

Arizona law mirrors federal law on this issue. He's right - prove it.

Then why did the Congress fund and annually support the LESC (Law Enforcement and Support Center), a call center that accepts nearly 500,000 calls annually from local law enforcement centers regarding the status of illegal aliens?

So the feds did, as Aaron assures us, tell AZ that they couldn't go after banks, schools and employers that catered to illegals?

Arizona law mirrors federal law on this issue. He's right - prove it.

Proof? Hmmm. How about a valid argument, to wit.

If I am walking down the street, a cop has every right to stop me and ask my name. That is considered a lawful interaction. No law against it. That is as far as they can go without probable cause. That is FEDERAL LAW.

Is that correct?

Originally the AZ law allowed cops to check the status of anyone during "lawful interaction", such as the example I mentioned just above about being asked my name . Has that been changed? Steph told me it was but I can't remember the actual revision stating that.

If that is still the law, it would seem to be saying that AZ's state law trumps our constitutionally protected right to be secure in our person.

If I am mistaken, if the law has been changed to only allowing AZ cops to check the status of someone who is being arrested, detained with probable cause or as part of a formal investigation, then I withdraw my reservations about the law on that point.

What's more, Arizona issued a law that went after the employers of illegals that was upheld by the ultra-liberal ninth circuit.

Good. It needed to be done.

TerryRC wrote:Proof? Hmmm. How about a valid argument, to wit.

Oh, you mean a valid argument like if you place to large black men from a known racist organization with history or uttering racial slurs dressed in combat gear brandishing weapons outside a polling place, they're going to intimate voters?

Pray tell, why is it that valid arguments are fine when you present them but when others do, you demand proof?

No, I'm thinking you should live up to the standard you set.

Prove that Hispanics will be unfairly targeted.