Skip to comments.(Vanity question) Aren't "green cards" considered "papers"?
Posted on 04/28/2010 11:10:41 AM PDT by Texas Eagle
click here to read article
No question. It is a matter of settled law that during a routine traffic stop, the police are within their purview to positively identify the occupants of the vehicle they've stopped - ostensibly all done to protect the safety of the patrolmen.
But, what was alleged about this law, by this guy who actually helped write it, was that "papers" were only going to be asked of suspects. That's disingenuous. Passengers in a vehicle aren't presumptively suspect in anything, and that not why the police already have the authority to identify them. But, that would be a "lawful contact", as would any contact with someone who reported a crime, was a victim of a crime, or was a potential witness in a crime - all lawful contacts.
This guy who was quoted by the other poster, was characterizing the law is a somewhat dishonest way. That helps no one, nor does it build credibility. The law, as it is written, gives virtually unfettered authority to law enforcement to identify someone's citizenship status. Perhaps that's fine, perhaps that isn't. But to pretend that this isn't what the law does, is dishonest.
The officer takes her papers and returns to his vehicle. There he enters DL number into the computer. The computer reports that the DL is valid, she is not a fugitive, and the DL was issued to a citizen. The officer returns the DL, and your mom would not even know that the officer also checked her legal status in the country.
Besides, AZ law specifically says that any state-issued ID (which a DL is) is good enough as a proof of legal residency. That makes sense; if some states have loose DL requirements, the problem needs to be fixed there.
So you're on a street in Arizona. A cop walks up to you and asks for proof that you're not illegal. You're a citizen, so you don't have a green card on you, nor do you have a visa. What are you going to produce to prove you're a citizen when, as you said, citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. But in order to prove you're a citizen, and not an illegal, you are going to have to carry something to prove you're a citizen.
The 9/11 hijackings occurred in spite of our requirement for showing a driver's license. After the 9-11 attacks, there were numerous corruption figures in the department of motor vehicles who repeatedly caught selling legitimate driver's licenses to known illegal aliens of middle eastern descent (they would "approve" bogus names and have the illegal aliens have their photos taken along with the legit customers at the DMV).
So I put no great standard in having a driver's license. There are some states that have declared they are okay with licensing illegal aliens.
Suspicion would be higher for those who do not speak English as a primary language. It would be even higher for those who speak no English at all.
As it was, officers across this nation were dissuaded from even asking and if it came out in processing of a criminal suspect who WAS INDEED here illegally (even someone who'd been caught and released several times) the police department was to do nothing about the immigration status.
So what will be the focus of enforcement here? Making do with those who are arrested on other charges? Raiding workplaces and where day laborers congregate? Raiding homes and schools and hospitals? Which do you think would cause the biggest backlashes with the public and which would meet with their tacit approval?
Everyone won't be deported at once. As it was, law enforcement was not even encouraged to bring up the subject.
Officer Friendly isn't concerned about those people here legally.
Officer Friendly should only have to be investigating those he/she believes to be suspicious.
If our States would stop screwing around giving drivers licenses or State ID's to folks here illegally, those would be all that was needed.
Also if our Government would build the fence like they were supposed to do, it could be assumed if you're on this side of it you're here legally.
I'm sure it will come to the point where we will need to have a National ID, but that will be fought tooth & nail by many here on FR who want the invasion stopped but not if doing so is inconvenient for them.
>>Shall we all get a Passport and make sure we carry it when we go to Arizona?<<
Get a Nexus card. (they are called something else to get into Mexico).
I had to show a BC, current drivers license and SS Card to get it. Now I just renew every year. Got them for me, DH and both of my girls. A lovely (kidding) picture id and we fast track into Canada. Sweet!
Excellent debating skills. You dont have a retort, so you elongate meaningless words.
As for cheerleading, I didnt even comment on what Rush said. And even if I had, it would not show “cheerleading.” Are you cheerleading every writer in which you have a positive comment about their story?
I don’t cheerlead.
Nothing Limbaugh says is any better than stuff said by folks I saw last weekend.
I just don’t see fit to post threads about it.
Or to assume anybody who can speak words is any more prescient than myself.
Maybe you do.
What you quote is not in the bill, it is an opinion that attempts to clarify. All that matters is that which is stated in the law and, the phrase is overly broad.
Nobody said it was better because Rush said it. How are you just not getting this?
The thread is about the issue. You are the only person trying to make the thread about Rush.
No one asked you to post a thread about it. But if you are so disgusted by Rush’s fans, why do you go on their threads?
Maybe if you weren’t such an arrogant jackass you could see that no one was saying that Rush is more prescient than you.
Oops, I meant my post 87 responding to your 83.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.