You will only be required to show identification if you are legal. If you are illegal it would be unfair because some of those who may appear to be illegal, may in fact, be legal. So if you ask legal citizens if they are indeed legal citizens, they, under the rules would be required to show identification, however, because you cannot ask illegals to show identification, you are engaged in an inherent bias against those who are here legally. Trying to ascertain who is legal and who is not legal is a direct violation of the rule that you cannot ask those who are here illegally for identification. Because you cannot only ask legals for identification, and you cannot ask illegals for identification, you can only make said requests if you know a priori who is in fact a legal resident and who is not. However, the only way to truly know who is legal and who is not (apart from taking their words for it) is to examine the proper documentation of the individual in question. All legals would be required to have identification, they just could not be required to produce the identification. Unless, of course the legal residence had done something illegal, like skip out on parole or robbed a bank. Then, the police can check their identification, because this is how a lot of fugitives are caught. Of course, if they had done something illegal, than they exempted from having to show identification, and people who had not committed a crime should not be prejudically treated like someone who had. Susan Bolton's wisdom and logic in this matter, it seems to me, is unparalleled.
how about that some of that, prove who the hell you are.
I have to do everytime i go to the bank and to the tax office and to the hospital and the insurance companies and to the POLICE.
So whats so damn wrong about asking someone who the hell they are and whether they actually do have the right to be there.