This is just getting ridiculous

[Accountable]

Ok, here's the thing, being in the country illegally is... wait for it.... here it comes... ILLEGAL!

Now, the police don't have the right to walk around and ask every Mexican if they're here legally, you need to be doing something else wrong first, and if the officer things you're not legal, hes going to inquire.

Just like if you're pulled over for speeding, and the office thinks you're drunk, hes going to research it.

To clarify, he means that if the officer pulls you over and you can't speak a lick of English, chances are he's going to ask for proof of citizenship.

Okay, so it's the accent that'll do it? That's reasonable cause? I'm asking because here's my dilemma:

• US citizens are not required to carry around proof of citizenship, or any ID or papers of any kind.
• My beloved spouse is not a US citizen. She is a resident alien.
• Her sister is a naturalized citizen.

Here's the fictional scenario:

My wife and sister get pulled over because they match the description of a pair of cholas who just robbed the local convenience store - short, dark hair, dark skin - and the policeman, using his best judgment, decides to suspect that they might not be US citizens, even though he immediately clears them of the robbery. My beloved, being the driver, dutifully hands over her driver's license and resident alien card, proving she is in the country legally. Her sister, who left her purse at home since she's not driving, says (in her understandable but undeniably Japanese accent) "I don't have any ID, but I am a citizen."
​

What would/should/could happen to this US citizen who has broken no law whatsoever?

 

[Tim]

Well under this law, your sister in law would most likely be detained until she can provide proof of being here legally. If that means you get a call to bring her papers in for proof. And, most likely your wife would also be detained since this bill makes it a crime to transport someone who is illegally in this country. So you would be running down to the station to get them both out.

Now the interesting part of this new law would make it possible for a passer by to observe what is going on and if the officer takes your sister in laws word that she is legal and lets them go, this passer by can file suit saying the officer didn't do enough to prove they were both legal (Holy run on sentence)

So this law will force US citizens to carry proof that they are legal. I for one do not carry any such documents. A PA license is NOT proof of residency. So would my wife have to bring my birth certificate? What if I was out there on business and all my paperwork was still here in PA?

 

[Accountable]

Thanks, Tim.

Retro, Anathelia, DOH, and anyone else that wants to tackle this: It seems my sister-in-law can be held on one count of not having the right accent. How is this right, in the land of the Great Melting Pot?

 

[Minor Axis]

it's so freaking ridiculous that wanting to enforce laws and remove people that came here illegally is racist.

There goes the point sailing over your head. Either that or you are strictly an "end justifies and don't care what the means" are person.

 

[DayOldHuman]

Thanks, Tim.

Retro, Anathelia, DOH, and anyone else that wants to tackle this: It seems my sister-in-law can be held on one count of not having the right accent. How is this right, in the land of the Great Melting Pot?

Well, TBH, she wont get questioned for being here illegally cuz she aint no dirty Mexican, Japanese people are legals. :jk

Here's why I'm not sure how to feel about the bill; per my first post, it makes sense to give law enforcement more abilities to investigate a possible crime. Unfortunately, Arizona Sheriffs Deputies aren't exactly known for being the most discretionary individuals.

 

[Francis]

News Flash...

Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state's sweeping law against illegal immigration — changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.

The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The follow-on bill signed by Brewer makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36881894/ns/us_news-life/

 

[DayOldHuman]

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police

What other basis is there?

To clarify, I'm not asking to say its right, but what other things should tip off an officer about your immigration status?

 

[Accountable]

The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

That's the part I don't get, and why I don't get the law at all. Are state and local police actually prohibited from enforcing federal law???

 

[anathelia]

Thanks, Tim.

Retro, Anathelia, DOH, and anyone else that wants to tackle this: It seems my sister-in-law can be held on one count of not having the right accent. How is this right, in the land of the Great Melting Pot?

It's not right. I don't know for sure that I ever said I supported the bill. I support the IDEA that the bill represents, because I don't think it's right for people who are here illegally to..well..be here. But I don't support the racial profiling that it invites.

 

[Accountable]

It's not right. I don't know for sure that I ever said I supported the bill. I support the IDEA that the bill represents, because I don't think it's right for people who are here illegally to..well..be here. But I don't support the racial profiling that it invites.

I agree with all that. So when does inconveniencing the law-abiding people cross the line in order to catch the law breakers?

 

[anathelia]

I say if they're going to be fair about it, either no one has to show proof of citizenship, or EVERYONE has to show proof of citizenship.


That's just my .02

 

[itsmeJonB]

I see a lot of elderly Mexican women who became citizens back in 1982 and have struggled to learn English because they pursued the american dream late in life being harassed, and yes I see that as racism

 

[Accountable]

I say if they're going to be fair about it, either no one has to show proof of citizenship, or EVERYONE has to show proof of citizenship.


That's just my .02

So you might support a federal ID card? I don't have a problem with one, so long as taxes provide one to every adult (or whatever arbitrary age). I've asked how it's handled in Europe but no one has answered.

 

[DayOldHuman]

So you might support a federal ID card? I don't have a problem with one, so long as taxes provide one to every adult (or whatever arbitrary age). I've asked how it's handled in Europe but no one has answered.

A Federal ID card might not be a bad idea, it proves your citizenship without needing to lug around your birth certificate or other documentation.

The unfortunate part would be needing a way too insure they are genuine and not counterfeit and assuming its given to you at birth, there will need to be a new number system in place, because you don't want to carry around your SSN in case its lost/stolen

 

[Dana]

bye bye burritos...

 

[Accountable]

A Federal ID card might not be a bad idea, it proves your citizenship without needing to lug around your birth certificate or other documentation.

The unfortunate part would be needing a way too insure they are genuine and not counterfeit and assuming its given to you at birth, there will need to be a new number system in place, because you don't want to carry around your SSN in case its lost/stolen

Yeh, that's why I mentioned an arbitrary age. What are you gonna do, shove the ID into an infant's diaper?
I figure issuing an ID at 16 or earliest age to work should do the trick just fine. Resident Alien cards and military ID cards are supposed to be near impossible to counterfeit, so it shouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

[anathelia]

Yeh, that's why I mentioned an arbitrary age. What are you gonna do, shove the ID into an infant's diaper?
I figure issuing an ID at 16 or earliest age to work should do the trick just fine. Resident Alien cards and military ID cards are supposed to be near impossible to counterfeit, so it shouldn't be much of a stretch.

I would definitely suggest this as an idea.

 

[itsmeJonB]

Yeh, that's why I mentioned an arbitrary age. What are you gonna do, shove the ID into an infant's diaper?
I figure issuing an ID at 16 or earliest age to work should do the trick just fine. Resident Alien cards and military ID cards are supposed to be near impossible to counterfeit, so it shouldn't be much of a stretch.

I kind of like this idea. I dont like the government so far up my ass, but its a reasonable solution

 

[Accountable]

I kind of like this idea. I dont like the government so far up my ass, but its a reasonable solution

Me too. I don't really understand why someone would buck it. Maybe someone will give some feedback here.

 

[Francis]

I kind of like this idea. I dont like the government so far up my ass, but its a reasonable solution

Me too. I don't really understand why someone would buck it. Maybe someone will give some feedback here.

It looked reasonable to me and as long as everyone is treated equally, I don't see why anyone should have issues with it ?

But then again I am not down there..