i understand why you don't think we need to carry an id, but with all the crazies out there, i really feel that cops need to know who they are dealing with. by what you are saying, anyone that is wanted for a crime just have to tell a cop that they don't have an id, and the cop should let them go. then they go on to rob, murder,and rape as soon as the police tells them to have a nice day. i'm not saying have a police on the corners stopping everyone and saying "let me see your papers like the nazi's did, but when they stop a car for whatever reason, they should be able to check all the id's of everyone in the car.

I understand, I just think that is giving others too MUCH authority unnecessarily. I dont think when someone is WANTED for arrest, they ask to see their id before they arrest them. They already KNOW who they are looking for and dont need an ID.

how would a cop in dallas know if someone is wanted in new york without id?

no big deal - i get asked for id whenever i get stopped.

but then again, i'm here legally.
don't they ask for id everywhere?

by ASKING for a name and a social security number and verifying that information along with a few other personal details with what comes up in the computer

ever herd of lying?...

sure, as common as false id's,,,,either way requires the same verification

police are trained to spot fake id's, like bartenders are... but just because someone gives you a name, you can't tell with out fingerprints.

nothing is foolproof, the dmv record will pull up a picture to match the face,, just like an ID will,,,they wil either match or they wont

yea, maybe since they have computers in there cars now... maybe they will get a scanner that reads fingerprints, or a retinal scan...or take a DNA sample....or hair folicals, maybe piss tests... they already take blood samples to see if your drunk driving now.

eww, piss tests,,wouldnt want to have to sit in THAT patrol car...lol

easy - just make them hold the cup...lol

In 1968 I was told I would have carry ID to show Law Enforcement.State ID and a Draft Card. In 1969 They took my Draft Card at R and O.
I've been stopped while driving, the only thing that has changed since 1966 is now you have to show a Photo Drivers License and Proof of Insurance.
If I don't have my License with me he doesn't say have a nice day and send me down the road. I have to a least prove who I am before he gives me my ticket.
Lets take a short poll here. Who thinks the cop should let me just drive away. Who thinks the cop should verify who I am.

Yep. I agree with you. Almost everywhere you go you have to provide some form of legal id. Asking law enforcement officials to pay more attention to the signs of an illegal is nothing to what ALL of us have to deal with at one time or another.

For example...Anyone ever tried to file for Social Security benefits or disabilty benefits or food stamps or housing? The proof and paperwork regardless of race is overwhelming. BUT we all do what we have to do to help stop criminals from abusing the system. So asking for additional proof when citizenship is in question, I just don't see it as problem. An inconvenience, at best.

When someone can tell me how you "reasonably suspect" a person of being an alien as written in the law without being discriminatory or racially biased then we can end the whole thing.

My suggestions regarding how immigration ‘might’ be handled better follows my introduction.

In the USA no one is exempt from Federal Constitutional law because that law was created on the basis of human ethics. Representative government means just that – it doesn’t say ‘representative of US citizens only’ – it says and means representative, which is why we have seen a trend toward redistricting. Our public administrations, and our courts, uphold the ethics contained in the Constitution to assure that the civil rights of every human in the USA is protected. WE THE PEOPLE love that constitution, and no elected or appointed official is given more praise than those who fight in the battlefields to protect it.

So all those who piss and moan about how much of our tax dollars are going to medical costs, schooling, food, housing and law suits in support of immigrants are out of order here. No one can whole heartedly and unconditionally adore our troops and what they fight for and then turn around and declare that what they fight for is wrong…..!(the Constitution)

So Civil Rights laws that prohibit racial profiling, refer to everyone in the USA? But what is racial profiling? If a man or woman is questioned as a witness at a crime scene and that person has a very strong Asian, Hindu, German, Zulu, or any other kind of accent and when asked for ID that person cannot a single shred, does it fall under “Reasonable Suspicion”? Or is it racial profiling for a law enforcement officer to follow up? Perhaps take the person a few blocks to where they are staying to get this information? If it can’t be supplied is it racial profiling to detain the person for say, 24 hours while the effort is made to access the proper information?

I don’t think so.

Is it racial profiling to question any of the documents a worker must present to an employer, proving their legal status? Perhaps not, but companies have been sued and lost in court for having done so. Was it lack of training of the H/R personnel?


My suggestion: If the federal government alone understands the policy of this country pertaining to immigration, why are they keeping it secret? They must be keeping it secret because that's partially what their lawsuit agains Arizona is about.

SO - Why not have the fed set up a public administration whose job it is to ‘train’ law enforcement agents and H/R personnel in every state about policy and the proper way to administer it. (it would then be the feds policy and they wouldn't have to worry that it was being upheld.

THEN – let the States enforce immigration law through their law enforcement agencies. AND – while we’re at it, why not have a separate state administrative bureau strictly for “Immigration Status” in every state – RUN by the state to take care of the paper work, keep track of individuals and lapsing visas – seeing as how the federal administration can’t seem to do it. Some 30% of illegals are here on lapsed visas.

Then the States could share funding for the administrations with the Fed to do these jobs. This would create jobs in each state through state government and the Federal gov could focus more time, effort and money on the borders.

Before you comment on my suggestion try skimming the following report by the League of Women Voters – a couple years old but it’s a real eye opener. The Federal government does not want any state taking over any part of immigration – why? Read the report and see if you can figure it out.

http://emporia.lwv.org/files/ImmigrationStudy_Enforcement.pdf
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY: ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
By Barbara Margerum


My suggestions are not to return power over immigration to the states but to have the federal government relinquish some of the administrative aspects and involve local law for enforcement. It is less expensive to have state involved at this level than to have the fed handling it all. It also allows for more jobs at State level and more tax revenue from the new jobs. It would also reassure the public to know that their state has some control.