Undocumented immigration in border states

[Skiz]

In the State of Texas (and maybe even Arizona as well), we are required by law to carry a valid state ID, be it a drivers license or state issued ID card. Why should non citizens be exempt from having to carry identification as well? If you're here legally, it shouldn't be any big deal to carry documentation stating as much.

I have a good friend who is married to a British girl and she is required by law to carry her green card and passport (or a copy) at all times. I find it incredibly odd that you and others are getting in a tiff about the same thing in AZ, only with the added text of "reasonable suspicion".

Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.

I looked around for it and I'm a tad off.

Spoiler: Show

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Essentially, it says residents are required by law to carry their DL if they are driving. If you are not driving, you do not have to carry your ID, but you are legally required to give your name, address, and date of birth to any police officer who requests it. If an officer suspects you are not who you say you are, that might cause them to arrest you anyway and take you downtown so they can determine who you really are.

Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.

I'm going by what she texted me directly, so I'm not sure if you are right or not. The point was that she is required to carry her immigration ID which demonstrates her status as an immigrant. Why would creation of a similar law on the state level create such an outcry?

[devilsadvocate]

[
I see no need for the "anchor baby" language, and I think it should be deleted.

You see no need for the rhetoric, or you think that birthright citizenship should be abolished? Just to be clear

The rest of your questions are off-topic.

Nice dodge, but you were the one that said the ACLU is "A Okay" with NAMBLER. I didn't raise the subject. I simply wonder if you believe in the 1st amendment or you are prepared to ignore it and allow a precedent that could be later applied to groups or people you may approve of.

Is the constitution a living flexible document? yes or no? no deflection by complaining others think it is or isn't, just your opinion.

[devilsadvocate]

Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.

I looked around for it and I'm a tad off.

Spoiler: Show

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Essentially, it says residents are required by law to carry their DL if they are driving. If you are not driving, you do not have to carry your ID, but you are legally required to give your name, address, and date of birth to any police officer who requests it. If an officer suspects you are not who you say you are, that might cause them to arrest you anyway and take you downtown so they can determine who you really are.
I was unable to find anything to support your original statement, and as a Texan that doesn't carry his wallet with DL when I am not driving (dog walks, park etc.) I had never heard of such a law, so had to question it.

Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.

I'm going by what she texted me directly, so I'm not sure if you are right or not. The point was that she is required to carry her immigration ID which demonstrates her status as an immigrant. Why would creation of a similar law on the state level create such an outcry?

She would have had to go though hoops with security to be granted residency. Immigration would have already verified her so there would be no need to carry a passport. Her card would have her details stored in it, including her fingerprints. You are correct about her having to have the card with her at all times.

Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.

[megabyteme]

I made a rather lengthy, but I believe, a very relevant post on the last page. Hopefully people will read it- I attempt to identify the real problem, and work towards a more reasonable solution.


In addition, I would like to make the point that this law is an attempt to "do something", it does what it does at the cost of personal liberties of legal, American citizens who are Latino.

Even if people have the best intentions at heart (completely, 100% non-racist) it is still implementing a race-based solution to a problem. This is ALWAYS a mistake. It is doing something wrong, with good intentions. Added to that, it also succeeds in doing the wrong thing with the worst intentions when supported by actual racists.

We need to find a solution, yes, but not one at the expense of a legal, American group.

[j2k4]

Is the constitution a living flexible document?

Absolutely not.

Clear enough?

[devilsadvocate]

Is the constitution a living flexible document?

Absolutely not.

Clear enough?

Yes.

Then the question begs why you think the ACLU shouldn't have stood up for the constitution when an attempt to violate it was being made simply because the attempt was against vile scum?

[j2k4]

Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.

Federal immigration enforcement can only be termed a non-concern these days, which fact leads inevitably to the state picking up the ball.

Arizona shouldn't have to be involved, but.

[Skiz]

Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.

The fed has shown complete ineptitude at anything border related, thus the states are quite... umm... concerned.

This issue is not going away. VA has already passed similar legislation and another state as well (FL?) As long as the fed sits on their hands, the states will continue to tweak their laws so they are deemed constitutional and they can work on fixing the issues created by mass, illegal, emigration.

[Skiz]

Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.

Federal immigration enforcement can only be termed a non-concern these days, which fact leads inevitably to the state picking up the ball.

Arizona shouldn't have to be involved, but.

^ Yep.

[devilsadvocate]

Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.

Federal immigration enforcement can only be termed a non-concern these days, which fact leads inevitably to the state picking up the ball.

Arizona shouldn't have to be involved, but.

Explain then why deportations have dramatically increased since Obama took office. I'm not saying he is the reason, just that they have increased dramatically.

Also the amount of border guards has increased to record levels. Mostly due to a long term strategy started during the Bush administration and continued by this one