“show me your papers law”

LilOlLady

Gold Member
Apr 20, 2009
10,015
1,311
190
Reno, NV
“SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS LAW”

That is what Lawrence O’Donnell call Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law. What’s wrong with asking those who are stopped on a traffic violation or arrested of a crime or suspected of being in the country illegally for identification. Papers show your status in the country. If they have none there is a high probability that they are in the country illegally and that is a crime punishable with deportation.

“Show me your papers” is not a new law. From the day of my birth my status as an american citizen has been recorded on paper. Recorded by the country and my mother was given papers to go to the county to get a certificate of my birth. My children born in the 60s were given social security numbers. The day I enrolled in kindergarten my mother was require to show my birth certificate. When I went to work I had to show identification. Social Security card and sign a statement of my citizenship. When I cashed a check I had to show identification. When I opened a back account, applied for a loan to buy my first car I had to show identification, etc. When I was stopped running a red light and speeding I had to show a driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. When I registered to vote and to vote I had to show identification and the list goes on and on were American citizens are required to show their papers. If I have to show my papers, Illegal Aliens should have to show their papers. Those who came to Ellis Island were given papers. Slaves when off the plantation had to carry papers. Farmers are required to have papers for their live stock. Dogs have to have papers. Show me your papers have been around for hundreds of years for Americans, etc but Illegal Aliens are not required to have papers and to show them when they are required to show papers?:evil:
 
That is what Lawrence O’Donnell call Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law. What’s wrong with asking those who are stopped on a traffic violation or arrested of a crime or suspected of being in the country illegally for identification.

It’s wrong because there’s no probable cause, police need evidence of a crime before they can arrest or investigate. One is innocent until proven guilty, one is not required to prove his innocence, and it is incumbent upon the state to prove guilt.

All persons in the United States are entitled to due process and “shall [not] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…’ Sixth Amendment, US Constitution. The 14th Amendment affords all person due process rights, including those allegedly in the country illegally. (See: Plyler v. Doe (1982))

Papers show your status in the country. If they have none there is a high probability that they are in the country illegally and that is a crime punishable with deportation.

That one ‘lacks papers,’ or is unable to produce ‘papers’ at a given time is not evidence or proof of guilt. There is no such thing as someone ‘looking illegal.’

‘High probability’ is not evidence, and attempting to compel one to incriminate himself is illegal.

Moreover, 1070 is un-Constitutional as it preempts Federal law and Congress’ authority to address National issues, including immigration.
 
Millions of older Americans were born at home with the help of a midwife. They have no birth certificate. It's not required in the constitution. That document Republicans claim to love.
 
Millions of older Americans were born at home with the help of a midwife. They have no birth certificate. It's not required in the constitution. That document Republicans claim to love.

State Laws Require it. My Kids were born at Home, with a Midwife. We were required to report Their Births to the County.
 
In the interest of controlling illegal immigration I am strongly in favor of a requirement for every U.S. citizen over age eighteen to possess an addressable biometric identification card. Anyone who employs someone in exchange for a wage should be required by law to make or obtain and retain a photocopy of that card and violations should carry criminal penalties. These cards will carry a photo, fingerprint and/or iris coding and would address a central database via swipe terminal similar to credit card terminals. Portable terminals would be carried by ICE inspectors and regular employers of more than three workers will be required to have one on premises.

The reason ICE cannot at present effectively control employment of illegal immigrants is the ready availability of high-quality fake ID documents. It is common for employers of illegals to refer them to fake ID vendors, because so long as the illegal is in possession of fake ID the employer is covered. The addressable biometric card would eliminate this critical window and when illegals can no longer obtain work the problem will be almost totally eliminated within a few months.

I am aware of no good reason why any American citizen should not be willing to comply with such a requirement, but I invite disagreements.
 
So ALL people will have to show papers or only those looking hispanic?
Mainly those seeking employment.

Illegal immigration is a very serious problem and is responsible for a significant percentage of unemployment. Illegal immigrants will work for less than minimum wage and are unable to complain about unlawful working conditions. Foolproof ID will solve the problem once and for all.
 
Millions of older Americans were born at home with the help of a midwife. They have no birth certificate. It's not required in the constitution. That document Republicans claim to love.

State Laws Require it. My Kids were born at Home, with a Midwife. We were required to report Their Births to the County.

One of ours was born at home,same thing,the county issues a certificate,they don't care where the birth happened.

The feds should help the states improve their fraud control policies ,instead of a national ID,fraud will happen with that as well .Stop it now at the state level.
 
Well.... there are lots of interesting angles on this subject.

First, no one is required to produce any form of ID simply because asked. The current precedent on this is the "Hiibel" case. You are only required to state your name to authorities and then only when the police can articulate suspicion of criminal activity. No one is required to produce ID simply because someone wants to check you. Even when they do suspect you of something, you are only required to tell them your name. You are not required to carry ID. The idea is absurd to Constitutional types. This is all very basic 4th amendment stuff and these are the reasons why laws like Arizona's have trouble.

Now, when you get into asking for privileges, things change. Most of these broad arguments like the OP don't seem to note the difference between a right and a privilege. If you want to drive, you need a license. We can require that.

Skipping over a whole lot of stuff we can rattle on and on about regarding how terrible the government is and how much we need them to do every little thing for us, let me tell you how this REALLY should work. For all the Constitutional problems of these anti - illegal laws, and for all the rights these rabid anti - illegal types are ready to flush, they can't seem to figure out the key: EMPLOYERS. Employers can do all sorts of stuff the government can't. They can make you produce 27 forms of ID if they want. They can require you to read "Gone With the Wind" in perfect English while making hot dogs and apple pies. They can do ALL of these things as a condition of employment.... and never touch the constitution.

But hey now.... we can't go stepping on those big republican donors toes.... let's just keep the focus on the traffic stops. We're sure to deport oh...I dunno... five or six hundred a year that way. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I carry a national ID referred to as a cedula, in three countries. So does everyone else.
No big deal. It's no different than travelling and being asked for your passport (that's a funny looking wallet thing that murkins have to have to travel to "third world' shitholes.
 
I carry a national ID referred to as a cedula, in three countries. So does everyone else.
No big deal. It's no different than travelling and being asked for your passport (that's a funny looking wallet thing that murkins have to have to travel to "third world' shitholes.

Big deal or not, it's an idea that is held very dear by many constitutional fundamentalist that you can walk down the street, not bothering anyone and in turn, have the right to not be bothered by the government. In fact, the right to tell the cops to bug off if you are minding your business, not doing anything out of order. I guess the big fear is the idea that the cops would take to shaking down everyone, every time something happens, if they had the right to stop and question you just for existing.

I know... it sounds strange to many foreigners, but it is a core idea for many in the U.S.
 
I remember when Republicans were all advocating that before getting medical care you had to prove you were a citizen. Image if they were succful in passing that if you were bleading out they couldn t save your life because you might not be an American
 
I abhor the idea that we need …”papers” to prove anything. But, I equally abhor the huge numbers of illegal aliens that have dishonest intentions and are abusing and manipulating the weak immigration system America has for less than honorable reasons. Something has to be done. Sad that it should come to this.
 
Last edited:
If it is possible for an illegal alien to obtain a drivers license it might be at the root of the problem. I don't imagine you could get a drivers license if you were illegally in any other freaking country in the world. What is it about the word "illegal" that liberals fail to understand?
 
If it is possible for an illegal alien to obtain a drivers license it might be at the root of the problem. I don't imagine you could get a drivers license if you were illegally in any other freaking country in the world. What is it about the word "illegal" that liberals fail to understand?

You mean liberals like Reagan who granted them amnesty?



I am against all illegal immigration and they should all be deported.

Also those who knowingly hire illegals should be punished HARD!
Including prison and suspension of business liscences.
 
If it is possible for an illegal alien to obtain a drivers license it might be at the root of the problem. I don't imagine you could get a drivers license if you were illegally in any other freaking country in the world. What is it about the word "illegal" that liberals fail to understand?

You mean liberals like Reagan who granted them amnesty?



I am against all illegal immigration and they should all be deported.

Also those who knowingly hire illegals should be punished HARD!
Including prison and suspension of business liscences.[/QUOT

If Reagan "granted them amnesty" the problem should be over shouldn't it? Lefties should love Reagan if he granted future democrat voters amnesty. The question is whether people who are illegally in the United States should be issued valid drivers licenses. You might get hanged if you enter some countries illegally and Al Gore found out that his babes who tried to enter NK illegally got 20 years at hard labor. Try getting a drivers license anywhere in Europe if you are in the country illegally. The question again is what the fuk do liberals not understand about the word "illegal"?
 
Driver's license are state issued. Here in SC and NC, you must have a SS card to get a license. Perhaps a TIN will do, but I'm not sure of where the idea comes from that illegals can get a DL. Maybe some states allow it... but I don't know about those states.
 
As far as the Reagan amnesty, it opened the flood gates. There was supposed to be a crack down on employers that went along with that amnesty but those pesky republican donors get all touchy about sending the cheap help home.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top