A Protest Over Bus and Train Citizenship Checks

[Heracles 417]

like Chav yobs kicking in a bus shelter,

What is the fixation with that. I also see that a lot in Aus.. Maybe they feel good breaking the glass.

[panamania79 2]

All I can say is I am glad we don't live near a border. None of that ####### to worry about.

Don't speak too soon,the local and state police here are asking for people's green cards on traffic stops.This has the illegal immigrant advocacy groups and the Catholic Diocese going crazy.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

I don't know of any US citizen who routinely carries proof of citizenship.

i do. to have a cch license one must prove they are a usc first.

Well ok, so you prove it once and get a cch license. Why do you need to keep carrying proof of citizenship?

The license itself is not enough?

any kansas law enforcement official would know that having a cch license proves i'm a usc, so that's all i'd need.

I thought you can get a CCH without being a citizen.

not in the state of kansas.

[Heracles 417]

This has the illegal immigrant advocacy groups and the Catholic Diocese going crazy.

Good!

The church on the other hand has to realize that we need to feed Americans first before we can help others.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

I'd guess that not everyone in Kansas has a CCH license though

that would be a safe supposition.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is NO requirement for US Citizens (naturalized or native-born) to carry ID in the US. OK, if they're driving a car, they've got to have a license, or if they're carrying a firearm, they've got to have a FOID card, but if they're just passengers on a bus or train, or if they're bicyclists or pedestrians, they don't need any form of ID.

Google Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court for a recent ruling in this area. The Supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, said that someone who had acted in a way to provoke a reasonable suspicion by a police officer could be required to "identify himself" when a police officer asked, but the court said explicitly that such identification doesn't need to be anything more than a verbal statement of name and birthdate.

As a practical matter, if a US citizen chooses to carry proof of citizenship, he's certainly allowed to do so, but there's currently no wallet-sized durable card that works for this purpose. I don't know of any US citizen who routinely carries proof of citizenship. However, the state department is now taking applications for Passport Cards, which would seem to be well suited for carrying around routinely, especially for those who live in border areas. If you're getting a conventional passport anyway, getting a card in addition only adds $20.00 to the fee. It's something to consider when naturalizing.

But the law says you merely need to state your name and birthdate, and you only need to do that if you've already aroused reasonable suspicion that a crime may have occured.

Excellent info.

[Heracles 417]

I thought you can get a CCH without being a citizen.

not in the state of kansas.

Here are the rules in Virginia:

Does one have to have U.S. citizenship to be eligible to purchase a firearm?

A buyer who is not a citizen of the United States must have lawful alien status and must establish that he or she is a resident of a state by providing a valid photo identification and documentation such as a utility bill or lease agreement which would establish that he or she has resided in the state for at least 90 days prior to the date of the sale.

Congress has passed prohibitions that apply to "any alien in the United States in a non-immigrant status" with certain exceptions and a waiver process. Contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if you have questions about these regulations.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

I thought you can get a CCH without being a citizen.

not in the state of kansas.

Here are the rules in Virginia:

Does one have to have U.S. citizenship to be eligible to purchase a firearm?

A buyer who is not a citizen of the United States must have lawful alien status and must establish that he or she is a resident of a state by providing a valid photo identification and documentation such as a utility bill or lease agreement which would establish that he or she has resided in the state for at least 90 days prior to the date of the sale.

Congress has passed prohibitions that apply to "any alien in the United States in a non-immigrant status" with certain exceptions and a waiver process. Contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if you have questions about these regulations.

two entirely different things here. cch is a concealed carry handgun permit. it has zero to do with being able to buy a gun.

[Heracles 417]

As a practical matter, if a US citizen chooses to carry proof of citizenship, he's certainly allowed to do so, but there's currently no wallet-sized durable card that works for this purpose. I don't know of any US citizen who routinely carries proof of citizenship. However, the state department is now taking applications for Passport Cards, which would seem to be well suited for carrying around routinely, especially for those who live in border areas. If you're getting a conventional passport anyway, getting a card in addition only adds $20.00 to the fee. It's something to consider when naturalizing.

What a great idea..

[Heracles 417]

two entirely different things here. cch is a concealed carry handgun permit. it has zero to do with being able to buy a gun.

Yep just noticed that. When I looked at the CCH permit application all it asks is:

7. PLACE OF BIRTH (YOU MUST BE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN OR HAVE LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES)

as well as: H. ARE YOU AN ALIEN NOT LAWFULLY ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES?

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/downloads/SP-24...d_07-1-2006.pdf

Edited April 3, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[panamania79 2]

This has the illegal immigrant advocacy groups and the Catholic Diocese going crazy.

Good!

The church on the other hand has to realize that we need to feed Americans first before we can help others.

My sentiments exactly. Maybe if the church donated some of their gold,we could feed plenty of people.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually one of the biggest criticisms of the UK police is that they lack the sufficient powers to do their jobs effectively. There's definitely a "there's nothing we can do" attitude present, certainly in the Essex force. You can see someone commit a crime, like Chav yobs kicking in a bus shelter, but unless the cop actually witnesses it him/herself - there's often very little they're willing to do to follow up on it.

So I'm not sure where you're drawing you're conclusion from that police in the US are "soft" in comparison.

I would think that kind of thing is difficult to determine anywhere, not just in Essex or the UK. There are several things going against you in these types of cases. Proving who the culprits are is probably the biggest problem. So, correct, unless someone is spotted by the police in an act of vandalism I don't see how any police force anywhere is going to act on it.

Knackering a bus shelter is never going to warrent an expensive investigation. However, I am sure if the vandalism progresses beyond the mere annoying and unsightly the police are all over it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually one of the biggest criticisms of the UK police is that they lack the sufficient powers to do their jobs effectively. There's definitely a "there's nothing we can do" attitude present, certainly in the Essex force. You can see someone commit a crime, like Chav yobs kicking in a bus shelter, but unless the cop actually witnesses it him/herself - there's often very little they're willing to do to follow up on it.

So I'm not sure where you're drawing you're conclusion from that police in the US are "soft" in comparison.

I would think that kind of thing is difficult to determine anywhere, not just in Essex or the UK. There are several things going against you in these types of cases. Proving who the culprits are is probably the biggest problem. So, correct, unless someone is spotted by the police in an act of vandalism I don't see how any police force anywhere is going to act on it.

Knackering a bus shelter is never going to warrent an expensive investigation. However, I am sure if the vandalism progresses beyond the mere annoying and unsightly the police are all over it.

I used to see it in my town - and not just with vandalism or shoplifting. We get a lot of alcohol-fuelled violent crime in the city center. I've actually been in the position of witnessing a serious assault outside a train station - calling the police only for them to show up talk to some of the people there, including the perp and the vic (who were still present) and leaving without arresting anyone and without calling an ambulance for the guy who was beaten up.

Contrast that to our local force back in LA with its zero-tolerance approach. They also had virtually no crime - but the downside to that is that crossing the street against the lights would net you a $70 ticket, and a shirtless homeless guy pushing a shopping trolley down the main street would be promptly arrested and taken away. My MIL was even pulled over 50 yards from her house for having a brake light out and harrassed for her driver's license. If the cop hadn't flustered her with his attitude she'd have discovered that it fell out of her purse into the car footwell. As it was the git gave her a $300 ticket which she couldn't appeal.

Its strangely inconsistent - the areas that most need active policing seem to be the ones that have the most tolerance for petty crime.

[GabiandVi 34]

By elevating the law to untouchability and unquestionability, you are essentially saying you feel anyone who ever wrote a law is smarter than you, and you bow in deference to their better judgment. Laws, you must think, are best left for current politicians to question. Is that how you feel?

I don't think you were addressing this question to me, but I think we can complain about a law all we want, but until the law is changed, no matter how much smarter we think we are than the people who wrote the law, we have to follow it.

Like going to the back of the bus...you obey out of respect for the rules and the laws.

If you equate this situation with Jim Crow laws, then I support you refusing to show ID when asked. I don't, perhaps because, as I said in an earlier post, when I lived in a European country, I was required to carry my passport with me. It never occurred to me when I was told that that it was an unreasonable or unfair requirement. I later stopped doing it because my passport was stolen from me, but I understood the consequences and weighed keeping my passport safe more important. I believed that if I were found without it, I would face inconvenience, but I knew I would ultimately be okay because my visa was valid, even if it was hidden in my freezer in my place of residence.

I don't equate it with Jim Crow laws because they were designed to infringe the rights of citizens based on the color of their skin. This situation may be inefficient and stupid and, as another poster put it, a waste of money and energy, but it is designed to remove people who don't have the rights of citizens, not infringe upon the rights of citizens or legal residents.

As for civilly disobeying every law we disagree with, I'm sure there are a lot of laws you feel strongly should be enforced that I would disagree with, and vice versa. I think, and I don't mean this in a flippant or trite way, we have to choose our battles. I disagree that this is a law that, as it currently stands, should be civilly disobeyed. Should it be changed? I would support changing it. I might even join an active campaign to change it, but perhaps not for the same reasons as you would. Do I think it makes America like a Nazi state as you have intimated? I wouldn't trivialize that bit of history in that way.

[Amby 490]

I was pulled over once when I was a teenager and I didn't have my license with me. All I did was tell the police officer my name and ssn. He wanted my DL# but I had no clue what it was so he used my ssn.