Arizonans and The Nation Torn On Immigration Bill

[Ali G. 37]

Wouldn't it make sense to wait until these standards are in place before passing laws like this?

no comment

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Firstly, they can ask for it. I can CHOOSE to show it to them or not. How are my rights being infringed?

And even if they were, it is certainly not something that I would care very much about. Nothing that would cause me to make some placards and start shouting slogans.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually the enhanced ID is linked to a federal database and uses the same security as obtaining a passport.

And yet, it's neither mandatory (nor, I suspect, available) across the nation. Until it is, your point is moot.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Firstly, they can ask for it. I can CHOOSE to show it to them or not. How are my rights being infringed?

And even if they were, it is certainly not something that I would care very much about. Nothing that would cause me to make some placards and start shouting slogans.

Oh right.

We've been talking about a law where you don't have a choice to "show it to them or not".

no comment

Oh.

That'd be a dream come true!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We've been talking about a law where you don't have a choice to "show it to them or not".

[Ban Hammer 13,344]

That is why we have E-Verify. It checks all God's children. Red or yellow, black or white.

last i knew of, it's not mandatory to use. check with peejay for verification of that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Firstly, they can ask for it.

No, they cannot. They can ask you only to document your eligibility to work in the country. If you have a DL and an unrestricted SSC, that's all you have to show them to prove your eligibility to work. They cannot - by law - ask for any additional documentation.

[sachinky 465]

Oh are we picking and choosing now which laws it is OK to comply with and which it is not?

Besides, it's not obscure, sachinky. It involves everyone who has a job in the US.

No, I'm just picking the laws that I think are stupid and not worth getting my panties in a knot about and others that do make sense to me.

At the end of the day, I comply with the law of the land I am currently in (mostly because I'm an intensely paranoid individual and would just like to stay out of trouble). This means I follow the laws that I personally don't agree with and the ones that make sense to me.

I'm sure it's not obscure, I've never heard of it before today so I didn't know anything about it.

[Ali G. 37]

No problem there. Put a notation on all driver's licenses as to the status of the holder of that license, and I won't complain either. At the end of the day, I am opposed to being burdened with essentially a requirement to obtain and carry a passport for interstate travel. That's what this AZ clusterfcuk of a law boils down to.

Okay so we can at least agree that all government services should require the verification of residence or citizenship, as is the case in pretty much ever single other first world country. Furthermore, every employer should be required to use e-verify and conduct a check of three forms of federal ID when hiring someone, as is also the case in pretty much ever single other first world country.

The problem is that at present absolutely nothing is being checked anywhere. The SSC is absolutely pointless and can be forged by a three year old on their crayola board. Actually, the SSC is the first thing that should have been converted to a 2010 Biometric grade card.

You guys don't want police checking people but lets face it, it's not as if we are doing anything else like the aforementioned SSC upgrade.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Ali G.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You have a one track mind.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay so we can at least agree that all government services should require the verification of residence or citizenship, as is the case in pretty much ever single other first world country. Furthermore, every employer should be required to use e-verify and conduct a check of three forms of federal ID when hiring someone, as is also the case in pretty much ever single other first world country.

Sure, we can agree on that. I ain't no fan of illegal immigration. You know that.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[sachinky 465]

Oh right.

We've been talking about a law where you don't have a choice to "show it to them or not".

I was still running with your hypothetical employer situation. Which, from the sounds of it, no employer would ask for the GC, since it's illegal.

Obviously, in the cop situation you don't have the option of "showing it to them or not."

[Ali G. 37]

No, they cannot. They can ask you only to document your eligibility to work in the country. If you have a DL and an unrestricted SSC, that's all you have to show them to prove your eligibility to work. They cannot - by law - ask for any additional documentation.

Anyone endorsing that ridiculous law, without a doubt proves that they are not interested in clamping down on illegal aliens. Why else would anyone continue to advocate that it be illegal for an employer to require status? Ronald on here [no names] talks about the fourth amend and the first world, yet in reality I have had to show my passport whenever I been hired in an AUS company.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Ali G.

[Ban Hammer 13,344]

clearly you are not aware that USC's are not required to own a passport. All you need to travel internally within the US is a driver's license.

just think of all the minors violating that "law"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

just think of all the minors violating that "law"

It is true for adults, though. When I fly domestic, all I have with me (indeed, all I need) is a DL.