jayoa, the way you write your post you seem to agree with this state of things. As long as this country doesn't have a national ID card mandatory to every citizen I don't see why one should volunteer to use the passport card as a national ID. I would expect that if citizens are detained to prove their citizenship we'll have some nice lawsuits in the future. However, if we want to turn the US into a police state and demand that everyone carries proof of ID and citizenship with them at all time and it is asked as proof randomly then that would be a different situation (I am not advocating for this).
Prove of US citizenship after naturalization?
- Thread starter Czech guy
- Start date
A nice thing about passport card is that if you lose it you can get a replacement in a very short time. On the contrary, it is both timing consuling
and more paperwork to replace a green card.
Whether state IDs are better than a national ID is not what I tried to convey on my response. I was only trying to answer the original question of how to prove citizenship after naturalization. I mentioned that since it seems that there is talk of a law to simply to require law enforcement to inquire the legal status of anyone pulled over or arrested then it may be a good idea to have an ID that actually also proves ones citizenship whether you like it or not or get taken to the precinct to find out your legal status.
If you want to know my opinion on the issue, I am an IT professional and tend to see things very technically; I personally think there is the need to filter illegal aliens because otherwise the country will have more of a hard time catering to its residents. How they need to do it may be arguable but as long as the Mexican economy does not improve or get up to par as Canada's or the US', illegal border crossings will continue. Nobody is going to randomly request your legal status by itself, it will simply be integrated as a requirement when pulled over or arrested and I don't think that is a police state and as long as you have not suggested anything else that will work then that is what it will be. And I think national IDs are much less effective compared to state IDs because national IDs puts the burden on one sole agency of the federal government to provide that service which can be a huge bottleneck. However, offloading the burden to states to handle their own IDs makes it much more manageable and the enhanced driver license seems like the way to go if you can have a driver license or non-driver ID that also clearly states your nationality. It is the reality that there has to be a way to filter legal and non-legal residents otherwise the entire population from Mexico and those countries that come in through there will shift here. No lawsuits of any type will occur because such a law would have been challenged even up to the supreme court and as long as it is upheld so will it be. The four states that have enhanced driver license and non-driver ID is the USCIS and DMV dipping their toes in the water for testing. Once all states get involved it will probably be by default to have one's US legal status clearly printed on the IDs. So instead of a national ID that will never happen (constitutionally it is the states' rights to issue IDs, also when a national ID was mentioned in recent past it got an all-round objection nationally) this will simply be the USCIS' stamp on state IDs for legal residents. Even much more so now that the supreme court just ruled that the government does not violate privacy laws by running a background check on federal employees or those that apply for it, talk less of merely requesting your legal status. And FYI, I was required to provide my legal status in VA when I went to answer the summons in court, its part of the paperwork collected from anyone in that process, howver, when I was pulled over I was not asked for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Am I the only one who think that linking the driving licence and the legal presence is not right? Why driving licences could not be just that - licences to drive? It brings us to another question: why driving licences should be used as identification documents? In Germany, for example, a driving licence cannot be accepted as an identification document even though it bears a photo and all bio details about a person. The bottom line is that a person's ability to drive does not depend on his/her immigration status. The identity of a person similarly does not cease to exist if a person becomes illegal in this country.
The US passport is de-facto a national ID in America because it is the ultimate proof of the identity and citizenship, and it is accepted in all states with no exceptions (Texas used to be one but no more). Of course, passport is completely voluntary and the majority of Americans don't have it, but who says that the proposed 'evil' national ID should be mandatory? Just like state driving licences it can be voluntary too - just a more convenient way to identify yourself nationwide. Would it put mores stress on the Dept of State? Perhaps. However, I fail to see how a voluntary national ID card is inherently more evil than a voluntary state-issued ID card.
Sorry for my rant
This is where you are wrong. The ability for a person to obtain a driver license and drive depends on their immigration status. if you are not a citizen or legal resident you have no right to a driver or non-driver ID. And this is the avenue that the USCIS will use to incorporate legal status into state IDs when residents present their citizenship and legal resident paperwork as well as backend authentication of your SSN, A#, etc between DMV and USCIS databases to get all that verified and added to your state ID/driver license. Try going to your local DMV without proof of your legal status and see if you will succeed in getting one. Here is an example of how the UK has enabled their's with a single national ID but since the US constitution gives states the rights to issue IDs a national ID will not happen hence the need for the USCIS to incorporate such legal staus details into DMV systems and IDs issued; http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/images/idcard.jpg
...this topic is of high interest to me because I am currently planning the same thing for foreign countries and I know current implementations as well as enhancements to better secure them as well as how they operate in the backend.
Well, for the simple reason that such things as the passport are voluntary that is why they are initiating the need to incorporate citizenship and legal status onto non-voluntary IDs such as your regular state ID or if you drive, driver license.hence making them the enhanced driver and non-driver ID. Just as LPRs are required to carry their green cards on them always, everyone is required to carry their state IDs (or driver license if you drive), so it makes sense to incorporate legal status on them. Those that do not carry their IDs get a free ride to the precinct to identify them, and this is not even for immigration purposes but for standard "identification" and with the current immigration climate they might as well include barely a page of additional paperwork to inquire about your legal status.
There is no rant, this is called a "forum" for a reason; to discuss any matter at hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
The difference in implementation between the US and that of say the UK is that while the UK clearly states theirs on the ID for anyone to see, which may subject some people to biased judgement, the US may implement legal status on state IDs differently (as is already being done on enhanced driver licenses and non-driver ID (such as the NY state one I posted earlier) where there is no such thing as nationality written on its face but is part of the information in the card's digital signature that law enforcement can see when they run it) such that it may not be shown on the face of the card but if law enforcement runs the ID they will see it. And the card itself does not carry the holders information, it simply carries a unique ID number that can be read by law enforcement systems that have access to the databases that the ID number ties into to pull your complete details including legal status. This implementation prevents people from simply printing fake IDs and copying user details from a legit ID card onto it. The UK had to scrap and reissue their national ID not too long ago because they made the mistake of putting all the holder's information on the card instead of just a unique ID, which made it easy for any fraudster to copy all that information onto an illegally printed ID card. They eventually implemented the more secure implementation of the USCIS where the card only carries a unique ID number that even if any other system reads that number, they would still need to access to the US government systems to use that number to pull the resident's full details tied to it, which only law enforcement and border patrol systems have access to and will be quite effective in filtering legal and illegal aliens. As a matter of national security, this is the direction things are going with mandatory driver and non-driver IDs, and speaking form a technical point of view, this is the way to go. Trust the Lockheead Martins, Boeings, L1-IDs, et al to continue to push this idea to the federal and state governments.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
When not driving, citizens aren't required to have any ID on them. Pedestrians, and passengers of cars, trains, and buses aren't required to have ID. If people in the back of a taxi are going to be detained at the police station for lack of ID just because the driver got pulled over, that's a big problem and an infringement of civil liberties.
I agree with a hybrid of what you and König are saying. I don't think the issuance of licenses and IDs should depend on legal status; I want illegal aliens to be identified. Give them an ID if they want one. They're going to drive anyway if that's what they need to do to get to work, so let them have a license so we know who they are and where they live and they can get insurance instead of doing hit and run. But the license or ID should have a notation on it that shows legal immigration status (preferably a simple indicator with two or three choices, such as citizen/legal alien/undocumented or legal/other rather than detailed visa classifications like LPR/F1/J1/H1B), so they can't use the ID to do other things that require legal status, such as working (they might find work anyway but they're still limited to employers who will hire them without legal status). And those who don't have legal status when applying for the ID or license should be required to give fingerprints.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody will bare the consequence of being in a taxi when pulled over, that is clearly a hired service and the taxi driver is solely responsible to possess a commercial driver license. If he doesn't he is detained or whatever and the passengers are let off to find some other means of getting to their destination. This is clearly different from a private vehicle where everyone can be asked to identify themselves especially if their is probable cause (and whatever illegal activity is in progress or inpossession is borne by everyone onboard as a matter of law except if the offender explicitly states that nobody else but him is responsible for the offense at hand), we see it happen on COPS everyday on TV.
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about "issuing IDs to illegal aliens" (you mean condoning and encouraging their illegal presence here). This presents tons of problems a couple of which are that authorities are not interested in giving them IDs which constitutes condoning and encouraging or even aiding and abetting their illegal presence here and bordering on amnesty for their illegal presence, they simply need to identify them and get them out of here. And even if they propose such an idea, illegal aliens will not apply for it out of fear of being detained in the process. So bottomline is that is not a viable solution any country wants or needs to invest in for illegal aliens especially one that will only task the system further with unnecessarily longer DMV lines. And just so you know illegal drivers as much as legal drivers commit hit and runs because neither of them wants to get in trouble. Of course they will drive anyway but that increases the chances of being pulled over and deported. And even if DMVs give them IDs, its a matter of time for ICE to gain access to those databases that identify them and their addresses and mass deport them (and just so you know, MD was the most recent state that allowed such issuing of IDs to illegal aliens and that got a lot of fire from every angle imaginable until they stopped it a couple of years ago). Your proposal is not at all a viable solution at all. And i personally don't think it is wise to print an ID holder's legal status on the face of the ID for all to see my "more private" matter and possibly treat me with bias that I am not a citizen or otherwise, it should only be electronically accessible when law enforcement and border patrol runs the card, and if private or commercial entities need to know that is what eVerify is for.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is indeed a very sad state of affairs when in a forum devoted to immigration we hear voices against a certain category of immigrants, turning them into scape goats or into an easy explanation as to why the economic conditions are not what we want. Even though you think that your IT job shields you and perhaps makes you better than other immigrants (e.g. illegal ones), the truth is that many US born citizens blame people like us for the job loses and advocate for a reduction if not elimination of H visas and other legal immigration vehicles. What would you think if in this forum somebody said something like "I personally think there is the need to filter all aliens because otherwise the country will have more of a hard time catering to its citizens"?. I personally know a good number of illegals aliens as you call them, and find them to be honest, hard working people, in many cases holding two hard jobs just to make ends meet. These are people who pay taxes, and yet are not eligible or are afraid to get any of the benefits that you take for granted. They are more like the grandparents of many Americans today who came to this land in search for freedom and opportunity and had to fight and work extremely hard to get them. In a sense, those illegal aliens are the quintessential Americans on the backs on whom this country was built.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
What you were suggesting is that everybody including non-drivers are already required or should be required to carry an ID, and be arrested if they don't have one. That isn't the case, and should not be the case.
When passengers have to identify themselves, that is limited to more serious scenarios such as when the driver tried to evade police, or the driver is a known criminal with arrest warrants. Not regular speeding tickets and busted tail light citations.
I am not condoning their illegal presence, because the ID an illegal alien would get would be unusable for proving their legal presence. You might think of it as condoning their presence, because of the current linkage between status and ID issuance, where the mere existence of your ID implies legal presence. I'm saying we should break that implication. Issue the ID to everybody who pays the fee and identifies themselves, but indicate their lack of status on it if they don't have legal status.
Some will, some won't. If none do, it's no different than what we have today. If some do, we have them in the system so they'll be easy to track later.
That's the point. Identify them now, deport them later.
If the indicator of status doesn't distinguish between citizens and other legal residents, but is just a simple binary indicator such as "Legal status: YES/NO", then only the illegal aliens would have to worry about that bias, because only they would have the NO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tune to National Geographic Channel to watch "Border Wars" and see what happens when pulled over in Texas, California, Arizona, etc especially close to the borders; both the driver and passengers have to ID themselves and they have been able to deport both drivers and passengers that prove to be illegals. It may not be explicitly required to carry an ID, but if required of you by law enforcement (of course for good reason which is why the US is not a polie state) and you do not have it, it is up to the officer's discretion to give you a free ride to the precinct to find out who you are and then some.
Well, this is a flawed proposal in itself because to get an ID you need to prove who you say you are beyond merely saying I am John Doe, born in 1900, my status is an LPR, and live next door. You actually have to provide documentation to this effect. Now tell me what illegal aliens will provide. Tell me how that will not allow illegal aliens assume any identity in any DMV in any state since they have no paperwork. "Breaking the link" between legal documentation and ID issuance results in condoning their illegal presence in any way, and no matter how you cut it, it encourages such a behavior to continue for illegal border crossers. Then fugitives, fraudsters, and other organized crimes will also then take advantage of this same thing since they can acquire IDs under the illegal pretence.
Well, ICE's motto is ID now, detain now, and deport now instead of wasting resources issuing ID to track and deport them later. The immigration laws is designed to make it so uncomfortable for illegal aliens so as to make them want to return home voluntarily due to hardship and many have done so. Issuing IDs will essentially make it more convenient for illegals and as the news gets across the border to their families, they too will pack up and head here in higher numbers (and you will think Customs and Border patrol is having a hard time preventing them now, imagine if mass crossings happen as a result of IDs being freely issued to illegals).
Bootmline is that the government does not expect companies or anyone for that matter to hire illegal aliens for any kind of work, so they already have it that in such a case where they may not ba able to work and make a living then they will resort to crimes. So since the government sees illegal aliens as criminals who resort to crimes for a living since they cannot earn a living by law why do you think they want to issue them ID to remain here to do what? To remain here has to be on a "legal ground" and if it is not met then that person is removable/removed. If you are an international student, they believe you should have a sponsor and do internships or workstudy as well as maintain 12 credits to remain in status. If you are a tourist, you need to do what you are her for and leave within the alotted time on the visa, same goes for all visa types. So where do illegals stand? What grounds do they have to remain here? So if this is the law why then would the government fail to enforce it but instead issue IDs to those that break it by sneaking in especially since they cannot earn a living legally and pose a threat in the eyes of the government? Or perhaps I should ask why should the government do away with these laws in order to issue IDs to illegals that they don't want or should not be here in the first place? I think we should be reasonable or at least think about what we demand. Just like some that want to be safe flying but do not want the government to search anyone before boarding airplanes, go figure.
These are similar reasons and consequences why the law to allow illegals brought here as children a path to citizenship already failed to pass and will likely never pass because then suddenly there will be floods of young illegals being sent over the border.
Last edited by a moderator:
State IDs require legal status proof; if some states give IDs without proof of legal status, that's the discretion of individual state's policy how they like to control illegal immigration. Circular logic is that since state's discretion to issue IDs and policies, they cannot depend on federal agencies to enforce immigration laws; since they ignore federal laws by providing IDs to individuals without checking/verifying/validating legal status. in other words; can't have cake and eat it too.
as an example; if California decides to give individuals state IDs (driving/non-driving), and neighboring state Nevada needs legal status proof for issuing state Ids (drving/non-driving); they cannot depend on federal law enforcement agencies.
"Reasonable ground" for asking legal presence status is at best shaky because other than obvious profiling, how one would be able to ask for legal presence. just to give an exaggarate example; a serial killer looks, walks, talks, and does everything that a normal human being does; and when profiling; just because all serial killers belong to one particular ethnic group/race, entire population from that particular ethnic group/race cannot carry an ID that says that particular individual determined to be not a serial killer.
in my opinion: Other than for political reasons, whole debate of illegal immigrantion is meritless at best; this is because, if all states can agree to issue state IDs strictly based on proof of legal status, and all companies (small/medium/large, etc) agree to verify status through I-9 verification process; there is no possibility for illegals to get "mainstream" jobs. Jobs in darker territory does not distinguish between legal/illegal immigration status and that darker territory is eternal (both philosophically and per law). For every problem there is a solution and creativity depends on the need/requirement; so no stopping of creative individuals from inventing ways. States with international border will always have different requirements of ID as they border with a different country.
Just to iterate check->re-check->check-again cycle, here is an anecdote for computer/IT savvy:
This story takes place long, long time ago (very long time ago) and relates to distributed computing/computer security principles, here we go.
king A decides to send sensitive niformation to another king B regarding impending attack from an invader known at their time. King A choses his trusted messenger and sends message to King B, and requests king B to confirm he understood message through messenger. King B confirms with messenger that he understood message and would like to know whether king A got the conformation that King B got the message, through the same messenger. King A confirms that messenger delivered the message and that King A got confirmation that King B got the message and King A understands that King B needs confirmation that message has been delivered appropriately and in entirety. and messenger leaves for King B to deliver confirmation; with directive frm King A that King A needs confirmation that King B got the message that King A acknowledged King B message; and the journey of trust/acknowledge/trust/acknowledge kicks off........if this legend were to be true...All King A and King B accomplished would have been confirming receipt of each other's message, without accomplishing anything of use to both.
Moral is that if people are sincere to solve immigration issues, politicians will be sincere; politicians are reflection of society, they represent what we want them to represent.
as an example; if California decides to give individuals state IDs (driving/non-driving), and neighboring state Nevada needs legal status proof for issuing state Ids (drving/non-driving); they cannot depend on federal law enforcement agencies.
"Reasonable ground" for asking legal presence status is at best shaky because other than obvious profiling, how one would be able to ask for legal presence. just to give an exaggarate example; a serial killer looks, walks, talks, and does everything that a normal human being does; and when profiling; just because all serial killers belong to one particular ethnic group/race, entire population from that particular ethnic group/race cannot carry an ID that says that particular individual determined to be not a serial killer.
in my opinion: Other than for political reasons, whole debate of illegal immigrantion is meritless at best; this is because, if all states can agree to issue state IDs strictly based on proof of legal status, and all companies (small/medium/large, etc) agree to verify status through I-9 verification process; there is no possibility for illegals to get "mainstream" jobs. Jobs in darker territory does not distinguish between legal/illegal immigration status and that darker territory is eternal (both philosophically and per law). For every problem there is a solution and creativity depends on the need/requirement; so no stopping of creative individuals from inventing ways. States with international border will always have different requirements of ID as they border with a different country.
Just to iterate check->re-check->check-again cycle, here is an anecdote for computer/IT savvy:
This story takes place long, long time ago (very long time ago) and relates to distributed computing/computer security principles, here we go.
king A decides to send sensitive niformation to another king B regarding impending attack from an invader known at their time. King A choses his trusted messenger and sends message to King B, and requests king B to confirm he understood message through messenger. King B confirms with messenger that he understood message and would like to know whether king A got the conformation that King B got the message, through the same messenger. King A confirms that messenger delivered the message and that King A got confirmation that King B got the message and King A understands that King B needs confirmation that message has been delivered appropriately and in entirety. and messenger leaves for King B to deliver confirmation; with directive frm King A that King A needs confirmation that King B got the message that King A acknowledged King B message; and the journey of trust/acknowledge/trust/acknowledge kicks off........if this legend were to be true...All King A and King B accomplished would have been confirming receipt of each other's message, without accomplishing anything of use to both.
Moral is that if people are sincere to solve immigration issues, politicians will be sincere; politicians are reflection of society, they represent what we want them to represent.
State IDs require legal status proof; if some states give IDs without proof of legal status, that's the discretion of individual state's policy how they like to control illegal immigration. Circular logic is that since state's discretion to issue IDs and policies, they cannot depend on federal agencies to enforce immigration laws; since they ignore federal laws by providing IDs to individuals without checking/verifying/validating legal status. in other words; can't have cake and eat it too.
as an example; if California decides to give individuals state IDs (driving/non-driving), and neighboring state Nevada needs legal status proof for issuing state Ids (drving/non-driving); they cannot depend on federal law enforcement agencies.
"Reasonable ground" for asking legal presence status is at best shaky because other than obvious profiling, how one would be able to ask for legal presence. just to give an exaggarate example; a serial killer looks, walks, talks, and does everything that a normal human being does; and when profiling; just because all serial killers belong to one particular ethnic group/race, entire population from that particular ethnic group/race cannot carry an ID that says that particular individual determined to be not a serial killer.
in my opinion: Other than for political reasons, whole debate of illegal immigrantion is meritless at best; this is because, if all states can agree to issue state IDs strictly based on proof of legal status, and all companies (small/medium/large, etc) agree to verify status through I-9 verification process; there is no possibility for illegals to get "mainstream" jobs. Jobs in darker territory does not distinguish between legal/illegal immigration status and that darker territory is eternal (both philosophically and per law). For every problem there is a solution and creativity depends on the need/requirement; so no stopping of creative individuals from inventing ways. States with international border will always have different requirements of ID as they border with a different country.
This is exactly what is the case as I said before, MD was the last and most recent state to issue IDs to illegals until a couple of years ago. This was during the same time there was a mention of a US national ID, nobody including the states wanted a national ID, so those that were not on par with the rest, such as MD, had to straighten themselves to require proper documentation for all forms of IDs and block out illegals getting IDs. Since then every single US state requires documentation as we know it today to get any form of ID, perhaps in order to ward off the threat of a national ID initiative by the federal gov't.
Whether we like it or not, profiling is part of law enforcement. They are always on the prowl for suspects who fits the "profile of a killer" for instnce to solve cases and sometimes they come upon suspects/culprits that have no priors and does not fit any pre-defined profile.
In states bordering Mexico they do have reasonable doubt in the form of proximity to the border where illegal crossings, human & drug trafficking are frquent to ask solely for legal status. But in other states well inside the US law enforcement does not pull you over just to ask you for legal status, it is usually part of paperwork after arrest/detention. And in those border states, it is the Customs and Border patrol that actually does the work of legal status inquisitions, which is duely a federal duty.
To say that the debate over illegal immigration is meritless is to say there is no need for documenting anyone's legal status in this country. And where that is the case such as in third world countries, it is chaos, trust me, I come from one so I know, which is why I am getting involved in planning identification systems even more secure than that of the US there. The one flaw I see with enforcement of immigration laws here is that eVerify is not mandatory for ALL businesses at all. If it carried steep consequences such as huge fines and possible jail time for the business owners per non-compliance finding, which is something many have been complaining about to make it more effective, it will possess the bite to make it effective. But as it goes, lawyers and politicians are the ones formulating the laws while leaving out the technologists that are the ones expected to make it work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Yes, I know that things operate that way close to the border, and I don't want that type of police-state presence to be all across the US.
Many of them have foreign passports, foreign driver's licenses, and/or foreign birth certificates. And utility bills. Of course, for some countries such documents are not to be trusted or may need to be verified with the issuing country (at the cost of the applicant).
The ID's they acquire will display they're here illegally.
The few who are leaving are doing so because of the lack of jobs due to the recession, not because of difficulty getting an ID.
Nobody is saying that will be the case across the US, if you diligently read and understood my posts, I specifically mentioned that it only happens in border states by CBP officials and that elsewhere it is not so and that legal status is only required as part of arrest/detention records everywhere anyway. The couple of times I was detained they asked me for such information even though they did not provide them to INS/USCIS but in today's climate they are actually doing that.
They are not acceptable as far as US laws are concerned. The passport is essentially useless since they did not enter with it and it does not carry the USCIS/CBP endorsement of entry, neither does it carry a visa, which are part of documentation that the DMV and SSA verify to classify your ID and SSA work authorization requirement on the SSN card.
While I have provided tons of reaons why not, I still don't have any good reason from you as to why you feel the governent has to issue IDs to illegals that need to be removed immediately instead of essentially create a loophole for fraud and crime.
When I said hardship, it meant economic hardship, not ID acquisition hardship, and this not a new factor that has been making illegals voluntarily return to their countries.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, jayoa, you have so many false assumptions that your entire argument should be discarded. How long have you been living in this country? Ok, let's see...
--------------------
My proposal would be to implement a voluntary national ID card for citizens and stop treating driving licences as identification documents. LPRs would present their GCs as IDs and everybody else would present their national passports as IDs (whether legal or illegal aliens). If you want to know whether a person presenting his/her national passport is legally present in the country, look for a valid I-94 stapled in the passport. There is just no need to link driving licences with the immigration status.
The ability of a person to get a driving licence depends on what the particular state decides it depends on. I went to the Department of Licensing in Washington state and got my licence without proving my legal status.jayoa said:
All state-issued IDs are voluntary for everyone. Nobody - whether a citizen, a legal or illegal alien - is required to obtain the state-issued ID. If they drive, they need to obtain a licence to do that (i.e., driving licence).jayoa said:
Wrong. Plain wrong. If you claim it to be the case, present some proof from the state legislature.jayoa said:
Again wrong. Police cannot detain someone without a reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Not having an ID by itself does not constitute a reasonable suspicion or a probable cause.jayoa said:
Just so YOU know, the states that don't require legal presence verification include Illinois, Utah, New Mexico and Washington.jayoa said:
--------------------
My proposal would be to implement a voluntary national ID card for citizens and stop treating driving licences as identification documents. LPRs would present their GCs as IDs and everybody else would present their national passports as IDs (whether legal or illegal aliens). If you want to know whether a person presenting his/her national passport is legally present in the country, look for a valid I-94 stapled in the passport. There is just no need to link driving licences with the immigration status.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very well said. It saves me the time to answer jayoa in a day in which I don't have a lot of time for a lengthy reply. I'll just take the opportunity to repeat my position against the Arizona law and also to agree with the people who say a drivers license should be just that a drivers license. Let's stop this function creep trying to make it into national IDs and proof of status. There should not be a link between immigration and driver licenses.
In essence you are saying that Washington State has no list of requirements to obtain any form of ID, you can just walk in there and get one no matter who you are. As far as I know you might have dealt with a new recruit who has no idea what he's doing, an under-trained rep, or one of the lazy reps. Here is the list of requirements for Washington State, check under A List and you will find legal status requirements; http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/idproof.html. FYI, such legal status requirements are usually in the first group of requirements as important as they are.
I think you are misunderstanding my points. Police officers do not stop and detain you simply for ID reasons. It is secondary to any original probable cause of a crime or arrest/detention. And if you come in the crosshairs of an investigation without an ID on you, you will go downtown with them to ID you, however they also now have mobile ID units that they use to take your prints right there and then in their van.
I'm not sure where you got your information from, but you can't be more wrong and you need to check your details.
Here is the list of requirements for Illinois, see Group A for citizenship & residency status requirements; http://www.sos.state.il.us/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_x173.pdf
Here is the list of requirements for Utah, citizenship and residency requirements are written all over it; http://publicsafety.utah.gov/dld/acceptable_id.html
Here is the list of requirements for New Mexico, read through and find it clearly written there; http://www.mvd.newmexico.gov/Drivers/Licensing/pages/MVD-Proof-of-Identity.aspx
I already gave you the one for Washington State above.
--------------------
None of this is in support of US national security or is in any way a secure solution. If citizens and residents alike can have a drive or non-driver ID that also carries information about their legal status for law enforcement and border patrol to access then that is essentially one document that serves the purposes that are needed instead of carrying multiple confusing documents all over the place including those from other countries passports, drive licenses, IDs, etc that cannot be authenticated by local law enforcement units, what muddy water all of that will create. Simply put, if the US state and federal authorities cannot authenticate and vet the credential or the applicant's identity prior to issuance of any form of ID, it is not acceptable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Oh yes? Under current law, if a non-LPR alien has to prove their status, guess what they'll show? Their passport! Which may or may not have a visa or I-94 in it, depending on which country they're from.
And guess what they show when applying for a driver's license? Their passport!
Who says they didn't enter with it? Some did and they overstayed, and some have visas.
Can you give one example of how they'll use it for fraud and crime (in a manner that would be impossible or much more difficult without the ID), given that it would show their illegal status and be tied to a database entry of their fingerprints?
Your entire point seems to be that we need to maintain ID acquisition hardship to prevent masses of them from flooding in at the borders.
Last edited by a moderator: