• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

texmaster said:
Read the page Deuce.

ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
45 GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Thats it. Its over. Its any government issued ID. Lets stop the pretence ok? Its not just an Arizona ID.
Click to expand...

Tex, Duece is just posting as his talking points tell him to, it's a gig that pays him to post, not think for himself.
 
texmaster said:
Read the page Deuce.

IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
44 STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
45 GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Thats it. Its over. Its any government issued ID. Lets stop the pretence ok? Its not just an Arizona ID.
Click to expand...

No, it's not any government issued ID. Did you miss the word "IF" at the start? Some ID's do not require proof of citizenship for issuance. Those ID's are not going to get you out of detainment. This includes the driver's licenses issued by, if I remember right, eleven states.

edit: ten?

edit2: seems that situation may have changed. investigating further. Utah and New Mexico seem to not require citizenship proof. Others in the ten may have changed recently.

edit3: http://www.newmexicocivilrightslaw....re/new-mexicans-and-arizonas-immigration-law/
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
No, it's not any government issued ID. Did you miss the word "IF" at the start? Some ID's do not require proof of citizenship for issuance. Those ID's are not going to get you out of detainment. This includes the driver's licenses issued by, if I remember right, eleven states.
Click to expand...

What in hell are you talking about? The word IF was referring to IF proof of legal residence is required then State or local government issued identification is required.

How can you possibly miss this? Its bordering on intentional now.

Either show us in the law where it says only an Arizona ID stops the probing for legal residence or drop the rediculus claim you made.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
What in hell are you talking about? The word IF was referring to IF proof of legal residence is required then State or local government issued identification is required.

How can you possibly miss this? Its bordering on intentional now.

Either show us in the law where it says only an Arizona ID stops the probing for legal residence or drop the rediculus claim you made.
Click to expand...

There's nothing else to say other than that you're misinterpreting what you're reading. That statement comes from a list of four types of documents that will stop the process.
1) AZ Driver's License
2) AZ Non-operators permit
3) Tribal something or other
4) What you quoted.

If a particular document requires proof of citizenship for issuance, that document will be accepted under this AZ law. If not, the document does not fall under that 4th item.

So I'm going to ask YOU to drop YOUR ridiculous claim.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Click to expand...

Edit again: Worthy of consideration: If any government ID would satisfy, why bother breaking it down into four types?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
There's nothing else to say other than that you're misinterpreting what you're reading. That statement comes from a list of four types of documents that will stop the process.
1) AZ Driver's License
2) AZ Non-operators permit
3) Tribal something or other
4) What you quoted.

If a particular document requires proof of citizenship for issuance, that document will be accepted under this AZ law. If not, the document does not fall under that 4th item.

So I'm going to ask YOU to drop YOUR ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...

You are hopeless dude.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
37 ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
38 PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

What part of ANY OF THE FOLLOWING don't you get? 1,2,3 AND 4! It doesn't say ANY OF THE FOLLOWING EXCEPT 4! Talk about sad.

You are busted for your pathetic claim.

Grow some balls and admit your mistake. This is really getting pathetic on your part.
 
texmaster said:
You are hopeless dude.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
37 ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
38 PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

What part of ANY OF THE FOLLOWING don't you get? 1,2,3 AND 4!

You are busted for your pathetic claim.

Grow some balls and admit your mistake. This is really getting pathetic on your part.
Click to expand...

For God's sake. I know that any of the four will do. What I'm telling you is that #4 does not actually encompass any and all government-issued ID's.

Let's say I have a Widget Certification Card, issued by the state of Ohio. Widget Certification Cards do not require proof of citizenship, they only require me to verify that I am an expert Widgeter via a written test.

The Widget Card will not stop my detention.

Several states do not require proof of citizenship for their driver's licenses. Those licenses will not get you out of detention.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
For God's sake. I know that any of the four will do. What I'm telling you is that #4 does not actually encompass any and all government-issued ID's.

Let's say I have a Widget Certification Card, issued by the state of Ohio. Widget Certification Cards do not require proof of citizenship, they only require me to verify that I am an expert Widgeter via a written test.

The Widget Card will not stop my detention.
Click to expand...

For God's sake READ THE WORDS

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

What part of that are you NOT understanding?
 
texmaster said:
For God's sake READ THE WORDS

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

What part of that are you NOT understanding?
Click to expand...

Which part of the first half of the sentence do you not understand?
 
Deuce said:
Which part of the first half of the sentence do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Nothing! I get it. You obviously dont or you would drop this "only Arizona id is valid" Bull****.
 
texmaster said:
Nothing! I get it. You obviously dont or you would drop this "only Arizona id is valid" Bull****.
Click to expand...

Oh, please, quote where I said only an Arizona license is valid. I've repeatedly said that SOME states don't require proof of legal status.

Deuce said:
As I understand it, an Arizona driver's license ends the investigation. How about a Minnesota license?

Edit: Read the bill again. If the ID I'm showing him requires proof of citizenship, then it is considered good enough. However, not all states require citizenship to be proven to get a driver's license, are the officers going to memorize the list? How about other types of ID? Chances are the officer wont immediately know. Also, what if I don't have my wallet on me? Walking down the street does not require such a thing.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Nope! (see edit)

Get-out-of-detainment cards:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Some driver's licenses aren't covered, and even the ones that are covered are dependent upon the officer's memory of whether that particular form of ID requires proof of legal presence.

Switching "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause" and "lawful contact" to "lawful detainment" would end any issue I have with the law. The federal vs. state jurisdiction pissing match is above my pay grade and outside of anything I'm interested in.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
No, it's not any government issued ID. Did you miss the word "IF" at the start? Some ID's do not require proof of citizenship for issuance. Those ID's are not going to get you out of detainment. This includes the driver's licenses issued by, if I remember right, eleven states.

edit: ten?

edit2: seems that situation may have changed. investigating further. Utah and New Mexico seem to not require citizenship proof. Others in the ten may have changed recently.

edit3: http://www.newmexicocivilrightslaw....re/new-mexicans-and-arizonas-immigration-law/
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
There's nothing else to say other than that you're misinterpreting what you're reading. That statement comes from a list of four types of documents that will stop the process.
1) AZ Driver's License
2) AZ Non-operators permit
3) Tribal something or other
4) What you quoted.

If a particular document requires proof of citizenship for issuance, that document will be accepted under this AZ law. If not, the document does not fall under that 4th item.

So I'm going to ask YOU to drop YOUR ridiculous claim.



Edit again: Worthy of consideration: If any government ID would satisfy, why bother breaking it down into four types?
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
For God's sake. I know that any of the four will do. What I'm telling you is that #4 does not actually encompass any and all government-issued ID's.

Let's say I have a Widget Certification Card, issued by the state of Ohio. Widget Certification Cards do not require proof of citizenship, they only require me to verify that I am an expert Widgeter via a written test.

The Widget Card will not stop my detention.

Several states do not require proof of citizenship for their driver's licenses. Those licenses will not get you out of detention.
Click to expand...

Did you read any of these!?

Also, apparently the number of such states is down to 4.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100701/ts_ynews/ynews_ts3010

The guidelines, promulgated by a state peace officers group, say that police can presume that a person who produces a valid driver's license is a citizen or legal resident. But if someone holds a license from one of four states that do not require proof of citizenship — Illinois, New Mexico, Utah or Washington — the guidelines say the officer cannot presume citizenship.
Click to expand...

Tex, first you pasted out of context parts of the bill that referred to car impounding, and now you're working off a straw man. Just admit you made an error.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Oh, please, quote where I said only an Arizona license is valid. I've repeatedly said that SOME states don't require proof of legal status.
Click to expand...

Actually NO you haven't been saying that. You've been arguing that only Arizona license is valid for 2 pages now.

I said

If you have valid ID he can't go anywhere beyond that. Driver's license is considered valid. He can't explore beyond that. Thats also part of the law.
Click to expand...

Then you argued:

As I understand it, an Arizona driver's license ends the investigation. How about a Minnesota license?
Click to expand...

and another:

Some driver's licenses aren't covered, and even the ones that are covered are dependent upon the officer's memory of whether that particular form of ID requires proof of legal presence.
Click to expand...

How many times must I quote you?

Stop making stuff up. ANY state issued driver's license would be accepted. PERIOD end of story.

Also, apparently the number of such states is down to 4.
Arizona's ID requirements vary for establishing citizenship - Yahoo! News

Tex, first you pasted out of context parts of the bill that referred to car impounding, and now you're working off a straw man. Just admit you made an error.
Click to expand...

Obviously once again you didn't read the link. It NEVER quotes law. It claims "guildlines" by one group without verifiication.

It truely is pathetic to watch you try and pretend the law doesn't say ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Thats the LAW. Not a yahoo newsletter and not "guildlines" from one group.

Admit you ****ed up and stop pretending you didn't argue only Arizona ID is allowed because I already quoted you directly that's exactly what you've been arguing.
 
Tex, I can't believe you're still holding onto that straw man. I clearly and repeatedly said SOME states do not require proof of legal status for a DL. And here you go and claim I said ALL. There's a rather important difference.

I tried quoting you the law, but you're misreading it. That first half of the sentence? You seem to be ignoring it entirely.
 
Deuce said:
Tex, I can't believe you're still holding onto that straw man. I clearly and repeatedly said SOME states do not require proof of legal status for a DL. And here you go and claim I said ALL. There's a rather important difference.

I tried quoting you the law, but you're misreading it. That first half of the sentence? You seem to be ignoring it entirely.
Click to expand...

I know its fun to try and make stuff up but its not helping your case.

The law is quite clear. ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Nothing in the first part of that sentence invalidates the second part.

You are desperatly and shamfully trying to argue something that doesn't exist in the law. If they wanted to say only some government issued IDs were valid they would have said excatly that but they didn't. Now stop this. You are only embarrassing yourself.


I'll make this even simpler for you.

Name one state driver's license that doesn't put your address on it.

Go ahead.
 
Last edited:
And before you try wiggling again with Minnesota, here are the requirements for obtaining a driver's license or state ID

* An application for a drivers license (must be signed by one of the parents or legal guardians)
* Proper identification (the list of approved documents can be found in the Minnesota Driver handbook)
* A Social Security number
* Proper forms from driver education and/or driver training courses

So yes Minnesota would be VALID. Sigh. This is just sad you are trying to dodge this.

https://driversed.com/dmv/minnesota-apply-dl.aspx
 
texmaster said:
Nothing in the first part of that sentence invalidates the second part.

Name one state driver's license that doesn't put your address on it.

Go ahead.
Click to expand...
The first half doesn't invalidate the second half, no. It qualifies the second half. That's what the word IF does in a sentence like this. Maybe grammar is the problem you're having? I'll break it down in pseudo-programming language form.

IF, THEN.

If:
the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance

THEN:
any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

The use of the word IF implies that the qualification might not always be met. If the intent was to make any and all government-issued ID's meet the requirements, why is that first half of the sentence even there? It would be shorter and simpler just to write this:
4) Any federal, state, or local issued government identification.
Furthermore, why single out 1), 2), and 3)? If the intention was to have any and all government ID's meet the requirements, they could have just said that all by itself.

texmaster said:
And before you try wiggling again with Minnesota, here are the requirements for obtaining a driver's license or state ID

* An application for a drivers license (must be signed by one of the parents or legal guardians)
* Proper identification (the list of approved documents can be found in the Minnesota Driver handbook)
* A Social Security number
* Proper forms from driver education and/or driver training courses

So yes Minnesota would be VALID. Sigh. This is just sad you are trying to dodge this.

https://driversed.com/dmv/minnesota-apply-dl.aspx
Click to expand...

Again with the straw man. This only holds up if you ignore literally everything I wrote in between page 2 and here.

I asked about Minnesota as an example, as I'd not yet looked into it. As it turns out, a Minnesota license will satisfy the officer. A license from New Mexico, Utah, Washington, or Illinois does not require proof of legal status. Why, then, would Arizona want to accept it as proof of such?

You scoffed at the Yahoo News link, but the quote was from Lyle Mann, director of the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. Is he wrong?
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
If he accepts 4, it kills his whole stance.
Click to expand...

I accept 4, MrV, but have a different interpretation of what it means. Perhaps YOU can explain why the first half of the sentence is there and why it starts with the word IF?
 
Addendum: Turns out Utah recently changed their Driver's license regulations, so once the existing old licenses expire, Utah will no longer fall under this category because as of Jan. 1 of this year, the full-fledged Driver's License requires proof of legal status, and there's a "Driving Privilege Card" for those who can't show that proof.
 
I never leave the house without my ID.
 
ric27 said:
I never leave the house without my ID.
Click to expand...

I do every time I go jogging. However, I am unlikely to jog to Arizona as that would take quite a bit of time.

edit: Although I admit I go jogging way less than I should. :(
 
Deuce said:
I accept 4, MrV, but have a different interpretation of what it means. Perhaps YOU can explain why the first half of the sentence is there and why it starts with the word IF?
Click to expand...

I don't play semantic games with pauid forum hacks that want to try and redefine the word IF just to score some crazy point that proves them right IF the WORD means THIS and not THAT.
 
Deuce said:
I do every time I go jogging. However, I am unlikely to jog to Arizona as that would take quite a bit of time.

edit: Although I admit I go jogging way less than I should. :(
Click to expand...

Deuce, having an ID provides a layer separating going home and reasonable suspicion in some cases. You can also draw a relationship between several hundred felony arrests made and the number of those carrying any form of ID.

Almost none of them had ID.
 
ric27 said:
Deuce, having an ID provides a layer separating going home and reasonable suspicion in some cases. You can also draw a relationship between several hundred felony arrests made and the number of those carrying any form of ID.

Almost none of them had ID.
Click to expand...

There are no warrants out for my arrest and I haven't committed any crimes. I shouldn't have to carry ID, is what I'm saying. There's a difference between "Hey, I think you might be the guy who robbed the bank yesterday" and "Hey, I think you might be here illegally." The first is a specific crime with a specific description of the suspect. The second is whatever the officer happens to think at that particular moment.

MrVicchio said:
I don't play semantic games with pauid forum hacks that want to try and redefine the word IF just to score some crazy point that proves them right IF the WORD means THIS and not THAT.
Click to expand...

Errr, I'm not redefining the word if. "If" implies some sort of condition. That's what "if" means. You and Tex are the ones who are acting like it doesn't mean anything at all. And what's this new deal about me being paid to surf forums? I suggest you drop that nonsense, it just makes you sound paranoid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom