• 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!

Should the U.S. have a nationa identity card?

Should the U.S. have a national identity card?

  • Yes, it makes perfect sense. Screening for legal residence could be done with other police stops

    Votes: 8 25.8%

  • They already make you show ID and proof of insurance, it might be okay

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • As long as minorities aren't specifically targeted, it's fine

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • I don't like the idea, it makes me uncomfortable

    Votes: 4 12.9%

  • Sounds like police state tactics to me.

    Votes: 13 41.9%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Total voters
    31
Jucon said:
One reason I'm not necessarily for the illegal immigration act in Arizona is because it sounds like they will only require people who LOOK illegal to show papers or an ID.

I'd rather they asked EVERYONE, no matter their ethnicity. That gets rid of the profiling issue.

As far as a national ID card, I wouldn't be against it. Yes, we have state ID cards... but how could a police office from, say Arizona be able to tell if a Drivers License from Florida is valid? Especially if they haven't seen one before.
Click to expand...
Most of the the people in Arizona who are illegal, "look" (i.e., Mexican) illegal. ;)
 
I think a nice 30-character alphanumeric tattoo inside the right forearm instead of a national identity card.

That and a computer chip placed in a hard to get place, of course a full set of fingerprints and a blood sample so they can catalog your DNA.

That combination should do the trick.
Anyone caught altering the tattoo or chip would be subject to imprisonment.
Why? Tampering with government property.

.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
There's a lot of talk, especially with the Arizona controversy, about illegal immigration and enforcement of immigration laws, and how to do so without targeting people of Hispanic appearance.

One solution would be a national identity card. If every person stopped by the police had one, and was required to show it, then legal residence in the U.S. could be verified with a simple traffic stop, or domestic violence police call.

Suspects are already required to give ID, why not have people be required to have a National ID card?

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I do already - it's my Military ID, it's government property and contains all my personal information - even more than what's on a Driver's License.

I don't believe that everyone should be issued something of the sort by the government - but I do feel that state systems should be interconnected and that we should do away with social security numbers and rely on finger print matching instead.

In the government's attempt to keep up with everyone they've caused a safety issue (ID Theft, among other things) - yet have done nothing to solve the problem they've fueled.
 
zimmer said:
I think a nice 30-character alphanumeric tattoo inside the right forearm instead of a national identity card.

That and a computer chip placed in a hard to get place, of course a full set of fingerprints and a blood sample so they can catalog your DNA.

That combination should do the trick.
Anyone caught altering the tattoo or chip would be subject to imprisonment.
Why? Tampering with government property.

.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious? I don't think I've ever heard a conservative suggest something like this.
 
Jucon said:
I have an idea... how about you profile me? Oh wait, you just did. :doh I'm not pro-illegal. I'm anti-discrimination... in this case, towards people who ARE in the country legally but look like, act like or sound like they are in the country illegally.
Click to expand...
When you spew pro-illegals rhetoric one has to wonder if you are pro-illegal immigration.

Tell me, how do you tell an illegal from a legal resident?
Click to expand...

When you stop someone for a traffic violation,loitering or some other crime you ask them for ID.If they do not speak english get an interpreter to demand immigration documents (seeing how natural born citizens are fluent in english and naturalized Americans have to pass a english proficiency test.) if they do not produce documents then most like that person is an illegal.They produce documents then they are here legally, if they do not then they are here illegally.

This is why I said the police should require EVERYONE to show proof of a legal status if they are stopped for a legitimate reason, even if they are most likely a legal citizens.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with everybody being asked to show proof of legal status if they are stopped from speeding or some other offense. With the age of computers it shouldn't take long for the police to check the DMV to see if everything is legit.
 
7 out of 10 illegals don't drive. They just pile into the van.
 
I think a national ID card, though a good idea, would actually be unnecessary if:

1. the gov't would just enforce immirgration laws already on the books;
2. all local and state criminal databases where also linked to NIS/FBI databases.

To me it's quite simple - if you're going to be checking a person's driving and criminal record on routine traffic stops, you may as well check their immigration status, too, if you suspect that person of being here illegally. It's a common sense approach that won't be enforced simply because it sounds too much like the right thing to do.

Now, having said that, IF the fed could convince the states that the information on the National ID card would, in fact, contain all pertainant info on it and would also act as a valid state issued driver's license as well as a VISA, then and only then would I be okay with it because it would streamline the ID process in conjunction with what I've stated above and also eliminate the need to carry multiple pieces of ID. But again, it will never happen because it sounds too much like right.

Mickey Shane said:
7 out of 10 illegals don't drive. They just pile into the van.
Click to expand...

True, but if you as a local law enforcement officer suspects the driver and/or passengers of being in this country illegally, you have the right to inquire of anyone in that vehicle to provide proof of legal residency and, thereby their legal status, in this country. Remember: It's only racial profiling if you purposely target a specific group of people by virtue of their race or ethnicity of wrong doing w/o probably cause.
 
Last edited:
One question?

What good is the card if you don't carry it around with you all the time?

Is that the idea?

.
 
jamesrage said:
When you spew pro-illegals rhetoric one has to wonder if you are pro-illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Where did I "spew pro-illegal rhetoric"? Just because I'm against discrimination toward American citizens who look, sound or act like illegal immigrants... does not mean I'm pro-illegal.



jamesrage said:
When you stop someone for a traffic violation,loitering or some other crime you ask them for ID.If they do not speak english get an interpreter to demand immigration documents (seeing how natural born citizens are fluent in english and naturalized Americans have to pass a english proficiency test.) if they do not produce documents then most like that person is an illegal.They produce documents then they are here legally, if they do not then they are here illegally.
Click to expand...

Yes, this could be a good sign that they are illegally in the U.S.

However, I've had friends who are legally, and were legally in the U.S., who couldn't speak English when they first migrated to the states. Even during high school and in my neighborhood there were people who couldn't speak English well.

And lets not forget that people can take vacations from Mexico to the U.S.

This is my main concern: I would personally feel discriminated against if police officers kept asking me if I was legally in the country and demanding I show proof. But that would depend on how often I got questioned.

Should the Mexican police suspect you of being an illegal immigrant and question you because you primarily speak English?

Using solely a person's speaking habits is not a bullet proof way of determining that someone is illegally in the U.S. Everyone should be asked to show proof, even if they can speak English well; or can't speak English at all.



But like I said, and you appear to be ignoring this comment... I'm waiting to see how they implement the law before passing final judgment. If the law turns out the way I fear it could, then I'd say ban the law... but if it works, keep it.
 
Jucon said:
Where did I "spew pro-illegal rhetoric"? Just because I'm against discrimination toward American citizens who look, sound or act like illegal immigrants... does not mean I'm pro-illegal.
Click to expand...

Seeing how pro-illegals are spewing the line that Arizona's new law is racial profiling and you seem to be spewing that line too. One has to wonder if you are what you say you are.


However, I've had friends who are legally, and were legally in the U.S., who couldn't speak English when they first migrated to the states. Even during high school and in my neighborhood there were people who couldn't speak English well.
Click to expand...

If they are naturalized citizens then they should be able to speak english.However if they are permant resident/greencard, work visa or anything else they have to carry their immigration documents on them
And lets not forget that people can take vacations from Mexico to the U.S.
Click to expand...

They still have carry their documents on them at all times regardless of what state they are in.

This is my main concern: I would personally feel discriminated against if police officers kept asking me if I was legally in the country and demanding I show proof. But that would depend on how often I got questioned.
Click to expand...

The only way that would happen is if you kept speeding,driving with a broken tail light or some other traffic offense (thus giving police a reason to stop you), going through DUI check points, loitering around somewhere or doing something that is going to get you pulled over or stopped by police.

Should the Mexican police suspect you of being an illegal immigrant and question you because you primarily speak English?
Click to expand...

Yes and I should have my legal documents on me to prove that I am in their country legally.Its funny that the country we get the most illegals from has the strictest anti-illegal immigration laws.

Using solely a person's speaking habits is not a bullet proof way of determining that someone is illegally in the U.S. Everyone should be asked to show proof, even if they can speak English well; or can't speak English at all.
Click to expand...

It is a way to determine if they are a immigrant or an illegal seeing how in order to be a naturalized citizen you have to pass a english proficiency test.As far as I know you have to be stopped(see the lawful contact part of the new Arizona law) for some other reason before they can even question you.

But like I said, and you appear to be ignoring this comment... I'm waiting to see how they implement the law before passing final judgment. If the law turns out the way I fear it could, then I'd say ban the law... but if it works, keep it.
Click to expand...

In Oklahoma if you are arrested even for a misdemeanor they check your legal status, if you can not they hold you until ICE can get you. I imagine that Arizona's is similar except they can stop you for speeding,loitering,road block and etc they then can ask you to prove your legal status there since the new Arizona law says lawful contact must be made,meaning they can ,Lawfull contact does not mean stoping someoen because they look Mexican contrary to what all the pro-illegals degenerates in the media says that the new Arizona law does.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
 
Orion said:
If they have a state ID of some kind, why would that not be enough to prove that they have legal residence in the U.S.?
Click to expand...
The same reason why it is not enough to prove eligibility to work on an I-9 -- a DL only establishes identity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom