Driving while Hispanic in AZ

[Swatopluk]

As I understand it, the driving licences are valid for the purpose of driving but not for the purpose of personal ID. Therefore I consider it unlikely that the law will be overturned because of that. The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).


*and I am not talking about the absurd ideas of the Blair government with an ID card that would contain all sorts of intimate personal data and cost several hundred £. That would be unacceptable indeed.

[Darlica]

The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).

Yes and no, at least in Sweden, Norway and Denmark a driving licence is a valid means of identification, albeit not a proof of citizenship. However one can see on a drivers license if a person is a Swedish citizen or not on the four extra digits that comes after our date of birth (social security number).
I don't remember the exact rules but people who aren't Swedish citizens and therefore don't have a Swedish social security number still has a unique number but it's set in another way than a regular social security number (you need to be a permanent resident to get your drivers licence transferred though), the drivers licence is still a valid ID.

As a non Swede in Sweden you don't need to carry your passport if you have other valid means of identification, however it might be the easiest way as we don't accept bank cards or corporate IDs.
A valid ID has to have a recent photo (at the most 10 years) and a date of birth and have a signature.
As Swedish citizen, the only way I can prove my citizenship is more or less by my social security number or ID/passport if I have one.
ID cards are used daily here, if you are shopping using your credit card and the pin-code doesn't work, if you want to prove your age of some reason; buying alcohol, travel to reduced prices (up to 20, student or above 65) gain entrance where there is an age limit etc.   

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I have a great business idea. Let's sell "I love Rush and Glenn" tshirts with confederate flags on the back with a special discount for non-citizens in Arizona. Also "My papers? Here's my concealed carry permit!" 

Fun fact: that's no longer necessary to have in AZ to carry concealed.

As I understand it, the driving licences are valid for the purpose of driving but not for the purpose of personal ID. Therefore I consider it unlikely that the law will be overturned because of that. The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).

Incorrect, iirc. My driver's license is an acceptable form of ID, no matter where I go in my country.

Fundamentally, it means that if you look Hispanic (or Arabic, or Indian, or Native or, well, non-white) you can be stopped by the police and asked for a proof of residency in the state of Arizona (a valid Driver's license from a different state doesn't work).

Excellent.  If true, this particular clause is a direct violation of the authority given specifically to the National Government by the Constitution.

I.e.  the Constitution specifically grants the national government power over inter-state commerce, regulation, etc.

It's what forces other states to recognize the legal marriage of gays done in a gay-is-legal marrying state, for example.

It has since their invention, forced other states to honor the driver's licenses of all states within their borders.

Specifically prohibiting non-AZ licenses in the law will kill it, as soon as someone sues.   I imagine there are lawyers already drooling at the thought of the revenue they are going to earn over this fiasco.

And the poor AZ taxpayers will have to foot the bill, of course...

... McSame ought to have his fortunes garnished to cover the cost ...

I disagree. I expect it'll overturned because of the full faith and credit clause of article four of the Constitution (which is what will force other states to accept a gay marriage, even if it's not legal there). You have to be legal to get an ID (here, at least) and as such, if I were brown and accidentally set foot in AZ, they would ultimately have to honor California's acceptance of me as legal or a citizen. I still predict someone important is going to have to get caught in this for anything to change.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Double post, yes I know.

He'd better bring his birth certificate if he does...

Arizona basically told him that...briefly. They passed a provision that would require him to show his birth certificate if he wanted to be on the ballot come 2012.

And then he told them to put back their healthcare program for the poor and the young back, or loose ALL federal funding. So, hm

Obama: 1
Arizona: 0

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As I understand it, the driving licences are valid for the purpose of driving but not for the purpose of personal ID. Therefore I consider it unlikely that the law will be overturned because of that. The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).


*and I am not talking about the absurd ideas of the Blair government with an ID card that would contain all sorts of intimate personal data and cost several hundred £. That would be unacceptable indeed.

That may once have been true, but today, the driver's license is also the same as a state ID card, and may be used anytime a state requires ID.

If you cannot drive for whatever reason, you can get a state ID card, which looks much like a license card, except it does not enable legal driving.

Which is why I said what I said.

Edit:  I see Scrib has already pointed this out.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm more worried about this thing than many others, while comments on the internet are usually a trollfest and the worst of the worst tends to show up quickly, I am honestly disturbed by the many comments I've read in supposedly left leaning sites like Huffington Post, which either say there is nothing racist in targeting people of brown color, or that racism is fine, that they are indeed racists and that they celebrate the law as such.

Perhaps I'm a bit more paranoid than I should, (besides South FL is almost 40% Hispanic) but it makes me think about our safety. I was already surprised with the veiled racism I found in Ohio a few years ago (I wasn't expecting it) but watching so much hate coming out makes me think that perhaps the worst is yet to come.

[Afterglow]

FYI...

Forms of ID accepted to prove citizenship and/or right to be here:

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.

BTW, my scripted response will/would be:  "I am an American war fighter who served in the US Navy for over 22-years and I refuse to obey an order that seems to be unlawful to me!!!"

[Swatopluk]

I was only referring to the effects of the Arizona law on the acceptance of driving licences not on the general US practice.
---
Afterglow, I fear that scripted response would not (necessarily) work for two reasons
1) Not all US soldiers are citizens (many use it as a way to citizenship like in Roman times)
2) There is bad tradition to consider a uniform on a non-white as another crime, i.e. impersonation*.

Governor Bill Richardson was on the Rachel Maddow Show the day before yesterday and joked that as the (currently) only Hispanic governor he might have trouble going to neighbouring Arizona with his moustache.

*most (in)famously highly decorated black US soldiers got arrested for impersonating a military officer when they stepped on US soil at the end of WW2. Hispanics are the new black in that regard in some regions of the country, I presume.

[Aggie]

Forms of ID accepted to prove citizenship and/or right to be here:

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.

Interesting - I wonder which state IDs meet the requirements of 4? 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There's a bit that I don't know regarding the states vs the federal government, I know that border security should be enforced by the federal government, but is there any law preventing a state from fencing it's borders?

My point is this, if the concern is people crossing the border and they feel that the federal government isn't doing enough can't they at the local or state level fence the border themselves?

Now, certainly doing it properly is incredibly expensive (didn't the wall in the GDR almost broke it's coffers?) and also the infamous Great Wall of Mexico had an incredibly high price tag, but it would seem to me that if the real concern is illegal immigration that would be a far more efficient way to prevent it*.

Is it that the state of AZ much rather have the federal government to foot the bill or that racism is "cheaper"?

*as much as it pains me to admit it, I much rather prefer a properly made fence than a police state. My general thoughts toward the Great Wall were that the money would be better spent in raising the level of life from Mexicans, but the reality is that it would likely take years if not decades.

[Griffin NoName]

Excuse me for being uninformed/naive around this, but do other states accept each other's identity proofs? Because it sounds not just racist but also insane not to.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Excuse me for being uninformed/naive around this, but do other states accept each other's identity proofs? Because it sounds not just racist but also insane not to.

Yes, by federal statute, and by current interpretation of the Constitution.

[pieces o nine]

I've been watching this news as well. I was gob-smacked that (1) anyone would associate his/her face & name with such blatant raism; and (2) there seems disturbingly little hue-and-cry from the state itself, let alone any appropriate smack-down from other authorities.

I suspect that some of the pro-profiling crowd hope for a Federal response, so they can whine about their 'state's rights' being violated and try to whip up even more anti-governmental animus.



I have relatives in AZ, but it's officially off my travel list until this travesty is corrected. Let's see whether Ditat Deus  this White Christianist initiative...

[Swatopluk]

I think it is a common misconception that most 'illegals' 'climbed the fence'. Iirc most come on short time visa and simply stayed instead of going back. Border crawlers just do more for the imagination (and the propaganda). There'd be numerous rather cheap (but inhuman) ways to block the border in those areas not near to cities (hey, we found the ideal location to drop all the hazardous waste ) and the prison industrial complex could provide the cheap labour force.
But everyone sane knows that the only effective way is to dry the demand. Go after the employers and help Mexico to get its stuff together. Of course we know that is the last things the GOP leadership would want. It would anger donors and kill a successful perennial campaign theme.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

According to wiki:

In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

So assuming the trend remains it would be more or around half. Obviously that guesstimate has the problem that in general immigration has slowed down significantly and that many illegals have returned to their countries because of the unavailability of jobs particularly in the construction area.

And reading here or there, the "easier" cross right now is in AZ.

An interesting tidbit is that a number of illegals that would have returned to Mexico now don't do so because crossing [back] the border is too difficult (I imagine those are the guys used to come in and out for harvesting season).

A big fence has two other large benefits, a) it should reduce drug entry using the border (and dispel the myth that by doing so there will be less consumers here  ) and b) it should slowdown the illegal traffic of arms to Mexico.

I have come to the conclusion that a fence doesn't stop anything, it merely slows down whatever is coming in and out, in the end either, drugs, weapons or people will cross the border in lower numbers (and forced to look for alternatives, quite likely by sea).