[marden]

Troopers can arrest illegal immigrants in Romney deal

Critics warn of profiling, police mistrust

By Michael Levenson and Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | December 3, 2006

Governor Mitt Romney has reached an agreement with federal authorities that allows the Massachusetts State Police to arrest immigrants who are in the state illegally, his spokesman said.

Currently, state troopers have no power to detain people for violations of their immigration status alone, said the spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom. If troopers stop people who they suspect are illegal immigrants, they can call a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Vermont to check on their status and detain them if federal officials request it, he said.

Under the deal, brokered after months of negotiations, troopers can detain people they determine are illegal immigrants during regular police duties, Fehrnstrom said. This authority will be given to two dozen or three dozen troopers who undergo 4 1/2 weeks of training in immigration laws, civil rights, and ways to avoid racial profiling, he said. The troopers will probably be members of special units that pursue violent fugitives or combat street gangs.

Ferhnstrom said the troopers would not go on patrols aimed at rounding up illegal immigrants. But they will be able to arrest, for example, a motorist they stop for a broken tail light if they determine the motorist has violated immigration law. Fehrnstrom, speaking Friday, said the pact would be announced publicly this week. He declined to provide more details yesterday.

Troopers can arrest illegal immigrants in Romney deal - The Boston Globe

This move by Romney puts conservatives as well as anyone else who is serious about border security and immigration matters on notice that he, too, is serious about the issue and that between himself, McCain and Giuliani, that he (Romney) is the real conservative.

This will immediately boost his poll ratings and will force the other two candidates to 'find' their issue(s) or else be considered as 'me too' candidates or irrelevant in 2008.

[Big Mac]

I like what I have seen of Romeny, except for the fact that he looks a little too slick to me.

[macintologist]

Ferhnstrom said the troopers would not go on patrols aimed at rounding up illegal immigrants. But they will be able to arrest, for example, a motorist they stop for a broken tail light if they determine the motorist has violated immigration law.

And just how are they going to determine that?

[IceBreaker]

I am liking Romney more and more. As a conservative it is good to see a Republican who is actually not afraid to take on this issue.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

And just how are they going to determine that?

Beating the truth out of them, of course.

A driver's license is a valid form of ID I thought, so assuming most Illegals have a DL(not a big assumption), I don't see this law being very effective.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I like what I have seen of Romeny, except for the fact that he looks a little too slick to me.

When I first saw him that's what I thought but then I listened to him and I realized he's a refreshingly bright, direct, positive and genuine guy.

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

And just how are they going to determine that?

This authority will be given to two dozen or three dozen troopers who undergo 4 1/2 weeks of training in immigration laws, civil rights, and ways to avoid racial profiling,

4 1/2 weeks of training.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Beating the truth out of them, of course.

A driver's license is a valid form of ID I thought, so assuming most Illegals have a DL(not a big assumption), I don't see this law being very effective.

Conservatives don't realize that the logical conclusion of their "immigration enforcement" hysteria is that we'll all be required by law to carry papers on us PROVING that we are legally in the United States. And if we happen to forget, we'll go to jail.


Papers citizens!

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Conservatives don't realize that the logical conclusion of their "immigration enforcement" hysteria is that we'll all be required by law to carry papers on us PROVING that we are legally in the United States. And if we happen to forget, we'll go to jail.


Papers citizens!

Just get an RDF chip. It's always there.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Conservatives don't realize that the logical conclusion of their "immigration enforcement" hysteria is that we'll all be required by law to carry papers on us PROVING that we are legally in the United States. And if we happen to forget, we'll go to jail.


Papers citizens!

Well, what they should so is deny drivers licenses to any non-citizens. You could apply for a state photo ID but it should indicate one's status as non-citizen. Then, when you get pulled over, if you have an ID you are recognized by the state as being in the country legally (either as a citizen or recognized non-citizen). No ID means you are here illegally.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, what they should so is deny drivers licenses to any non-citizens. You could apply for a state photo ID but it should indicate one's status as non-citizen. Then, when you get pulled over, if you have an ID you are recognized by the state as being in the country legally (either as a citizen or recognized non-citizen). No ID means you are here illegally.

Or you could be simply driving without a license. What does that prove about your immigrant status? Not a damn thing.

[BRussell]

I like Romney too. Unfortunately, to win a Republican primary, he's going to have to go insane for the rank and file Republicans to like him. I also doubt a member of the cult of the sacred underwear will get through a Republican primary dominated by "true Christians."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Or you could be simply driving without a license. What does that prove about your immigrant status? Not a damn thing.

Then you get arrested for driving without a license--which, I believe, is the case in most states--and when they take you into the police station they can check your citizenship status then.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Then you get arrested for driving without a license--which, I believe, is the case in most states--and when they take you into the police station they can check your citizenship status then.

You mean immigation status. Surely you don't think non-Americans shouldn't be able to work here?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

You mean immigation status. Surely you don't think non-Americans shouldn't be able to work here?

Unless they are properly documented and granted proper work papers, then "non-Americans shouldn't be able to work here". And that's the whole point. A driver's license could be used as a simple everyday mechanism to determine if someone is in the country legally. Granted, you could not get a drivers license and try to circumvent this part of the illegal-immigrant vetting system but if you get caught for a crime and can't produce any ID attesting to a) your citizenship or b) your legal right to be here as an immigrant then the police could arrest you as an illegal and hold you until you were turned over to the good folks at INS or Border Patrol.

The point being, we don't need some new draconian "national papers" procedure to determine who can or cannot be here illegally. We can use existing state/national ID mechanisms as a tool to help catch those who are here illegally. And that's the whole point, use our current everyday law enforcement folks as the low-level "eyes and ears" in the battle against illegal immigration.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Unless they are properly documented and granted proper work papers, then "non-Americans shouldn't be able to work here". And that's the whole point. A driver's license could be used as a simple everyday mechanism to determine if someone is in the country legally. Granted, you could not get a drivers license and try to circumvent this part of the illegal-immigrant vetting system but if you get caught for a crime and can't produce any ID attesting to a) your citizenship or b) your legal right to be here as an immigrant then the police could arrest you as an illegal and hold you until you were turned over to the good folks at INS or Border Patrol.

The point being, we don't need some new draconian "national papers" procedure to determine who can or cannot be here illegally. We can use existing state/national ID mechanisms as a tool to help catch those who are here illegally. And that's the whole point, use our current everyday law enforcement folks as the low-level "eyes and ears" in the battle against illegal immigration.

With that method, the poor are more predisposed to being mistaken for "illegals". The burden of proof must be on the government, to prove you are an illegal. Nobody should have to prove their status.

I can't believe this is even being debated. We're slowing turning into a police state

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

With that method, the poor are more predisposed to being mistaken for "illegals". The burden of proof must be on the government, to prove you are an illegal. Nobody should have to prove their status.

I can't believe this is even being debated. We're slowing turning into a police state

Even the poor need ID.

You can't do too many things in this world nowadays without some form of photo ID. Just to set up a Blockbuster account you need a photo ID and credit card and there are plenty of poor people who can find a little cash to rent a movie from Blockbuster. If you are poor and have no bank accounts you can buy USPS money orders for paying bills. Guess what? The USPS requires a photo ID to make the purchase or to cash a money order. Heck, if you want to cash a check at a bank that is not yours the banks are required to get your thumb-print on the back of the check to help reduce check fraud. Do you consider any of these forms of personal-identity verification a form of police-state intrusion?

Being able to prove who you are has been a societal practice for a good millenia. In the days when illiteracy was the norm signet rings were a common form of identification--Death was the normal punishment for forgery in the Middle Ages. Or, way, way back you had your name. If you said you were Johannes Doë people would believe you because there was the expectation that a person's name was inviolable. These practices discussed above are simply a modern way to verify identity in a world where "acquiring" another identity is both quite easy and common-place.

[TheWOAT]

Many illegals have valid Driver's licenses (not the Chinatown knock offs). So beyond a DL, what identification could a cop legallly ask for when pulling over someone? None.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Beating the truth out of them, of course.

A driver's license is a valid form of ID I thought, so assuming most Illegals have a DL(not a big assumption), I don't see this law being very effective.

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Many illegals have valid Driver's licenses (not the Chinatown knock offs). So beyond a DL, what identification could a cop legallly ask for when pulling over someone? None.

So you're saying people there illegally can obtain a legit and valid driver's license and ID?? How come??

[GSixZero]

This is a dumb idea. If you get stopped by a cop and you happen to have forgotten your wallet on the dresser, would you like to be hauled down to the local INS holding cell to have your citizenship verified? I thought not.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

So you're saying people there illegally can obtain a legit and valid driver's license and ID?? How come??

All it takes is one DMV worker accepting payments on the side...

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

So you're saying people there illegally can obtain a legit and valid driver's license and ID?? How come??

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

All it takes is one DMV worker accepting payments on the side...

The issue is a lot bigger than Patty or Selma getting an extra $20 on the side here and there. (Those wouldn't be "valid" DLs anyway)

Most people who are here illegally entered the country legally, but have overstayed their visa. Since it's legal for all sorts of people to get driver's licenses, it's not too hard to be here illegally and have a 100% valid driver's license.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

So you're saying people there illegally can obtain a legit and valid driver's license and ID?? How come??

Ugh... this topic is already giving me a headache.

Immigration is a FEDERAL issue. Not a state and local gov't issue. (yes I understand that illegal immigrants have an adverse effect on state and local gov'ts.)

Driver's licenses are issued by states. In theory, the state shouldn't have to worry about your immigration status since immigration is a FEDERAL issue.

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

With that method, the poor are more predisposed to being mistaken for "illegals". The burden of proof must be on the government, to prove you are an illegal. Nobody should have to prove their status.

I can't believe this is even being debated. We're slowing turning into a police state

Do you leave the door to your home unlocked 24/7?

Do you close the windows when it rains or snows or there's a strong wind blowing dust in the air?

Do you use cling wrap or aluminum foil to cover refrigerated foods?

When you think of insects or rodents in your home is your next thought one of pesticides and/or traps?

Do you eliminate bodily waste in the ceramic bathroom fixture that's designed for that purpose or not?

The fact is that there are NECESSARY and natural boundaries that help make life easier, more orderly and peaceful and less costly.

Just because we had the luxury of neglecting or being lax about those safeguards doesn't mean that we are being excessive by adopting them late in the game. We just got lucky that we were able to avoid those precautions before now.

I know someone who was terrible about leaving food out on the kitchen table for hours before putting them in the fridge until one day they got REALLY sick and required hospitalization.

From then on they became obsessive about food temperature and never let it get in the danger zone or whatever.

They should have gotten sick LONG before that occasion. And if they had gotten sick they would have begun exercising PRUDENT food prep procedures before they did.

What you call a police state is just prudence applied late.

[marden]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

This is a dumb idea. If you get stopped by a cop and you happen to have forgotten your wallet on the dresser, would you like to be hauled down to the local INS holding cell to have your citizenship verified? I thought not.

What is the current procedure?

What would be the procedure under Romney's change?

You don't know?

I'd find out before speaking, if I were you.

[marden]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

The issue is a lot bigger than Patty or Selma getting an extra $20 on the side here and there. (Those wouldn't be "valid" DLs anyway)

Most people who are here illegally entered the country legally, but have overstayed their visa. Since it's legal for all sorts of people to get driver's licenses, it's not too hard to be here illegally and have a 100% valid driver's license.

Linky?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Ugh... this topic is already giving me a headache.

Immigration is a FEDERAL issue. Not a state and local gov't issue. (yes I understand that illegal immigrants have an adverse effect on state and local gov'ts.)

Driver's licenses are issued by states. In theory, the state shouldn't have to worry about your immigration status since immigration is a FEDERAL issue.

And Romney says it's EVERYONE'S issue.

And a majority of Americans, I think, will tend to agree with him.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by marden 

Linky?

OK, I did some research, and it's not 'most', but it's about 45%.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0621/p08s02-comv.html

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by marden 

What is the current procedure?

What would be the procedure under Romney's change?

You don't know?

I'd find out before speaking, if I were you.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...n_romney_deal/

Currently, state troopers have no power to detain people for violations of their immigration status alone, said the spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom. If troopers stop people who they suspect are illegal immigrants, they can call a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Vermont to check on their status and detain them if federal officials request it, he said.

Under the deal, brokered after months of negotiations, troopers can detain people they determine are illegal immigrants during regular police duties, Fehrnstrom said. This authority will be given to two dozen or three dozen troopers who undergo 4 1/2 weeks of training in immigration laws, civil rights, and ways to avoid racial profiling, he said. The troopers will probably be members of special units that pursue violent fugitives or combat street gangs.

I'll stand by my statements.

[TheWOAT]

If troopers stop people who they suspect are illegal immigrants, they can call a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Vermont to check on their status and detain them if federal officials request it, he said.


Oh Crap... there are only 20,000 people and one convicted terrorist with my name. If this catches on nation wide, I am basically screwed... at least my name isnt "Jose Martinez." So what makes someone look "illegal" ?

Basically they are going to stop as many Mexicans as they possibly can and detain them by the truck loads up until the point USCIS Vermont tells them "OHHH, I thought you meant this other Juan Rodriguez... from Aguililla, Michoacan, not Purepero, Michoacan, Im glad it only took us a week to figure this out"

[marden]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

If troopers stop people who they suspect are illegal immigrants, they can call a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Vermont to check on their status and detain them if federal officials request it, he said.


Oh Crap... there are only 20,000 people and one convicted terrorist with my name. If this catches on nation wide, I am basically screwed... at least my name isnt "Jose Martinez." So what makes someone look "illegal" ?

Basically they are going to stop as many Mexicans as they possibly can and detain them by the truck loads up until the point USCIS Vermont tells them "OHHH, I thought you meant this other Juan Rodriguez... from Aguililla, Michoacan, not Purepero, Michoacan, Im glad it only took us a week to figure this out"

Maybe you would feel better about this if you got...

4 1/2 weeks of training in immigration laws, civil rights, and ways to avoid racial profiling...

[brokenjago]

Avoid, not eliminate.

How many severely inconvinienced people/hurt people does it take before it becomes wrong?

[marden]

Originally Posted by brokenjago 

Avoid, not eliminate.

How many severely inconvinienced people/hurt people does it take before it becomes wrong?

How many hurt children will it take before we do away with childhood immunizations?

Millions are hurting every year. What an outrage!!!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

This is a dumb idea. If you get stopped by a cop and you happen to have forgotten your wallet on the dresser, would you like to be hauled down to the local INS holding cell to have your citizenship verified? I thought not.

No, you would get hauled down to your local police station for driving without a license. The process of verifying that you have a license would also verify your citizenship/immigration status.

That is exactly what I have been advocating for in this thread: Using an existing identity-verification method (state drivers licenses) as a citizenship- and/or immigration-status-verification method; Use pre-existing means of proving *who* one is to prove *what* one is (citizen/legal immigrant/illegal immigrant). All that is required is a linkage between the issuance of drivers license with verification of one's citizenship or immigration status. So, when one applies for a drivers license they would have to provide proof of citizenship/immigration status along with proof of residency, age etc.