>>> Why would it be racial profiling? Well, do you honestly think they'd check whites as often as non-whites? Should a U.S. citizen of Mexican origin, whose family members were U.S. citizens for six generations like mine, be subjected to card checking while I am not?
For the same reason that Middle Eastern men should be scrutinized more closely than elderly white women when looking for terrorists.
We know that case/occasion-related could be an officer stopping a person for failing to signal, for a headlight that is not working, or for texting while driving. And those of us who have an interest in racial profiling know of the "driving while black" offense, and many cases of blacks being stopped for no reason at all. That is the plain and simple truth, and that is racial profiling.
Having no doubt that the same thing will occur to those of Latin American heritage living in AZ under the new law, I side with the ACLU on this.
"I think the problem with this new Arizona law is it fits right in with what Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been doing...rounding up people he suspects are illegal aliens and detaining them for hours while attempting to sort out who is illegal and who is not. That is clearly unconstitutional."
I don't see how it would prevent it from happening unless the ID was tied into being able to perform certain things in order to live (rent, banking, jobs, utilities/phone).
<>Here's some info on it from Wikipedia (better than some of the other stuff I found which threw in the words "tyranny" and "this is not Soviet Russia") :-)
Some critics claim that the Real ID Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as a federal legislation in an area that, under the terms of the Tenth Amendment, is the province of the states. Thus, Anthony Romero, the executive director of ACLU, stated: "... Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states' dual sovereignty and consolidates every American's private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves." .
Former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote in a February 2008 article: "A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment."
The DHS final rule regarding implementation of the Real ID Act discusses a number of constitutional concerns raised by the commenters on the proposed version of this rule. The DHS rule explicitly rejects the assertion that the implementation of the Real ID Act will lead to violations of the citizens' individual constitutional rights (page 5284 of the DHS rule in the Federal register). In relation to the Tenth Amendment argument about violation of states' constitutional rights, the DHS rule acknowledges that that these concerns have been raised by a number of individual commenters and in the comments by some states. The DHS rule does not attempt to rebuff the Tenth Amendment argument directly, but says that the DHS is acting in accordance with the authority granted to it by the Real ID Act and that DHS has been and will be working closely with the states on the implementation of the Real ID Act (pages 5284 and 5317 of the DHS final rule in the Federal Register).
On November 1, 2007, attorneys for Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court challenging the 2005 REAL ID Act. The amended complaint alleges that this unprecedented authority violates the fundamental separation of powers principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The environmental groups argue that Congress unconstitutionally delegated the power to the Department of Homeland Security (an appointed Executive branch not accountable to the public) to pick and choose which laws will apply to border wall construction. On December 18, 2007, Judge Ellen S. Huvelle rejected the challenge.
On March 17, 2008, attorneys for Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its "constitutional challenge to the Secretary’s decision waiving nineteen federal laws, and all state and local legal requirements related to them, in connection with the construction of a barrier along a portion of the border with Mexico". They question whether the preclusion of judicial review amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and whether the "grant of waiver authority violates Article I’s requirement that a duly-enacted law may be repealed only by legislation approved by both Houses of Congress and presented to the President". On April 17, 2008, numerous amicus briefs "supporting the petition were filed on behalf 14 members of Congress, a diverse coalition of conservation, religious and Native American organizations, and 28 law professors and constitutional scholars"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
The right not to be required to have papers.
"If someone is just walking down the street with light brown skin, you don't have probable cause, and you can't stop them and ask them for an ID. If you see them committing a crime, then you can stop them. But walking down the street with brown skin is not a crime."
The liberal solution to this 'racial profiling' was to have businesses check residency status, turning them into extentions of the law enforcement body, as if that's not intrduing futher into people's lives than
Well, Congress did pass Real-ID, but lots of states are fighting it. I'm not well-versed in all the problems, but I do know that one of the issues is privacy concerns...people worried the government could track them, how is all your information safe-guarded, etc.
Exactly. I agree. However, I think the only way such an ID will happen is if there is a constitutional amendment requiring it.