Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Fingerprints To Keep Out Illegals?

Ten years? If your in the USA with false ID you're a spy or your a terrorist we know how those people should be dealt with.

I have given complete sets of finger prints to secure 2 or my last 3 jobs and prints to purchase many many firearms. Nothing to hide, so pass the pad.

no wonder they had no problem getting the no 10K cash or larger without a report filed to the gov't

that was to help stop the drug trade, boy has that worked wonders???


now we're gonna battle illegal immigration by having every one give a thumb print?


imo, they've conditioned us well, perhaps too well

2L2Q,
The reason I asked about thumb prints is that it may be a way to insure the ID used is legit. It is hard to hold employers responsible for hiring illegals that have ID and SS cards that can't be distinguished from originals. If IDs can be verified by a thumb print then employers can be held responsible (fined) for hiring illegals and the illegals can be kept out of the job market, off the state dole and deported.
ID and employment can be controlled by the state instead of the feds. That way each state controls its level of enforcement, facilitating States Rights.
Is there a more reliable way to insure ID/citizenship is legit?

A lot of banks now require thumb prints to cash checks. So why not for an ID? I see no problem with requiring someone to verify who they are. If they won't, what are they hiding?

Utilizing very simple and very necessary profiling techniques they'll not need thumbprints of the vast majority.

Kinda like feeling up little old white ladies at airports, it's completely unnecessary, an insult to common sense and decency, and an affront to very concept of liberty. Not to mention a very expensive waste of resources.

WHAT???

WHAT???

WOW... None here have that requirement, that I am aware of.. The day my bank asks for that I'll be outta there after closing the accounts..

I can, to an extent, understand and mostly agree with the OP's original question.. But to be required to give a thumbprint every time a check is cashed is pure bull-Pelosi..

If that applied first to anyone seeking the Presidency, perhaps I'd be more inclined to agree.

I think a lot of banks require a thumbprint when cashing a check for a non-account holder. They have the right to protect themselves from fraud and there's no shortage of that.
My bank has an ink pad at every teller window, but I've never been asked to use it.

i had to, but it was only when i cashed a very large check. as i do not get to do that often, i didn't know about the thumb thing.

I just read this Foxnews quote by a Hispanic US citizen in AZ:


He flat out admits that he's helping harbor criminals. That in itself is a crime. Does the new law address that?

I wonder of the Illeagals hired for work in the US what precentage never had the E-verify run on them or did they have false ID of a legal worker that passed the E-verify?

If 90% of Illegals have never been run through E-verify, adding a thumb print to something not checked isn't going do anything except add another bit of governemnet oversight to something that already not working. On that thought I think that empploying someone who you did not run through E-verify should be a felony with at least a 25K fine.( enforceable at the local level (with the fine going to local government)

On the other hand if the employers are using E-verify and all the IDs are bogus then we need a thumb print.

The one flaw of ID in the US is that it all originates from a Birth certificate which has no link to a real person. I mean if you have a birth certificate of someone of your sex and aproximate age you can easily assume that identity.

Mine has my footprint on it (issued in Oregon). Granted, it's hard to ID someone by having them give you a footprint, but it does establish positive identification.

Ill bet that if I had your BC, niether the SS admin or the DMV are set up to check that footprint. That means I would have your SS card and DL with your name and my picture real soon. Have good credit?.. I hope so so I get a high limit on my new card

Policy is not the isuue, enforcement is. No matter what policies we have on immigration, firearms, check cashing or friggin cookie baking, if they are not fully enforced they arent worth a cup of pizz.

Banks here will only cash checks for account holders, otherwise you're SOL.. Maybe that's the reason for the prints - to allow a check to be cashed w/o an account..

IYAM, that still leaves the bank open to a lot of liability if the check's bogus..

Once again, that's the whole issue - enforcement. We don't need more laws. We just need the existing ones to be enforced. And if our elected or hired officials fail to do so, they need to be replaced by LAW ABIDING citizens.

A retired F&G officer told me they wre not allowed to even ask Immagration status because SCOTUS had ruled that it was a civil issue. Can anyone quote a ruleing?
Allan

The very fact that you're using the word "citizen" in connection with compulsory ID shows how far statism has infected this nation.

A man who can be required by the State to produce ID upon demand under penalty of incarceration is not a citizen, he's a subject.

There appear still to be some Americans who sort of vaguely and fuzzily understand that concept when it's presented in a black-and-white war movie with uniformed Nazi soldiers with Fritz helmets poking a yellow-starred Jew with Mauser muzzles and growling, "Deine Papieren! Schnell! Schnell!" but apparently when it's Officer Friendly asking, "Say, can I see your ID?" it's for some reason understood as a completely different animal.

It's not, you know. It's precisely the same thing.

Big difference between using ID for employment or due to reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally and just "papers please".

From Walter Moore gets it right thread-
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...lter_Moore_gets_it_right_re_#Post4028319