Arizona Immigration Law

[gop]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

What do you think about Arizona's strict immigration law, which requires all citizens to carry required proof of citizenship/visa?

[Safyre420]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

What do you think about Arizona's strict immigration law, which requires all citizens to carry required proof of citizenship/visa?

How is being required to carry proof of citizenship/visa bad? I thought all legal adults had to have proof of citizenship on them(aka drivers license or ID card).

[grumpy_otter]

Nope--there is no requirement that you must CARRY your identification with you.

And as to the law--it disgusts me. The whole illegal immigration thing disgusts me. We are all residents of the same planet. I love national pride as much as the next bloke and I cry when I hear the National Anthem. But the "us and them" because of random lines drawn in the dirt sickens me.

[gop]

No, only if you are a motorist (drivers license) or use a credit card. What is more neo-nazi than saying 'show me your papers?'

[Safyre420]

Either way, I really don't see what the big deal about having to carry some sort of ID on your person. It is a good idea really, though I could care less about the Arizona immigration law, carrying an ID on you is a good idea.

[gop]

I think that it is so demeaning to have someone ask for ID because they think that you are here illegally. Sure, if you're white, you have no problem. On the other hand, if you look 'illegal' (ie, brown) you do have something to worry about.

[grumpy_otter]

Safyre: Either way, I really don't see what the big deal about having to carry some sort of ID on your person. It is a good idea really, though I could care less about the Arizona immigration law, carrying an ID on you is a good idea.

Maybe it's a good idea, but I sure don't want it to be a requirement.

[Safyre420]

It really shouldn't be a problem if you are here legally. Now if the police are going to go house to house, roadblock, etc then that's a little overboard. But requiring citizens to carry ID isn't a bad thing.

It can easily help doctors, in case of an emergency. It's a good precaution to have.

[Nekowolf]

@Safyre

Cause basically it gives them the power to stop you at any time and if you do not have papers on you, they have the authority to hold you in jail. It's evasion of right of privacy.

It's also racist. I listened to the supporters while it was going on; none of them could tell you how to tell if a person was an immigrant without using race. Not even the governor. Because race is about all you CAN go on; specifically, Hispanic, lest they want to pull over each and every person.

And I don't think IDs will cut it either; I think you need birth certificates, social security number, green cards, etc. I see it as "guilty until proven innocent."

And GOP (why, why did you have to choose that of all names?), try to avoid Neo-Nazi or Nazi or Hitler or any kind of similar references. They get spread around too much as is, and it does no good to do so.

[gop]

@Safyre

Cause basically it gives them the power to stop you at any time and if you do not have papers on you, they have the authority to hold you in jail. It's evasion of right of privacy.

It's also racist. I listened to the supporters while it was going on; none of them could tell you how to tell if a person was an immigrant without using race. Not even the governor. Because race is about all you CAN go on; specifically, Hispanic, lest they want to pull over each and every person.

And I don't think IDs will cut it either; I think you need birth certificates, social security number, green cards, etc. I see it as "guilty until proven innocent."

And GOP (why, why did you have to choose that of all names?), try to avoid Neo-Nazi or Nazi or Hitler or any kind of similar references. They get spread around too much as is, and it does no good to do so.

Haha I don't really remember.

Really, though, it is what it is, how can it be more totalitarian than that? I agree that they are overused, but this is very similar to what Hitler employed in Germany.

[Safyre420]

@Safyre

Cause basically it gives them the power to stop you at any time and if you do not have papers on you, they have the authority to hold you in jail. It's evasion of right of privacy.

It's also racist. I listened to the supporters while it was going on; none of them could tell you how to tell if a person was an immigrant without using race. Not even the governor. Because race is about all you CAN go on; specifically, Hispanic, lest they want to pull over each and every person.

And I don't think IDs will cut it either; I think you need birth certificates, social security number, green cards, etc. I see it as "guilty until proven innocent."

And GOP (why, why did you have to choose that of all names?), try to avoid Neo-Nazi or Nazi or Hitler or any kind of similar references. They get spread around too much as is, and it does no good to do so.

I really don't see how that's any different from what many cops already do. A few times my older brother was pulled over(on his bike and in a vehicle) because they thought he was too young to be driving and such like that. While I do see that this gives cops even more asshat tactics to use, requiring ID that shows proof of citizenship isn't a bad thing, and yes a Driver's License or ID card is proof of citizenship when ran through the system as one typically cannot get a legal one without proof of citizenship.

[gop]

I really don't see how that's any different from what many cops already do. A few times my older brother was pulled over(on his bike and in a vehicle) because they thought he was too young to be driving and such like that. While I do see that this gives cops even more asshat tactics to use, requiring ID that shows proof of citizenship isn't a bad thing, and yes a Driver's License or ID card is proof of citizenship when ran through the system as one typically cannot get a legal one without proof of citizenship.

The difference is that you need a license to drive, whereas in Arizona, you will be 'carded' for simply being in the state. Driving is a privilege.

[Nekowolf]

@GOP

And that's fine, trust me. I consider the GOP as a pseduo-fascist party. Say their totalitarian. But Nazi is something...different. It carries much more in its meaning, where as totalitarian and fascism are actual definitions of government philosophies. It's just more effective, I think, to avoid Nazi references. That's all I mean.

@Safyre

Well like I said, it's pretty much entirely based on race. There is no other way to determine if a person might be an immigrant. It is a racist law unless EVERYBODY is checked.

[Safyre420]

@Safyre

Well like I said, it's pretty much entirely based on race. There is no other way to determine if a person might be an immigrant. It is a racist law unless EVERYBODY is checked.

I agree that it is a racist law, but simply requiring proof of citizenship I agree with because that alone really isn't a bad thing.

[Nekowolf]

It sets precedence for worse things to come along, though.

[Safyre420]

It sets precedence for worse things to come along, though.

Except that, to drive one is required a driver's license, which requires proof of citizenship. To travel abroad one is required to have a passport which again requires proof of citizenship. To get a job at anything other than a farming job, stablehand job, or freelance job, one is required to have photo id and proof of citizenship. How is that any different from just requiring proof of citizenship(in general not specifically the arizona immigration law)?

[Nekowolf]

Okay, look. To perform a search, you usually need A. probable cause, and B. a warrant. Even in driving, cops can't just pull you over for no reason at all.

Why? Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.
Now you may hear "reasonable suspicion" come up. In Terry v. Ohio, it was found that reasonable suspicion only applies to weapons, and when the officer or others are at risk.

And if you are to be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, then, the Constitution applies to everyone until they are discovered to be illegal. Considering all this, this is an unconstitutional law.

[Safyre420]

Okay, look. To perform a search, you usually need A. probable cause, and B. a warrant. Even in driving, cops can't just pull you over for no reason at all.

Why? Fourth Amendment.



Now you may hear "reasonable suspicion" come up. In Terry v. Ohio, it was found that reasonable suspicion only applies to weapons, and when the officer or others are at risk.

And if you are to be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, then, the Constitution applies to everyone until they are discovered to be illegal. Considering all this, this is an unconstitutional law.

I think you're reading too much into what my point was. My point was that the very simple and specific act of requiring proof of citizenship(which let's face it isn't anything different from a state ID or drivers license) is not a bad thing. I never said anything of searches or anything of the sort, just the very simple idea of requiring proof of citizenship, which is technically already required at the federal level, your birth certificate and social security number, guaranteed they are essentially given to you at birth, they are still required for documentation of your birth and citizenship.

[Nekowolf]

But that is not what is at issue. The issue isn't proof of citizenship; it's that the cops can basically walk right up to you and ask "let's see your papers" based solely on race.

[Oaktree]

Okay, look. To perform a search, you usually need A. probable cause, and B. a warrant. Even in driving, cops can't just pull you over for no reason at all.

Why? Fourth Amendment.

While I agree that it would be wrong if they pulled someone over without cause to check for proof of citizenship, I suspect that that's not how it will be used. I suspect that they will ask to see proof of citizenship when they pull someone over for speeding or broken taillights, or the like. The law does make it easy for corrupt cops to pull people over on a whim, but I doubt that it will be a common occurrence.

[Mistermook]

So you're fine with the occasional authoritarian abuse of police powers? I mean, as long as it's not common for someone to be racially profiled it must be ok.

[grumpy_otter]

I often had similar arguments with my mother during the Bush presidency--usually about the Patriot Act. Her bottom line is "If you don't break the law, you have nothing to fear." HA! Why don't we interview all the prisoners in Guantanamo?

It amazes me that people think we can blindly trust authority because "of course they won't abuse their power."

[Oaktree]

So you're fine with the occasional authoritarian abuse of police powers? I mean, as long as it's not common for someone to be racially profiled it must be ok.

That's not what I was saying. Cops will check your driver's license when they pull you over anyway, because you are required to have one to drive. This would serve as a method of checking citizenship. I suppose it wouldn't be any different than in any other state, so maybe I'm being too optimistic about how the law will be used, but my point was that immigration status can be checked in much the same way cops check for a license.

[Mistermook]

I think you're a bit optimistic about anything related to legal matters actually, when the law really shouldn't assume a "best case scenario" or even an average one, it should assume "people in power that despise you have possession of this law, how badly does it strap the pistol grips to your ankles in that case?" Any bad law, the worst imaginable laws possible, could be argued to not matter if, say in the best case, people in power chose to not utilize them. You've got to look for what could happen when horrible, incompetent, and horrible and incompetent people use them. That's the only sane way to look at the law.

I mean, I've got dark hair. I speak really poor Spanish. "Papers please," means I could get arrested and detained for leaving my wallet and identification at home. Complicate that with people who don't speak English but have proper documentation. Throw in some bad cops willing to harass the public because of racism. Add in the bit about it not being up to Arizona to decide on how to do this whole immigration thing, because it's a power reserved by the Federal government.

[Amtram]

The Arizona law broadly defines "just cause" and quite specifically requires that a driver who is pulled over provide a birth certificate or a passport as proof of legal residence. Is there ANYONE in the US who keeps his/her birth certificate or passport on his/her person at all times? Heck, no! Have you ever tried to replace one of those things? Do you have any idea how badly someone could wreck your life if it were lost or stolen? Those documents need to be kept safely at home or in a safe deposit box!

Because of the anti-immigrant stance in the border states, "just cause" has been allowed to include any minor infraction committed by someone with brown skin. There have already been a number of legal citizens who have been arrested and threatened with deportation. One man sat in jail for three days before a judge was convinced by his lawyer that Puerto Rico is an American territory - the police and the judge were clueless, and they were already writing papers up to send this guy to Mexico.

I've seen more than one idiot state (and I think someone is spoon-feeding them this, because it looks like a copy/paste job) that people should not be allowed to immigrate until they learn to speak English. After all, their ancestors arrived in this country, and that's the first thing they did! They are oblivious to the irony that if this were the rule back then, their ancestors wouldn't have been able to get in. . .

[please_dont_crash_my_game]

And as to the law--it disgusts me. The whole illegal immigration thing disgusts me. We are all residents of the same planet. I love national pride as much as the next bloke and I cry when I hear the National Anthem. But the "us and them" because of random lines drawn in the dirt sickens me.
I agree with this. (Well, except that I don't cry when I hear the National Anthem - you have me beat there.) I live in Arizona, and this law makes me not even want to tell people that I'm from Arizona - it makes the people of Arizona look like the most intolerant bunch of jerks in the country, even if not all of us are.

It's also racist. I listened to the supporters while it was going on; none of them could tell you how to tell if a person was an immigrant without using race. Not even the governor. Because race is about all you CAN go on; specifically, Hispanic, lest they want to pull over each and every person.
I agree with Nekowolf wholeheartedly on this - this is pretty obvious, even if the supporters of the law tend to avoid this aspect of it when discussing it.

There are really only a few possible outcomes to this law, regarding how it is enforced: first, that the police force stops everyone they pass by and checks their identification, which would waste the police force's time that they could spend doing something else; second, that the police force hardly enforces it at all, and in that case, there is no reason for the law's existence; and third, that the law is enforced selectively (in a racist manner), in which case the accusations of racism are well founded.

(Constitutional issues with the law)
These aren't the only constitutional issues with the law.


Section 8: The Congress shall have power To [...] provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;

[...]

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states [...]

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization [the process of becoming a citizen] [...]throughout the United States;
These can be interpreted to mean that, like Mistermook mentioned, border security is a matter that the federal government alone is supposed to manage. The Arizona government doesn't have any power to regulate it aside from cooperating with the federal government. Using this interpretation, the law is unconstitutional.

And I don't think IDs will cut it either; I think you need birth certificates, social security number, green cards, etc. I see it as "guilty until proven innocent."
As a side note, I'm also heavily opposed to REAL ID or all similar schemes, but mainly because of how large a security problem it presents for citizens - if someone got their hands on someone else's REAL ID card and knew how to read it, identity theft or hacking would become major problems. However, that's another topic entirely.

[grumpy_otter]

I agree with this. (Well, except that I don't cry when I hear the National Anthem - you have me beat there.) I live in Arizona, and this law makes me not even want to tell people that I'm from Arizona - it makes the people of Arizona look like the most intolerant bunch of jerks in the country, even if not all of us are.

Well, I don't full out bawl, but if there is a great version of it performed, I usually sniff a bit. :p

What's the buzz in Arizona? Are most folks on the street supportive of this law? Or decrying it?

[Nekowolf]

It has national majority support >.> Because people are fucking idiots.

[please_dont_crash_my_game]

What's the buzz in Arizona? Are most folks on the street supportive of this law? Or decrying it?

There are a LOT of people protesting it, although the greatest number of opponents to the law seem to be from California or other states. Similarly, however, there are a lot of people who support the law - usually people who politically agree with the Republican party. Whenever I talk to them, the reasoning they give tends to resemble circular logic, often returning to "well, the federal government isn't doing anything about border security!" and "who is it hurting? can't people carry their identification around? if people haven't done anything wrong, they don't have anything to worry about, right?"

More worryingly, a lot of people I talk to say that the law is a "temporary measure, intended to get the federal government's attention regarding the issue". If that's the case, I think it has backfired - it has brought national attention to the matter, but if anything, it's going to only result in major public opposition to the law. In any case, since the law is pretty obviously unconstitutional, it was the wrong course of action.

[fakepeeps7]

If it was really about security, they'd be making similar laws in Washington, Michigan, New York, etc. You can't trust us Canadians... :jest:

It's a lot easier to pick out the Mexicans by skin colour, though. So this law does seem racist in the way it's being implemented.

[please_dont_crash_my_game]

UPDATE: The federal judge in charge of reviewing the bill, Judge Susan Bolton, has issued her ruling.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/sb1070-ruling

In effect, the most controversial aspects of the bill - including the section requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people questioned for other reasons, and the section creating a state as well as federal crime out of fabricating immigration papers - have been removed, yet the remainder of the bill will still go into effect.

Personally, I'm happy that this much of the bill has been removed, and I hope that the appeals due to be filed by Governor Brewer will not allow any of the removed segments to be added in again.

[comradebunny]

The idea of being "carded" just for existing does seem a bit much to me. However, our current immigration situation is insane. I disliked Bush with a passion, but I actually like the guest worker program idea.

My uncle has worked with a family from Mexico for years. They come every summer to help with the crops. They are able to do this legally, but I know that many area farmers work with those who are not legally able to work. It does put a strain on local welfare services. I know extra workers are needed, but we have to find a way to sensibly do it. I should also mention that my cousins and I have done the same work my uncle hires the migrant family for, but we've all grown up and moved on (I remember my uncle had one field that was one hundred and fifty bottles on the wall long). He lives in a very small town and most of the kids in the area live on farms. He is strapped for a workforce from the area. I'm proud, though, that he is able to work legally. We need to do something to fix the mess.

[Dooglers9]

I'm from Scottsdale, Arizona, and we here about the immigration law constantly. And I'm for the law.
It just seems logical to me.
That's all I'll say.

[kattenijin]

If it was really about security, they'd be making similar laws in Washington, Michigan, New York, etc. You can't trust us Canadians...

Actually here in NY they are in the process of adding I forget how many miles of additional fencing, in some cases actually dividing towns; so it isn't like there hasn't been some kind of response in other areas.

[Nekowolf]

Really, I think a big problem is that it is so fucking hard to actually get in. For some people, it can take years. And sometimes, it breaks up families, because half of the family gets in, but not the other half.

We need a more efficient immigration program. I think that might help a lot more. It might not, sure, but making anything more efficient is generally good anyway.

And besides, from what I have heard, Obama has upped security over the border. Just that, of course, nobody really notices nor talks about it, partly because it's still not good enough.

@Dooglers9:

It could be logical, yes. But that doesn't make parts of it any less illegal, or even unconstitutional.

[Oaktree]

I also think that it should be easier to get into the country, any country for that matter, but I think that those who try to do so illegally should still be prevented from gaining citizenship. Making immigration easier would provide a larger tax base and productive workforce, which I think is a boon to any country. However, those who come in illegally are not paying taxes and using public resources, such as hospitals. They are breaking the law and should receive the proper punishment: being sent back home.

[Nekowolf]

The problem though is that it has gotten to a point where they also provide to the economy of the state, yes, illegals. That's a huge hit for some states, especially Arizona. So simply "sending them home" is pretty much a really bad idea because it's gotten to be so huge of a problem.

[Oaktree]

The problem though is that it has gotten to a point where they also provide to the economy of the state, yes, illegals. That's a huge hit for some states, especially Arizona. So simply "sending them home" is pretty much a really bad idea because it's gotten to be so huge of a problem.

I doubt that the money they make from illegal immigrants is more than the money they are cost by not collecting income tax, giving out free education, and having unpaid hospital bills.

[fakepeeps7]

I doubt that the money they make from illegal immigrants is more than the money they are cost by not collecting income tax, giving out free education, and having unpaid hospital bills.

It's difficult to say. But if they're buying food, clothing, and other consumer goods, then they are contributing to the economy, even if they don't actually pay taxes.

And I don't think unpaid hospital bills is a problem just with illegal immigrants. Until you have some sort of universal health care system, there will be perfectly legal citizens who can't afford to pay their bills.

[Mistermook]

The great thing, economically speaking, about illegals is that they're poor - and poor people spend a disproportionate amount of their money on stuff. The bad thing about illegals is that since they're illegal we don't pay them enough, and since we've got such a crappy immigration setup right now at least some of the money they make goes out of the country for illegals to subsidize more illegals coming into the country.

The sanest thing we could do is streamline the immigration process, give a two year amnesty program to collect the people who are already here and make them citizens (or at least grant them some sort of legal status ASAP), and pull as many of these immigrants out of the fringes of society as we can so we could come down really hard on anyone who chooses not to participate. Some of these guys have been here for decades, if they're not citizens it's as much our fault as it is theirs.

[Bchbch Walk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1-1Nt5qgqk

I agree with Mother Monster.♥