So, now all Arizonas have to carry around their passport or birth certificates. What is next guard stations around the states to check your papers? The Dems want a national card, but that would waste tax payer money is going to be the GOP argument. I think the card is laughable as well as passports and certificates. There are people called forgers and for a few $100 or "favors" they can hook up with something called fake IDs. I am sure those people are not just working for the border crossers either, Home Depot/Lowes looking at you.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeAnd, as far as WHY they come here, it really is a moot point. They're poor? We have poor people here. They're hungry? we have hungry people here. Their economy is fucked up? Well, so is ours. NONE of that excuses the fact that the very first thing they do on American Soil, is BREAK THE LAW BY BEING HERE.
It's not a MOOT point - it is THE point. And the fact that no one in this country seems to understand that is PRECISELY why we have the "problem" in the first place. They ain't coming here for the weather.
Incidentally, California is already starting to see problems with crop harvests due to a lack of labor. So, if you think this economic burden caused by illegal immigration will be resolved by tossing them all out, you're in for a rude awakening.
Originally posted by lotjxSo, now all Arizonas have to carry around their passport or birth certificates. What is next guard stations around the states to check your papers? The Dems want a national card, but that would waste tax payer money is going to be the GOP argument. I think the card is laughable as well as passports and certificates. There are people called forgers and for a few $100 or "favors" they can hook up with something called fake IDs. I am sure those people are not just working for the border crossers either, Home Depot/Lowes looking at you.
I don't want a national card. All of this stuff bothers me on a number of levels. I do not want to move toward a police state to be safe. We surrendered the Constitution and our freedom a tad with the Patriot Act. We surrender some more with things like random DWI stops. And on and on. We do all these things for what seem like good reasons but I am glad I am over 50. This world saddens me.
Originally posted by Mr. Boffo In summary, all residents of Arizona now have to carry either a passport (if they have one), or a driver's license / state id card AND birth certificate with them at all times in case they get questioned.
Lord help them if they were born in Hawaii!
"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Originally posted by Guru ZimYou want a dog license? Just wait here one moment while I call INS. Oh the wait time is 45 minutes, please hold.
You want to build a deck? Just give me a moment to confirm you are a citizen. Oh, one hour wait. Well, have a seat.
Want a campsite? No problem sir, let's just run you through the INS computers. Sorry, that system is overwhelmed. Can you please step aside while I help this white family?
Seriously? You think getting a dog license is equal to a traffic stop?
Have you read the bill? The entire 16 pages? It talks about POLICE OFFICERS coming into contact while LEGALLY performing their duty, and you think that is going to lead to ANY of the scenarios you listed?
Clearly you are either not reading all of my posts, or just are selectively remembering things.
We're just about done here since you refuse to even read what we're typing. I've clearly laid out two points : 1) The Police officers will most likley NOT be the problem here due to their training and high visibility to their actions and 2) This very clearly relates to local government. Why don't you take a moment and re-read my original post where I've spelled this all out for you. It is the death by 1000 papercuts of racism that I most worried about. As it stands now, if you are involved with the cops, you are already having your identity verified and citizenship checked. It is the local government clerk, the state camp site, the meter maid - the low grade racism coming from these positions will be the affront to all Hispanics who have to deal with it and will have no legal recourse.
Once any person in a local government position can instigate an INS review, and once it is illegal to make a policy, all it will take is a bigot in local government to start causing problems for all Hispanics that they deal with.
Originally posted by StaggerLee Here's a little background: Mid to late 1980s, Biloxi Mississippi (where half of my family live) experienced a huge wave of Vietnamese immigrants, mostly illegal ones. Within three to four years, the shrimping industry and commercial fishing industry was virtually wiped out due to overfishing that was directly attributed to Vietnamese owned and operated boats shrimping and fishing 24/7, disregarding the laws that limited the time that commercial boats could operate. A large number of companies that had existed for over 100 years went out of business, because of the direct actions of a large population of 'illegals'. ( I mean, why would they respect the laws regarding fishing and shrimping when they didn't respect the laws that are intended to control immigration?)
Originally posted by http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/south/publish/missfolk/backissues/biloxi.htmlMany claim that the seafood industry built Biloxi. The industry burgeoned around the turn of the century. Polish migrants from Baltimore, Slavonian immigrants, and Louisiana Cajun's provided the labor that laid the foundations for Biloxi's station as "Seafood Capital of the World." Biloxi's latest immigrants to the seafood industry, the Vietnamese, arrived during the late 1970s and early 80s and revived the languid industry by accepting jobs in the packing plants. They built their own boats, opened businesses, and have become a vibrant part of the Biloxi seafood and ethnic community.
Sounds like once again hard working immigrants took the jobs that Americans wouldn't, and became successful. I'm having a hard time finding any academic references to these Vietnamese illegal aliens that destroyed your home town and it's fisheries.
Originally posted by http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=368In the mid 1970s, Louisiana began to attract many foreign-born refugees from Vietnam. The Catholic dioceses of Louisiana sought to bring Vietnamese refugees to southern Louisiana, a region that, like Vietnam, had French influence, a similar climate, and a fishing industry. Eventually, many Vietnamese moved into the area and developed a tightly knit ethnic enclave in eastern New Orleans.
By the end of the 1990s, estimates suggested that 25,000 Vietnamese lived in Louisiana. Because they concentrated in the New Orleans metropolitan area, the Vietnamese had a significant effect on the region's economy.
Refugees and illegal immigrants aren't the same thing.
Originally posted by DrDirt I don't want a national card.
I like the idea of one only because of my experiences with the Maryland government and wanting them to have computers that actually talk to each other.
My mother died in 2003. Her death certificate was filed at the county courthouse. I returned her tags to the MVA. Every two years, she gets a letter that says her handicapped tags have been renewed, even though we don't possess those tags any more. Three weeks ago she got a letter, from the county courthouse, summoning her to jury duty.
Despite repeated attempts, with death certificate in hand, the state and county governments just refuse to believe/share database information with each other that she is dead.
I like the idea of one standard national ID card because I feel there should be one secure central location that can be used to look up one's ID to see if it's valid. In this area, drivers licenses can be swiped like credit cards and a few of the upscale bars/clubs in downtown DC will swipe your ID to check to see if it's valid.
The pessimist in me will see if fail on a grand scale because of my experiences above. Also because I have a very common name and every time I have to do something at the MVA, they make me prove that I'm not the same person in IL and PA with traffic violations. There is no birthday nor SSN recorded with that person so I expect that the 900+ (as of 2000 when the head of the MD MVA met me in person to personally punch in her code to bypass the lockout on my record after I wrote to the Washington Post about my problem) people in my state with the same first and last name have to go through that ordeal. It's a pain to get letters notarized every time I renew my license stating I've never driven in those states (or at those times) and have to provide a copy of my birth certificate and then waiting a couple of weeks for IL and PA's MVAs to sign off on it.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeAnd, harvest problems are here already? So, let me get this straight, you're FOR businesses hiring illegals, paying them less, and keeping a bigger profit, over kicking the illegals out, having to pay higher wages, and everybody paying more for produce? Is that your argument/reasoning?
Jeez, when you put it that way THE ARGUMENT I NEVER MADE sounds like a pretty bad argument... because the only two options are either hiring illegal aliens or throwing them out of the country.
I think a guest worker program is the probably a wise idea (although I'm not entirely for creating a second class of citizenry, but since that's already the case...).
This allows for seasonal economies to have a substantive workforce, allows a those employed under the program to contribute to the services they use, and helps provide some resources for REAL enforcement - and one that actually helps protect the guest workers enrolled as much as it regulates the number of guest workers. I also think it should provide a path for legal immigration IF THE WORKER IS INTERESTED AND MEETS CERTAIN CRITERIA (like obeying the laws, etc), but not as a default.
But I also think we should toss out a lot of the farm subsidies, ESPECIALLY the corn subsidy - which is a large part of the reason NAFTA has had such a negative impact on Mexico.
Originally posted by Von MaestroIt is unfair & unrealistic to expect AZ to sit by & do nothing to protect their citizens
Ah! But who says Arizona has to sit by and do NOTHING? I can speak only for myself but I'm just saying Arizona can't do THIS. If they want to try some other mechanism that doesn't encroach on Federal powers and isn't so obviously ripe for abuse, go right on ahead and do it!
Originally posted by StingArmy False. If you are stopped by a cop in Arizona, it is YOU that has to furnish proof that you are here legally. If it was the federal government providing that information, then no one would have to worry about carrying birth certificates or passports or what have you. How much more obvious can that possibly be?
I still think there's a difference between "eligibility for Medicare" and "proof of citizenship".
Let me apologize in advance if I've overlooked something earlier in this conversation or if I've missed something in the bill itself but... what the hell does Medicare have to do with anything??
From the actual bill itself: THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
I've removed the part of the bill none of us disagree on and I've fixed your emphasis to properly cite the US Code section that the bill references (the proper citation is 8 USC § 1373(c)).
What does US Code Section 1373 (c) say?
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
So, to me, (not being a graduate of any law school), that's pretty clear that the responsibility for providing the information regarding a person's residency status falls squarely on the Federal Government's shoulders.
If 8 USC § 1373(c) isn't already plain English enough for you let me further translate: any time a government official (be he an official of the federal, state, or local government) asks the INS to give him some info on an individual's citizenship/immigration status, the INS has a legal duty to provide that information. In other words, they can't ignore any such request. That's all that says, and by referencing it the AZ bill is merely saying they're going to count on that US Code section.
So here's what you seem to be failing to recognize: if you are a white person living in Arizona and you are stopped by a police officer for some reason or another, there's some slight chance that the officer may ask you whether you are in the US legally. Chances are, though, he won't do any such thing. If you are a brown person, however, especially if you're a brown person who that officer believes is Hispanic, there's a much greater chance that he's gonna wonder if you're in the US legally or not. So the first thing that officer is going to do is ask you to prove your citizenship or legal alien status. Let me say that again. The first thing that officer is going to do is ask you to prove your citizenship or legal alien status. If you don't have papers on you, the next thing that officer is going to do is hold your ass up as long as it takes to get a response from the INS proving that you are legal/illegal. Or (I'd have to check the law to see if this is actually allowed) he might just take you into custody while he runs that check.
So yes, in the end proof of your immigration status might come down to the local police asking the INS for info on you. But that only happens if you can't/won't prove your status yourself. And the fact still remains that the only reason you are being subjected to this loss of liberty (and yes, such detention falls under the UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED definition of loss of liberty) is because some state or local cop thinks you look like you ain't from round these parts.
Hey, maybe some State should pass a law allowing street cops "the opportunity" (as you might call it) to take DNA samples from people they arrest for being frisky in public to ensure one of those people isn't putting the other person at risk of contracting a disease like HIV. Knowingly infecting another person with such a disease without first telling that person of the risk is sexual battery, you know. A crime! Oh but don't worry, those cops aren't requiring ANYBODY to prove their sexual contact is legal. That law only gives the authorities the opportunity to get the information from a government approved testing facility. Yeah, okay.
If somebody is accused of sexual battery, and the police come into contact with him/her, they are then asked for a DNA sample, or a blood test, right? The crime has already taken place.
Just like being in this country without the proper documentation, a crime has already taken place.
Your argument makes no sense. The AZ bill allows government officials to hold someone up and check his immigration status on a reasonable suspicion that he may be in the US illegally. REASONABLE SUSPICION does not equal YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. Some of the people who will be stopped and checked pursuant to this law will have already committed a crime, yes, but most (going by pure statistics) will not have done a single thing wrong. What you are doing is justifying all the racially profiled fuck-ups by pointing to the occasional racially profiled success. That is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeAs far as should minorities have to 'put up with it' to eliminate the 'illegal immigrant problem', yes, they should. Every single household in a state with a "problem" is effected by the "problem" existing. Both in public services being diminished, tax revenue being diminished, school resources being diminished, hospital bills being passed on to others through higher costs, etc. To simply say that it's NOT a problem, and DOESN'T need to be fixed (because these people happen to be Hispanic)is not right.
You are either terrible at making arguments, and therefore myself and others are simply missing your point, or you are a terrible person. I'm going to hope and assume (uh oh...) that it's the former and not the latter.
You just said every single household is affected by the illegal immigrant problem but yet you think only minority households should have to bear the burden of this law. You want to explain that logic to me?
How would you feel about this law if it said every single lawful contact, or at least every single lawful police stop, should be accompanied by a check of citizenship/immigration status? Wouldn't be too popular, would it? Pretty inconvenient, right? But guess what else? It's about five million times more likely to be legal.
Originally posted by StingArmy So here's what you seem to be failing to recognize: if you are a white person living in Arizona and you are stopped by a police officer for some reason or another, there's some slight chance that the officer may ask you whether you are in the US legally. Chances are, though, he won't do any such thing.
I was thinking if you were a white person living in Arizona and you wanted to show solidarity with your Hispanic brethren, any time you talked to a police office you'd start by saying "I can't prove that I'm a US citizen". Seems like that's enough for probable cause, and an officer that didn't follow up on that would be negligent in his duties in my opinion.
Originally posted by ABC 15, KNXV (abc15.com)Governor signs several changes to Arizona immigration law Reported by: ABC15.com staff, wire reports Last Update: 7:11 pm
PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state's sweeping law against illegal immigration -- changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.
The follow-on bill makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.
The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.
"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.
Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.
The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.
Pearce defended that provision, saying there shouldn't be a restraint on when police act on a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in the country illegally. "It is a lawful contact," Pearce said.
The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.
Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.
Brewer likely will sign the follow-on bill, said the spokesman, Paul Senseman.
Pearce said that change doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed.
I'm still planning on starting an online petition to force WWE to say WrestleMania 26 took place in some other state, though. I'll start on Junetember oneteenth.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeI wouldn't care if every single traffic stop, or other interaction with a law enforcement official resulted in a verification of citizenship if that meant that the federal government was actually trying to enforce the laws that are on the books, and capture as many criminals as possible. Not one single bit.
If you were questioned for an hour, while you were on your way to a movie, would you turn to your passenger and say "thank god they're enforcing this" or would you say "why are they bothering me" or "why the hell should I carry X with me?" Or if they didn't enforce the first scenario, would you say "I'm goin to sue my regional X $1,000 per day"?
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "This topic is going to suck to read in three years." -Psycho Penguin "Well. Shit." -hansen9j
The usual rationale applies -- if you belong to a particular group (be it racial, ethnic, sexual preference, whatever), you can get away with describing or stereotyping your group in terms that would get non-members shredded.