New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Grave_n_idle]

We create a hidden population of 'illegals', by making it so hard to get in legally, and so risky to be found. A better approach would be to legalise EVERY person that tries to cross the border with some kind of temporary legal status, registering them as workers, registering them for tax and social security, etc, and making it possible to not only track them, but also to actually ENFORCE employment laws in this country.

Once companies realised they couldn't count on the illegal wage earner to keep wages down, hiring illegals would become self-defeating. An equilibrium would soon be reached at which point further immigrants from Mexico would find themselves unable to find work, and the pressure to cross the border into the US would die down. Immigration would be self limiting.

that would be create an open border.

No, it would create a more-open-than-the-alternative border, but most of the border would still be largely unpassable. Or rather - it would take a little effort, and why bother going to that effort, when the legal system works so profitably?

Everyone would be able to cross and look for work with full legal protection.

You dont need to do spot checks on the street or to change the border policies.

No, but changing border policy would probably be the cheapest and most efficient way to do it.

All you need to do is enforce a law that required employers to check the identity of people through the government.

You start this with 'all you need'... but I can tell already it's going to be an extensive, and expensive list.

Lets face it every legal citizen has an address,

Homeless people lose their citizenship?

...date of birth and family members the government already knows about which could be easily used to generate an employment or government number. It could just be your tax number. If the citizen had a working number or something that had to be given to the authorities along with a business number of their employer very soon after gaining employment it would be much harder for illegal immigrants to get work.
To confirm they are not secretly using someone else’s the government could easily send a letter to the newly employed person at their address with a bit of information about how to declare their tax.

And those that decided to ignore the law of reporting new employees to the government could be financially penalised to such a degree that if deliberate and repeated practices of ignoring this law could be proven the government auctions of the business and removes their assets.

All you need to add after that is a system that recognizes that people with many jobs may very well be selling their working number to illegal migrants. But in selling the working number you would run the risk of identity theft and you would still need to pay tax.

This sounds like ten times the cost, effort and expense of the alternative. Why would this be better, again?

[
However the Arizona law is alright. In my opinion everyone should be carrying a piece of ID when in public just incase something happens.

Which is almost irrelevant. The question is whether it should be effectively a criminal act to NOT immediately have such evidence to hand, or not show it.

[The Candy Lane]

What are they up to, you might be tempted to ask yourself.

maybe get out of there slum of a nation? or just to have some fun with paranoid people?

Anyway i think i would support the bill, anyway makes more sense then Iraq

[Gravlen]

Okay I'll play your game, lets start with me, I have a legitimate birth certificate saying I was born in the USA so I am in effect a legal United States citizen, I also carry around photo I.D with me. My dad was also born in the United States and his Dad before him.

Do you carry your birth certificate with you at all times? And your photo ID that you carry, you carry it 100% of the time? Also is it a passport, because if not it isn't necessarily proof of citizenship.

Yes I carry my id whenever possible. No I do not carry my birth certificate at all times but If I was asked I would get it and show them. The police would then keep a record down and show that I am in fact a legal United States citizens born and raised.

You'll get it? While you're being held in custody for deportation?

You're touching on a problem that exists regardless of this bill. I believe that anyone facing deportation should have the right to legal councel, so that they do have the chance to provide evidence concerning their right to stay in the country.

Concerning this particular bill, if it or something like it were to remain law (I hope it's repealed), the police should at least have a duty to take reasonable steps to find out if the person in question is a citizen or not. I.e. if someone says "I have my papers at home", the police should have an obligation to take him there or check it out for themselves.

[Gravlen]

its not racist, Mexicans are not a race.

It's racial discrimination though.

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

[Hydesland]

Once companies realised they couldn't count on the illegal wage earner to keep wages down, hiring illegals would become self-defeating. An equilibrium would soon be reached at which point further immigrants from Mexico would find themselves unable to find work, and the pressure to cross the border into the US would die down. Immigration would be self limiting.

The problem is that things like social welfare and even general prosperous economic conditions is still a huge, perhaps even the main incentive for immigration, where immigration tends to come from worse off countries. This means that there will still be a large amount of excess supply of the work force, which means you'll still have problems with either equilibrium unemployment or wages. Krugman acknowledges this issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

Once companies realised they couldn't count on the illegal wage earner to keep wages down, hiring illegals would become self-defeating. An equilibrium would soon be reached at which point further immigrants from Mexico would find themselves unable to find work, and the pressure to cross the border into the US would die down. Immigration would be self limiting.

The problem is that things like social welfare and even general prosperous economic conditions is still a huge, perhaps even the main incentive for immigration, where immigration tends to come from worse off countries. This means that there will still be a large amount of excess supply of the work force, which means you'll still have problems with either equilibrium unemployment or wages. Krugman acknowledges this issue.

That's peachy for Krugman. I'm not Krugman.

If eligibility for social welfare is connected to social security contributions, for example - it's not profitable to relocate just to claim. It's more profitable to work. ANd if there's no work, it's more profitable not to relocate in the first place.

[Hydesland]

If eligibility for social welfare is connected to social security contributions

What do you mean by this, exactly?

[Gravlen]

ANd if there's no work, it's more profitable not to relocate in the first place.

That's not necessarily true.

[Muravyets]

Okay I'll play your game, lets start with me, I have a legitimate birth certificate saying I was born in the USA so I am in effect a legal United States citizen, I also carry around photo I.D with me. My dad was also born in the United States and his Dad before him.

Do you carry your birth certificate with you at all times? And your photo ID that you carry, you carry it 100% of the time? Also is it a passport, because if not it isn't necessarily proof of citizenship.

Yes I carry my id whenever possible. No I do not carry my birth certificate at all times but If I was asked I would get it and show them. The police would then keep a record down and show that I am in fact a legal United States citizens born and raised.

You'll get it? While you're being held in custody for deportation?

You're touching on a problem that exists regardless of this bill. I believe that anyone facing deportation should have the right to legal councel, so that they do have the chance to provide evidence concerning their right to stay in the country.

Concerning this particular bill, if it or something like it were to remain law (I hope it's repealed), the police should at least have a duty to take reasonable steps to find out if the person in question is a citizen or not. I.e. if someone says "I have my papers at home", the police should have an obligation to take him there or check it out for themselves.

Well, no kidding. The point is that this problem exists, so those who argue that they'll just go and get their proof of citizenship and show it to the cops are not making a valid argument. They won't be able to do that, so it cannot be claimed as an easy way out of the minor inconvenience of being detained because some random cop thought they looked like they might possibly be hinky in some way.

And when you say, "well the cops should go traipsing all over town while this person they think might be here illegally goes searching for some slip of paper that will convince them otherwise," that shows that the thinking on how to work around this problem exists entirely in fantasy land.

[JJ Place]

they broke this law the second they hopped the fence and wern't caught

Which ones did that? Out of all the people walking down the street, which ones are here illegally? How are you going to tell them apart from the citizens and legal residents? Tell me, how?

Actually, the provisions of the bill are this, to clarify:

If a person has done something illegal, or are spotted as having something illegal that they've done (such as, say, having a broken tail-light on your car) and the police officer who stops you thinks your illegal, they can ask you for your papers right on the spot, and you are given a period, usually 24-hours, to produce your papers to the police. If you cannot, then bye bye! Back to Mexico you go, all on the tax-payer's dollars!

Really? Is that you quoting the bill or just something you made up in the hope that it's how the law will be interpreted by the racists who wrote it? Because the parts of the law that I've read say specifically that the cops not only can but MUST demand proof of citizenship, delivered on the spot, of anyone they think might have a chance of being in the country illegally, with whom they have legal contact. What "legal contact" means in this context is not defined, but just tonight I've heard at least two politicians, including Senator Robert Menendez (D.NJ), say that the term "legal contact" can mean any contact at all that is not illegal, and that the cop merely stopping to talk to someone could qualify under common legal usage.

So, please point out the parts where the law states that cops are only supposed to check the residency or citizenship status of people for whom they have probable cause to investigate.

EDIT: Oh, and when you find that part, also explain how that rule never existed before in AZ law, and thus justifies the invention of this new law.

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers. Sadly again, this is most likely not the end to this new wave of xenophobia against, not just 'illegal' immigrants, but soon against all immigrants. It's sad to see that, an nation settled by immigrants, build by immigrants, and has prospered because of immigrants now wishes to shut-down the Golden Door entirely. Not that this is the first time in history this has occurred; off the top of my head if I was asked to, I could easily name at least 5 previous major anti-immigrant actions in the United States.

[Nordicus]

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

[JJ Place]

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

Thank you for the extra confirmation; that's actually what Fox News reported a few days ago, and I've been going with that as it checks out with the rest of my sources.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

Thank you for the extra confirmation; that's actually what Fox News reported a few days ago, and I've been going with that as it checks out with the rest of my sources.

Note: to the extent this change has been made (and I haven't seen the exact language yet), that AT MOST MAY resolve one of the several constitutional problems with this law and does little to address its underlying stupidity, counter-productivity, and racism.

[Franca-Liria]

This legislation is a racist, bigoted, right-wing profanity that throws decency out of the window, and replaces it with undeniable racial profiling and stereotyping. Arizona should be chastised for this anti-democratic move, and any racist dissent ignored.

[Shrubsville]

I 100% oppose the new law. I am in the U.S. Air Force, and I am station in Arizona. That is absolutely racial profiling. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

How is it racial profiling Mexicans are not a race.

That's actually pretty funny.

Are all illegal immigrants Mexicans, then?

nope, there are illegals from many country's that come here and they should be kicked out, if you come here legally then your fine in Americas book. You wouldn't let a stranger into your house would you?

I'll agree that if you want illegals to just come in here and not kick them out, then Mexico should open its borders freely with the United States.

And how do you determine who is illegal? Can you just spot them on the street? If so, tell me how it is that you make that identification.

Well if they have an extremely thick accent for one, and yes you can spot them on the street many sit and wait for a "gringo" to show up and take them to work for low prices. We wouldn't target Mexican immigrants as much if there weren't so many of them.

So, a thick accent is - in your book - a reasonable indicator of legal status?

I'd say I'd love to hear the logic behind that, except there's clearly no logic behind it.

I'll admit its a little fucked up to base it on accent but it would help a little and the majority are indeed from Mexico or further south, so its easier to pick on latinos as they are the most likely to be illegal.

Ah, so when you say 'accent', you don't even mean 'accent' - you mean South American accents?

You don't think we need to be targetting Germans, for example - you seem pretty specific on the latino population.

But you choose to ignore that first generation immigrants (legal OR illegal) will probably have strong accents, as well as second (or further) generation immigrants that live in homogenous groups - and, unfortunately - that tends to be something that happens a lot in the US.

You also seem to be somehow overlooking the fact that - if you're going to just randomly pick on ANYONE with a South American accent - you're going to harrass a lot of legal families.

Why don't you care about the rights of those citizens?

Because only brown people can be illegal immergrants.

[Grave_n_idle]

If eligibility for social welfare is connected to social security contributions

What do you mean by this, exactly?

Basic math. If you've never paid in, it doesn't pay out.

[Grave_n_idle]

ANd if there's no work, it's more profitable not to relocate in the first place.

That's not necessarily true.

If you have the choice of no income, or no income AND paying for relocation... 'no income' is actually the more profitable choice.

[Gravlen]

ANd if there's no work, it's more profitable not to relocate in the first place.

That's not necessarily true.

If you have the choice of no income, or no income AND paying for relocation... 'no income' is actually the more profitable choice.

Again, not necessarily. It can be seen as an investment. I can't get work at home, and if I move there's no guarantee I'll get work either. But if I do... Even just a day labour type job will give me more income than a month, maybe six months back home. So I'll send half of that to my family back home, and try to live on the rest...

Even I don't get a job, there might be income. Social security, welfare, unemployment benefits, health care, education. The prospect of such things could entice me to take a chance.

[Gravlen]

And when you say, "well the cops should go traipsing all over town while this person they think might be here illegally goes searching for some slip of paper that will convince them otherwise," that shows that the thinking on how to work around this problem exists entirely in fantasy land.

I don't agree with this. I actually think it's the least that could be expected from law enforcement, and in my jurisdiction it happens regularly. In fact, it's viewed as a form of dereliction of duty if police officers refuse to go look for such evidence.

[Muravyets]

And when you say, "well the cops should go traipsing all over town while this person they think might be here illegally goes searching for some slip of paper that will convince them otherwise," that shows that the thinking on how to work around this problem exists entirely in fantasy land.

I don't agree with this. I actually think it's the least that could be expected from law enforcement, and in my jurisdiction it happens regularly. In fact, it's viewed as a form of dereliction of duty if police officers refuse to go look for such evidence.

Of course you don't agree with it. If you didn't think you were right, I'm sure you wouldn't have posted it. But you're wrong because your assumptions and imaginings don't fit with how the legal system works. Cops make arrests, not cases. How much it takes to make an arrest, depends on the severity of the crime. Taking someone in on suspicion of drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or in this case, being the target of the given cop's belief that people like the suspect couldn't possibly have permission to be in this country, let alone be born here, can be done solely on the basis of the cop's observation of the person at the scene of the "lawful contact." The cop is under no obligation to do more than that, and in fact, the ordinary police officer is not qualified to do more than that. He's not of detective rank, after all, so he has no business investigating things. "Investigation" is cop-speak for going and looking for additional evidence beyond what is immediately apparent at the scene of the "lawful contact."

So the cop isn't going to do that. The cop is going to take the person into custody, and put him or her into the system, where since this is an immigration matter, it will be handed off to ICE, where the arrested person will be given no promises of access to a lawyer or any visitors, no phone calls, no promise that they won't be arbitrarily shipped off to a holding facility in another state -- that happens to the clients of my friend who is an immigration lawyer all the time, without notice or explanation -- or otherwise just disappear into the fog of bureaucracy for days, months, in some extreme cases, years. And in all that time, when do you think they're going to take this little field trip to go look at the "papers, please"?

So in reality, under this AZ law, a cop stops someone they don't like the look of for no reason other than they don't like them. The person fails to produce on demand the asked for "papers." The person is arrested on suspicion of being in the US illegally. The person is going to be taken into the police station and processed into the system. And then the arresting officer is going to go back out on patrol to complete his shift. No traipsing around, no chauffeuring suspects around town to look for proof they're allowed to be here. Arrest, process, sign-off, back to work. Period. That's the cop's job. Everything else is done by someone else, if at all.

But in your dream world, you think it will instead go like this: A cop stops someone and demands that they prove they're allowed to be in the country because the cop thinks they look like the kind of people who wouldn't be allowed in. And then THAT cop is going to cooperate with their chosen suspect by driving them around to places unknown (house, bank, wherever) to find papers unspecified, for an unknown period of time (however long it takes). And then THAT cop, whose judgment is clearly so reliable, is going to make the judgment call about whether the papers he eventually sees are legit or not. And this is going to be what -- his entire work day now? Only half? How many other required tasks of his shift aren't going to get done because he's babysitting someone he thinks is a wetback? How many illegal immigrants is AZ complaining about? You going to pay overtime to the entire patrol force of every city and county to pay for the extra hours to keep up? Or are you just going to hire more cops? How many more?

Your notion is childish and naive, and it does not take into account the way reality works. Beyond even the reality of how the law enforcement system works, it doesn't even take into account the simple physical logistics of getting things done during the course of a day.

[Muravyets]

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

That's a change that makes no difference, as citizens are still not likely to carry proof of citizenship around with them, as you know, this is America and all, not a totalitarian dictatorship.

Yet.

[Gravlen]

And when you say, "well the cops should go traipsing all over town while this person they think might be here illegally goes searching for some slip of paper that will convince them otherwise," that shows that the thinking on how to work around this problem exists entirely in fantasy land.

I don't agree with this. I actually think it's the least that could be expected from law enforcement, and in my jurisdiction it happens regularly. In fact, it's viewed as a form of dereliction of duty if police officers refuse to go look for such evidence.

Of course you don't agree with it. If you didn't think you were right, I'm sure you wouldn't have posted it. But you're wrong because your assumptions and imaginings don't fit with how the legal system works. Cops make arrests, not cases. How much it takes to make an arrest, depends on the severity of the crime. Taking someone in on suspicion of drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or in this case, being the target of the given cop's belief that people like the suspect couldn't possibly have permission to be in this country, let alone be born here, can be done solely on the basis of the cop's observation of the person at the scene of the "lawful contact." The cop is under no obligation to do more than that, and in fact, the ordinary police officer is not qualified to do more than that. He's not of detective rank, after all, so he has no business investigating things. "Investigation" is cop-speak for going and looking for additional evidence beyond what is immediately apparent at the scene of the "lawful contact."

So the cop isn't going to do that. The cop is going to take the person into custody, and put him or her into the system, where since this is an immigration matter, it will be handed off to ICE, where the arrested person will be given no promises of access to a lawyer or any visitors, no phone calls, no promise that they won't be arbitrarily shipped off to a holding facility in another state -- that happens to the clients of my friend who is an immigration lawyer all the time, without notice or explanation -- or otherwise just disappear into the fog of bureaucracy for days, months, in some extreme cases, years. And in all that time, when do you think they're going to take this little field trip to go look at the "papers, please"?

So in reality, under this AZ law, a cop stops someone they don't like the look of for no reason other than they don't like them. The person fails to produce on demand the asked for "papers." The person is arrested on suspicion of being in the US illegally. The person is going to be taken into the police station and processed into the system. And then the arresting officer is going to go back out on patrol to complete his shift. No traipsing around, no chauffeuring suspects around town to look for proof they're allowed to be here. Arrest, process, sign-off, back to work. Period. That's the cop's job. Everything else is done by someone else, if at all.

But in your dream world, you think it will instead go like this: A cop stops someone and demands that they prove they're allowed to be in the country because the cop thinks they look like the kind of people who wouldn't be allowed in. And then THAT cop is going to cooperate with their chosen suspect by driving them around to places unknown (house, bank, wherever) to find papers unspecified, for an unknown period of time (however long it takes). And then THAT cop, whose judgment is clearly so reliable, is going to make the judgment call about whether the papers he eventually sees are legit or not. And this is going to be what -- his entire work day now? Only half? How many other required tasks of his shift aren't going to get done because he's babysitting someone he thinks is a wetback? How many illegal immigrants is AZ complaining about? You going to pay overtime to the entire patrol force of every city and county to pay for the extra hours to keep up? Or are you just going to hire more cops? How many more?

Your notion is childish and naive, and it does not take into account the way reality works. Beyond even the reality of how the law enforcement system works, it doesn't even take into account the simple physical logistics of getting things done during the course of a day.

I think someone is paying you per word here. I also think you may have chosen to overlook my previous posts, but whatever.

Regardless, I like my childish and naive notion, in particular because, as I said, that's how it works in my jurisdiction. And it works pretty well, all things considering.

And your mind reading skills are a bit off. In my dream world, it would go something like this:

A cop stops someone for any legitimate reason besides randomly checking that they're allowed to be in the country. Like using the subway without paying for it, driving while drunk or whatever. (Imagine a crime that you'll only get fined for, not arrested.) The cop asks for ID. The person fails to provide him with an ID, but says that his documents are at home. The cop follows him home to check the papers. They aren't there. The person says they must be at the bar across town. The cop, having spent a reasonable effort trying to clear this up, takes him in, but follows up on his information while he's detained.

The state should have an obligation to making a signifficant effort to ascertain the citizenship and immigration status of anyone considered to be transferred to ICE. If that costs more money, than so be it.

But you make it painfully clear that this law is not the (only) problem. It seems like a reform of the law enforcement system is required, since it is broken.

[Gift-of-god]

....

Regardless, I like my childish and naive notion, in particular because, as I said, that's how it works in my jurisdiction. And it works pretty well, all things considering.

.....
But you make it painfully clear that this law is not the (only) problem. It seems like a reform of the law enforcement system is required, since it is broken.

Maybe that happens for white people.

Because you're right, the law enforcement system is also broken.

Now, knowing that, this law makes even less sense, as it is basically condoning (some would say compelling) that very racism.

[Soheran]

...Clearly I'm late to the party, but for what it's worth, I'm part of the 39% that opposes this atrocious legislation. It is unjust means (effective racial profiling and police excess) to achieve an unjust end (deporting and criminalizing people), so it's kind of a no brainer for me.

The only good thing about it is that, at least in progressive circles, it served somewhat to clarify the nature of the xenophobia and racism at the heart of anti-immigrant hysteria. This is not about protecting anyone's jobs or wages; it is about ensuring that a group of people live in fear and are denied even the smallest iota of legal protection, and the net will be swept broadly enough that it will harm many more than just undocumented immigrants.

[Muravyets]

I think someone is paying you per word here. I also think you may have chosen to overlook my previous posts, but whatever.

Regardless, I like my childish and naive notion, in particular because, as I said, that's how it works in my jurisdiction. And it works pretty well, all things considering.

And your mind reading skills are a bit off. In my dream world, it would go something like this:

A cop stops someone for any legitimate reason besides randomly checking that they're allowed to be in the country. Like using the subway without paying for it, driving while drunk or whatever. (Imagine a crime that you'll only get fined for, not arrested.) The cop asks for ID. The person fails to provide him with an ID, but says that his documents are at home. The cop follows him home to check the papers. They aren't there. The person says they must be at the bar across town. The cop, having spent a reasonable effort trying to clear this up, takes him in, but follows up on his information while he's detained.

The state should have an obligation to making a signifficant effort to ascertain the citizenship and immigration status of anyone considered to be transferred to ICE. If that costs more money, than so be it.

But you make it painfully clear that this law is not the (only) problem. It seems like a reform of the law enforcement system is required, since it is broken.

No, actually, it's not broken at all. It's just not racist enough to suit the authors, signers and supporters AZ's new law.

And I don't get paid by the word (though dammit, I wish I did). I just think about things in real life.