Arizona Immigration Law

[madanthonywayne]

Arizona has passed a controversial new law requiring the police to check the legal status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal alien. Many are up in arms saying it's racist and, in a phrase I kept hearing over and over, "you could be a fifth generation Hispanic and be hassled because of this law".

I suppose the police could be complete assholes and haul in everyone with a Spanish sounding name, but I seriously doubt they'll do that. I'm speaking as a third generation Hispanic. I seriously doubt any cop would ever question my US citizenship.

To me, the one obvious marker of an immigrant is an inability to speak English properly or at all. If a cop pulls someone over and they can't speak English, what's wrong with checking to see that they're in the country legally? How is that racial profiling?

I'll acknowledge that the implementation of the law will really determine whether it is unduly harassing Hispanics in general or simply enforcing the law. But what the hell, we have literally millions of illegals in this country and the federal government is doing next to nothing about it. Some states are really suffering under the strain of all these illegals which is why this law has a 70% approval among Arizonans.

We should stop fucking around. Build a double wall all along the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegals. Then we should do something to give illegals already here some sort of official status.

We shouldn't make them citizens. They broke the law and should go to the back of the line behind everyone who entered legally. But allow those with jobs, ties to the community, and clean records to get work visas.

But not before we seal the border. State police shouldn't have to worry about issues like this, but since the feds have dropped the ball, they really have little choice.

Here's a link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042301441.html

 

[Gypsi]

There certainly should be some level of amnesty for those who, as you say, have strong - and positive - links to the community.

However, building walls and enacting measures such as Arizona has chosen to adopt will have little if any effect on illegal immigration if the key attraction (for most) remains available - i.e. employment. Thus if it's time to "get tough," employers should be the key target.

That said, there should be some level of amnesty for employers too, to protect them from the effects of losing a significant portion of their workforce. This would also allow employers to help identify illegal immigrants deserving of legal status - long-term workers with clean records, children, ties in the community, etc.

But in the event of any new hirings of illegal immigrants, penalties should be severe. Nothing less will deter them from the huge savings made, thanks to illegal immigrants.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

There needs to be stronger punishments for those who hire illegals, they are the most obvious cause. If their workforce gets deported they just hire the next group of illegal immigrants. Arizona's law could very well lead to citizens be harassed by the police and you shouldn't have to carry your documentation with you where ever you go, that's dangerous. I know where I live people are often accused of being illegal immigrants just because they speak fluent Spanish or have a thick accent. But maybe people have a different mindset in Arizona (though I doubt it). I agree that something needs to be done and the federal government has been dragging their feet for decades, so hopefully, maybe Arizona's overstepping their boundaries like this will get the federal government to do something about the illegal immigration problem.

 

[Asguard]

what stupidity, all this will lead to is more exploitation and slavery. for instance, you can now rape "illegals" with inpunity because if he\she reports the first thing the cops must now do is check your id.

how many people will come forward with evidence in murder cases knowing they will be thrown out of the country?

and of course employers can now do anything to there employers up to and including sexual slavery and murder knowing that the employees can never report them or they will be victimises all over again.

what a joke

 

[quadraphonics]

Arizona has passed a controversial new law requiring the police to check the legal status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal alien.

And, let's note, in doing so requiring every American in Arizona to carry proof of citizenship at all times. So there's another reason not to visit Arizona, on the off chance that anyone requires any more - if I'm going to have to bring my passport to visit Arizona, I'd ask that they cut out the half-measures and leave the Union entirely. Except then where would we put all those Federal prisons?

We should stop fucking around. Build a double wall all along the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegals.

Wait, I thought you were all about shrinking the size of government to keep in from interfering with commerce? But here you are demanding we spend untold billions on the (largely futile) militarization of a thousands-miles-long border, in order to interfere with the free movement of labor. Doesn't sound particularly conservative, or libertarian, or even sensible, to me.

Are you even aware that only around half of the illegal immigrants get here via illegal entry? The rest overstay visas - and not all of the illegal entries do so by crossing the Mexican land border. Even if you could build an impenatrable wall on the Mexian border - and you can't - that would just boost the numbers entering by sea and air and legal means.

You want to end illegal immigration, you pick one of two workable options: institute a national employment ID card and crack down on businesses so that illegal immigrants can't find work here, or else increase the quotas for legal immigration to the point that essentially everyone who wants to come and work can do so legally. There is no engineering solution to physical keep immigrants out while running things inside the country exactly the same way.

If neither of those options is palatable to you, then you ought to ask yourself why not. More importantly, though, is that you need to admit that you aren't up for doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, and so cease demanding (counterproductive) action on it, directing political enmity at illegal immigrants, etc. If you aren't willing to pay the price to effectively address the question, then you haven't the standing to complain in the first place.

State police shouldn't have to worry about issues like this, but since the feds have dropped the ball, they really have little choice.

That would be state governments - it's not the discretion of Arizona's police force that created this law.

 

[iceaura]

I suppose the police could be complete assholes and haul in everyone with a Spanish sounding name, but I seriously doubt they'll do that. I'm speaking as a third generation Hispanic. I seriously doubt any cop would ever question my US citizenship

He would be required by law to question your citizenship if he had any suspicion that you were not legally a citizen.

That would mean pulling you over on the highway and demanding to see your proof of citizenship if he thought you looked Mexican. And arresting you on the spot if you failed to produce it.

Do you look Mexican, to a bigoted rookie police officer in John McCain's home state?

 

[Doreen]

Arizona has passed a controversial new law requiring the police to check the legal status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal alien. Many are up in arms saying it's racist and, in a phrase I kept hearing over and over, "you could be a fifth generation Hispanic and be hassled because of this law".

I suppose the police could be complete assholes and haul in everyone with a Spanish sounding name, but I seriously doubt they'll do that. I'm speaking as a third generation Hispanic. I seriously doubt any cop would ever question my US citizenship.

I trhink it depends on what it means by 'requires'. I think it will also depend on the individual police officer. The wording in the article was they have to check anyone who 'appears to be illegal'. Appear tends to mean visually.

 

[Tiassa]

The obvious

What I don't get about this law is what constitutes actionable cause?

In 2007, without such a law to support them, California authorities deported an American citizen. What was so disturbing about what our topic poster classified as a mere bureaucratic screw up is that, in that incident, ICE reminded that they "only processes persons for removal when all available credible evidence suggests the person is an alien". Indeed, ICE claimed that it "has no reason to believe that it improperly removed Pedro Guzman".

Except that he was an American citizen. Or, as I put it then, "In other words, no credible evidence at all is enough credible evidence to deport a man."

So what is reasonable cause for investigation? Looks hispanic, speaks Spanish? I mean, really, what? Will Arizona authorities be nearly so suspicious of British people who might be in the country illegally?

I think one of the things this law's supporters need to establish is that they recognize people's legitimate concerns about enforcement, and help people understand how those issues are addressed.

There is a broad range of potential mishaps well before we get to the point of the police being complete assholes and hauling in everyone with a Spanish sounding name. Will we see a witch hunt, with Mrs. Jones calling the cops because she thinks Mr. Harmon's gardener might not have all of his proper papers? Of course, the flip side is that this is just more scrotum-licking grandstanding from politicians. What do people think, that the government will be able to find and deport more illegals? Just remember that those suspects get lawyers, and likely on the People's tab. So we should also remember that there is a possibility that nothing statistical will change for the better. It may end up that there are just as many illegals in Arizona, that just as few or many are being deported only to cross again next week, and that police, prosecutors, local public defenders, jail facilities, and courtrooms are spending a lot more resources, and perhaps even trembling under the weight, and with no better outcome.

Or we might simply ask how far out to sea we should build that wall. After all, there are Cubans who will make the trip on a boat constructed of an old pickup truck body, two doors, and a some empty milk cartons. That's ninety-five miles, and sharks patrol those waters.
____________________

Notes:

Powers, Kemp. "Group says U.S. citizen wrongly deported to Mexico". Reuters. June 11, 2007. Reuters.com. April 27, 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1118919320070611

 

[quadraphonics]

Do you look Mexican, to a bigoted rookie police officer in John McCain's home state?

Speaking from personal experience with Arizona, my guess is that that will have a lot to do with what neighborhood he finds himself in, and whether he's descended from any non-white Hispanics in the first place.

The whole "just trust the cops" premise is of course a fairly ridiculous response to policy criticisms anywhere, but it's outright laughable when applied to Arizona. That state is famous for its overt racism - they led the charge against Martin Luther King Jr. Day, are at the forefront of "literacy tests" for voting and racial profiling, etc.

 

[superstring01]

they led the charge against Martin Luther King Jr. Day

"Lead the charge" is a bit of an overstatement. They simply refused to acknowledge the day as signifcant for Arizona seeing as how segregation did not exist in that state and equal rights for all races was a matter of law well before Dr. King was in high school.

Should politicians in Arizona have made a wiser decision in which political maneuvers to fight? Sure. But having lived there for five years, I can say that there is no place I've been where black and white people congregate together as much as Arizona. In Cleveland, which is more than half black, people self segregate almost out of habit, which my AZ friends just find plain odd.

It's not a bastion of perfection, but it's not some racist stronghold for thinking it better than the rest of the USA for having granted what Dr. King was demanding long before he demanded it, it's just a bit more snobby.

~String

 

[John99]

He would be required by law to question your citizenship if he had any suspicion that you were not legally a citizen.

That would mean pulling you over on the highway and demanding to see your proof of citizenship if he thought you looked Mexican. And arresting you on the spot if you failed to produce it.

Do you look Mexican, to a bigoted rookie police officer in John McCain's home state?

Aside from your usual personal\ignorant commentary every country has laws about just getting off a plane from another country, coming in from underground tunnels with pounds of drugs and even just walking across a border. Why dont you go to south america and try it yourself. Your ass wont be posting here for a long time....IF EVER.

 

[sifreak21]

well i do think something needs to be done but on the other hand if you took 100% of illegal aliens out of the country we would fail terribly so its one of thoes relationships like men and woman cant live with em cant live without em

 

[quadraphonics]

"Lead the charge" is a bit of an overstatement.

Well, I suppose I should rightly reserve that title for Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan, but all of Arizona's representatives (including John McCain) voted against making MLK day a national holiday. That's at the Federal level, mind you - not just within Arizona.

They simply refused to acknowledge the day as signifcant for Arizona seeing as how segregation did not exist in that state and equal rights for all races was a matter of law well before Dr. King was in high school.

And yet, none of the other Western states had any such reservations - which is suspicious, no?

Also, not having enshrined segregation in law is not the same thing as segregation not existing. There's plenty of de facto segregation in Arizona, and always has been.

Also didn't the change the name of Martin Luther King Jr. street in Phoenix?

But having lived there for five years, I can say that there is no place I've been where black and white people congregate together as much as Arizona.

That's probably because blacks are severely underrepresented in Arizona - there aren't enough of them to form separate communities, outside of Phoenix. A similar phenomenon existed where I grew up, in a town with almost zero black population - black people in those situations have to socialize with whites. The alternative is to not socialize at all. And as far as that goes, isolated blacks are a lot less threatening to stodgy racist whites than an actual black social circle would be.

Meanwhile, how's the state of white-Hispanic relations in Arizona? Probably a lot like where I grew up - which is to say, they cease once the Hispanics leave their menial jobs at the end of the day and drive back to their homes in the destitute gangland on the other side of the Indian Reservation.

In Cleveland, which is more than half black, people self segregate almost out of habit, which my AZ friends just find plain odd.

Exactly - self-segregation occurs when the groups in question are represented heavily enough to support their own social circles. It does not occur when a particular race is so unrepresented that they can't sustain their own circle; in that case, the few isolated individuals generaly hang out with whatever the dominant group in their area is.

It's not a bastion of perfection, but it's not some racist stronghold for thinking it better than the rest of the USA for having granted what Dr. King was demanding long before he demanded it, it's just a bit more snobby.

That would be not "snobby" but "offensively deluded." If the state is such a post-racial utopia, ask yourself why black people are so heavily underrepresented there.

Meanwhile, Arizona as a polity has been at the forefront of pretty much every iteration of the mainstream white supremacist movement for as long as I can remember - from MLK Day, to making English an official language, to literacy tests for voting, to the Minutemen, to racial profiling, to the teabaggers. Arizona politicians have made a point of allying with pro-Confederacy southern politicians, etc.

The fact that there are some spots in Arizona that are diverse and where people get along is secondary - Arizona's political standing and policies are made by those self-segregated gated communities full of conservative, reactionary white people, in the cancerous sprawl called "Phoenix" that yearly eats further into the blight.

Flagstaff is cool though. And I hear good things about Tuscon and Sedona. And of course the Navajo Nation is a must-visit, along with the Grand Canyon. But as to the rest of it... well, there's a reason it's inhabited mainly by prisoners and weirdo polygamist cults.

 

[John99]

well i do think something needs to be done but on the other hand if you took 100% of illegal aliens out of the country we would fail terribly so its one of thoes relationships like men and woman cant live with em cant live without em

Its just the fact that it is illegal. No countries encourage illegal immigration and people can immigrate to a country legally.

 

[Asguard]

i find it facinating that no one seems to realise or care about the effects of this law on other crimes. there is a reason goverments and police forces have very publicslly stated policies on NOT charging people with drug offenses if an ambulance is called so that people will seek help.

there are also policies implace to turn a blind eye to illegal prositution ect for rape cases, murder investigations ect in order to get people to a) use the police when they need them and b) give evidence to the police in investigations. all this law does is ensure this group will NEVER trust the cops

 

[quadraphonics]

No countries encourage illegal immigration

The United States does. Not explicitly, of course, but choosing not to reform the employment system to make it difficult for illegals to get jobs here represents, in the context of our huge demand for cheap labor and unpatrollably vast southern border, a conscious choice to encourage illegal immigration.

and people can immigrate to a country legally.

And when the country in question chooses not to provide a sufficient number of work visas sufficiently quickly to legally accomodate the inflow - especially in the above context - that also represents a decision to encourage illegal immigration.

The dirty truth of the matter is that a substantial portion of the American polity wants to have a large, vulnerable - and so, exploitable - labor force here, and illegal immigration supplies that. Many of the same interests that boost nativist and racist populism actually do so as a fig-leaf for their underlying support for continuing large-scale illegal immigration (this would be the plutocrat segment of the GOP, in particular).

 

[superstring01]

And yet, none of the other Western states had any such reservations - which is suspicious, no?

You are correct. I wasn't defending NOT doing it, just explaining the rationale. While not wise, the state of Arizona has always marched to its own tune, including being--IIRC--the only state to refuse federal highway funds in the 80's just so it could set its own agenda and speed limits (just look at all the state routes that exist around Phoenix, for example).

Also, not having enshrined segregation in law is not the same thing as segregation not existing.

Yep. But Arizona was referring to his legal effect on the USA. Sociologically, we're still a segregated society. So. . . then he ultimately failed nationwide.

There's plenty of de facto segregation in Arizona, and always has been.

You just described the entire USA if not the entire world.

Also didn't the change the name of Martin Luther King Jr. street in Phoenix?

Phoenix is, like most American cities, very liberal which may run contrary to the rest of the state. If the city did, then it's in keeping with every single American city thath as a MLK Jr. Drive/Street/Boulevard/Highway.

That's probably because blacks are severely underrepresented in Arizona

"Severely" meaning about 4.5 percent, as opposed to about 12 for the rest of the nation. There were, in fact, black ghettos just like the rest of the nation. There was--to be certain--a visible black community. Just that the black middle class in AZ is a larger percentage of the black population than other areas. AZ came by its population growth post 1970's and most of its non-Hispanic population went there to fill solidly middle-to-upper class jobs.

Either way, I don't quote my own experience as indicative of the state, but there was a certain pride amongst most people I met there in their casual integration of whites, blacks and Asians. As I said, we took it for granted that our group of friends were from all walks. And, no, there were few Hispanics in that group. It's obvious that Mexicans are Arizona's blacks. Even the blacks refuse to socialize with Mexicans. Then again, I didn't make much effort either, despite my fluency in their language. The cultural divide is pretty wide.

Meanwhile, how's the state of white-Hispanic relations in Arizona? Probably a lot like where I grew up - which is to say, they cease once the Hispanics leave their menial jobs at the end of the day and drive back to their homes in the destitute gangland on the other side of the Indian Reservation.

Yeah. One doesn't drive through South Phoenix or Guadalupe at night without armed guard. Trust me, I'm a former coke/meth user who had to cruise there on a several occasions to make my connection. It was ugly. Uglier than any of the black neighborhoods I've seen in East Cleveland.

Exactly - self-segregation occurs when the groups in question are represented heavily enough to support their own social circles. It does not occur when a particular race is so unrepresented that they can't sustain their own circle; in that case, the few isolated individuals generaly hang out with whatever the dominant group in their area is.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. As I stated, Arizona isn't a bastion of racial integration, it's just that Blacks and Asians--on the whole, especially the middle class ones--tend to hang with white people more.

That would be not "snobby" but "offensively deluded."

Okay.

If the state is such a post-racial utopia, ask yourself why black people are so heavily underrepresented there.

I never called AZ a utopia. in fact, I openly admit that it is a flawed state that does its share of self-segregation.

"Heavily underrepresented" is a matter of perspective, though. Phoenix metro has about 4.3 million and many people of many racial backgrounds, including a large population of black people (certainly more black people than Cleveland has Asians or Mexicans). It is no different than other American cities except in its proportions. Having more of one and less of another is not specifically indicative of a racial trend. Likewise, Ohio must be really anti-Asian for being severely underrepresented by their population. If having few blacks makes AZ racist, then what does that say about Mississippi for having so many blacks?

Meanwhile, Arizona as a polity has been at the forefront of pretty much every iteration of the mainstream white supremacist movement for as long as I can remember - from MLK Day, to making English an official language, to literacy tests for voting, to the Minutemen, to racial profiling, to the teabaggers. Arizona politicians have made a point of allying with pro-Confederacy southern politicians, etc.

I have no problem with having English as the official language. It should be and should be required in schools and government. It's no more racist to make English our national language than it is for Canada to make English and French theirs or for Brazil to make Portuguese their national language. Each nation is an immigrant nation, and nobody cries fowl for them adopting official languages and require it as a cornerstone of business and learning.

You'll have to educate me as to how AZ is at the forefront of white supremacy, any recent movement in making literacy tests the norm in AZ and how the entire state is guilty for having Tea Party rallies JUST like every other state in the nation (or, even how that is particularly damning).

As to the racial profiling, the "profiling" is a term added by those hating the new law that was just passed. There is, in fact, no demand for profiling, only the synthesized fear that profiling "will" or "could" happen. How about we wait and see if it happens before we complain about as state that is finally doing something about disaster that is illegal immigration.

The fact that there are some spots in Arizona that are diverse and where people get along is secondary - Arizona's political standing and policies are made by those self-segregated gated communities full of conservative, reactionary white people, in the cancerous sprawl called "Phoenix" that yearly eats further into the blight.

You lost me here. So, the side issue is also that Arizona has suburban (aka "cancerous") sprawl filled with white people? Is that not every major metropolitan area in the USA except San Francisco (excluding the rest of the bay area), Portland and New Orleans (all of whom, oddly enough, are boxed in by physical restrictions).

But as to the rest of it... well, there's a reason it's inhabited mainly by prisoners and weirdo polygamist cults.

Seriously, quad? You've resorted to pointless ad homs to describe an entire state? You're the guy normally rooted in firm facts. I think you are well aware of the fact that "prisoners and weirdo polygamist cults" are. . . well. . . the fringe sub-minority living out beyond reach in the desert or mountains.

~String

 

[iceaura]

Aside from your usual personal\ignorant commentary every country has laws about just getting off a plane from another country, coming in from underground tunnels with pounds of drugs and even just walking across a border. Why dont you go to south america and try it yourself. Your ass wont be posting here for a long time....IF EVER.

WTF?

The worry is that off-kilter stuff like that will obscure the effects of this kind of law long enough to do real damage.

In my area, the same people are supporting this Arizona law as are normally most heated in their objections to police pulling cars over without first observing a driving violation. Go figure.

One strategy for getting rid of it might be to take advantage of its clause that allows lawsuits for insufficiently enthusiastic enforcement - on the principle of the "rule strike", wherein companies are brought to a standstill by employees obeying all the rules of their workplace, Arizona law enforcement could be brought to a halt by suing every town force and county sheriff who misses any visible opportunity to enforce this law; sued by legal Hispanic residents, who would be well informed on the subject.

 

[Tiassa]

Reiterating the obvious

As to the racial profiling, the "profiling" is a term added by those hating the new law that was just passed. There is, in fact, no demand for profiling, only the synthesized fear that profiling "will" or "could" happen. How about we wait and see if it happens before we complain about as state that is finally doing something about disaster that is illegal immigration.

I think part of the problem people are having with the prospect of profiling is that the law's supporters can't seem to describe how else things are going to go. The governor, after signing the bill into law, admitted she didn't know what an illegal immigrant looked like. As I asked before, what constitutes actionable cause?

To reiterate:

In 2007, without such a law to support them, California authorities deported an American citizen. What was so disturbing about what our topic poster classified as a mere bureaucratic screw up is that, in that incident, ICE reminded that they "only processes persons for removal when all available credible evidence suggests the person is an alien". Indeed, ICE claimed that it "has no reason to believe that it improperly removed Pedro Guzman".

Except that he was an American citizen. Or, as I put it then, "In other words, no credible evidence at all is enough credible evidence to deport a man."

So what is reasonable cause for investigation? Looks hispanic, speaks Spanish? I mean, really, what? Will Arizona authorities be nearly so suspicious of British people who might be in the country illegally?

I think one of the things this law's supporters need to establish is that they recognize people's legitimate concerns about enforcement, and help people understand how those issues are addressed.​

Of course, there is also the possibility that this new law will be just as ineffective as any other, nothing more than a feelgood point for a bunch of racists to rally around. Or, as I suggested earlier:

What do people think, that the government will be able to find and deport more illegals? Just remember that those suspects get lawyers, and likely on the People's tab. So we should also remember that there is a possibility that nothing statistical will change for the better. It may end up that there are just as many illegals in Arizona, that just as few or many are being deported only to cross again next week, and that police, prosecutors, local public defenders, jail facilities, and courtrooms are spending a lot more resources, and perhaps even trembling under the weight, and with no better outcome.​

Look, in the past, being a U.S. citizen hasn't helped hispanics (e.g., Pedro Guzman), and being an illegal Brit hasn't helped law enforcement (e.g., Jonathan Rowan). So what, in any real terms, can we expect of this law? At best, the answer is, "Absolutely nothing." At worst? "Papers, please."

As to Arizona itself, the only thing I'll add to the pile of accusations against that state is one, simple word: Miranda.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I think part of the problem people are having with the prospect of profiling is that the law's supporters can't seem to describe how else things are going to go. The governor, after signing the bill into law, admitted she didn't know what an illegal immigrant looked like. As I asked before, what constitutes actionable cause?

That's the concern I see. Citizens can sue if the law isn't enforced, and the only time it would be is if the police have probable cause to suspect you are illegal? When does that happen? If you need to enforce the law to avoid getting sued, what criteria are the police going to use other than looking for the "Mexican looking" guys?

That said, I have been told that if you simply tell the officer that you are a citizen, they can't question you further on your status. If true, I am less concerned about enforcement, but more than curious about why Arizona would pass a law with that sort of loophole.