Slashdot Mirror
Arizona "Papers, Please" Law May Hit Tech Workers
dcblogs writes "H-1B workers and foreign students may think twice about attending school or working in Arizona as a result of the state's new immigration law. If a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' about the immigration status of someone, the officer may ask to see proof of legal status. Federal immigration law requires all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, to carry documentation, but 'no state until Arizona has made it a crime to not have that paperwork on your person,' said immigration lawyer Sarah Hawk. It means that an H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal). The potential tech backlash over the law may have begun yesterday with a call by San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera 'to adopt and implement a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses.'"
I think you are misunderstanding that presumption. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anyone can accuse you of any crime at any time. Being temporarily detained or arrested until get a trial, is NOT a presumption of guilt. You have the presumption of innocence in court becuase it is the prosecuting party that assumes the burden of proof for their accusation.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
While your point is valid...I think the bigger issue with enforcment is how it effects the citezenry. Warning (here comes a hypothetical): What if you are a citizen but speak accented english, or you prefer to speak another language. A cop suspects you are an immigrant and demands immigration papers. Does the cop detain you at that point? Do you need to carry papers to prove citizenship on demand? Does this lead to frequent detention? It just seems unreasonable and ambigous to enforce something like this without encroaching the rights of citizens.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
In the past this was true, but this law exists specifically to remove that stipulation. Please read the legislation. You may be stopped "upon reasonable suspicion that an entity is not legally allowed to live within the country".
Perhaps you're confusing this with with the evidence criteria provision. The law says that race may be a factor, but it may not only be an only factor. Of course this is laughable -- people will be stopped for race, and cops will find (or create) additional evidence after-the-fact.
It's telling that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes this law, as they believe it will erode trust with immigrants and distract police from more serious threats.
Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?
Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?
As usual, the media has portrayed this bill according to whatever political slant the news outlets see fit. In reality, the Arizona bill is not much different than the federal law on illegal immigration (which obviously just isn't enforced). In particular, more than a few pundits are trying to portray this law as giving law officers the power to go door-to-door in search of illegal aliens to bust. In actuality, there is no such powers, and officers may only ask for papers if there is an altercation. In that case, since officers usually ask to see ID's of any involved persons during any dispute on the street, nobody should have a problem with the Arizona law unless they're trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Clearly, the reason this law is getting so much negative attention is because it makes the President look bad to have states enact laws to enforce federal laws that aren't being enforced.
There are more points to the issue, though. The residents of Arizona overwhelmingly support it because the fact is (although many want to ignore this), illegal immigration is a big problem, economically and socially. As much as people like to avoid talking about this, a huge chunk of crime (especially violent crime) is caused by Spanish-speakers, many of whom are here illegally. I don't blame them! Or at least, I can see the problem they're in. Illegal immigration is akin to slavery, pure and simple. Humans deserve better, which is why this problem needs to be fixed. If nothing else, at least the Arizona law has made it an issue the federal government now wants to address.
The simplest thing we can do to fix this problem is to make it easier to immigrate here legally. Talking about amnesty or anything regarding what to do about illegals who are already here is like bailing water without stopping to fix the hole. If it's easy to immigrate here, more of those who would be illegals become tax-paying, fairly-payed citizens. Then we can work to help illegal aliens who are already here find their way to the back of the line. The longer we wait, the longer this modern form of slavery is going to continue.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
I find it strange that the article doesn't discuss the implications for normal U.S citizens, i.e how do you prove you are *not* a H-1B worker? You can't tell a citizen from a non-citizen if neither of them are carrying anything. Obviously no-one who merely arouses the suspicion of police wants to be detained, therefore this constitutes a defacto requirement for every citizen to carry papers.
The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
How is this a problem? By Law they are required to carry documentation with them, like a drivers license.
Because it's so easy to demagogue.
Any problem here is with the federal government, as enforcing immigration laws and taking reasonable measures to protect the country's borders is properly their job. As they have utterly failed to do this job, and their utter failure is causing many problems for certain state governments, one of those states is now trying to do something about it rather than ignoring it and continuing to have these problems.
My bet is that the Feds aren't doing jack shit about this because both political parties benefit from the current situation. Republicans are allied with some corporate interests who view the illegal aliens as low-cost workers, while for Democrats, the joke is "they're not illegal aliens, they're unregistered Democrats." Both stand to lose those benefits if states start dealing with this. Both are powerful political and monied interests. That's why this has to be portrayed as negatively as possible with the most highly emotional rhetoric available. Certainly no critical analysis of this rhetoric will be allowed in the news, though it may appear in some editorial programs.
Right now most of the problem of illegal aliens is coming from Mexico; at least in Arizona this is the case. Thus, these laws will mostly be applied to Mexicans who are here illegally or are here legally but failed to produce the paperwork. None of the people enforcing this law caused Mexicans to come here illegally. They are merely recognizing that this is happening and acting accordingly. Yet because Mexicans are a racial/ethnic group, and because the media eats this kind of shit for breakfast, this measure is being called "racist". It's pure bullshit.
If we had many illegal immigrants from England, Spain, Mexico, and Canada, yet the immigration laws were only enforced against the illegal immigrants who are Mexican, that would be an instance of racism or ethnic discrimination. That isn't the case. Right now the problem is coming from Mexico and illegal immigrants from elsewhere are more like statistical error by comparison. Again, some percentage of Mexican citizens are responsible for that, not anyone who wrote or plans to enforce Arizona's new law. You'll practically never see such a common-sense recognition in the media.
Really, people who think this is some horrible extreme law should take a hard look sometime at Mexico's immigration laws, or those of most other countries for that matter. There's an almost 100% chance that none of the highly emotional people screaming bloody murder about this have done so.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Driving While Black isn't a crime either, so I'm SURE minorities aren't subject to any extra traffic enforcement either... right?
The law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."
If it isn't based on skin color, what will it be based on? English competency? Off-brand tennis shoes? We already have Tom Tancredo calling for poll tests! Wow, next week it will be "separate but equal."
Getting arrested or detained does not make you guilty. You'll still have your day in court or clear things up at the station.Think of it like a beefed up curfew law for minors.
Getting detained doesn't make you guilty, but you could lose your job for not showing up at work.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.
But what about non-visitors? US citizens don't carry birth certificates or passports with them every day, nor are they required to. So how do they prove their citizenship when stopped? Would they just be detained until they can have someone bring their passport to the local jail? No one seems too concerned with that scenario because of the unspoken assumption that anyone who "looked" like a citizen wouldn't be stopped. And that's where the concerns of discrimination come into play. I'm sure the vast majority of people who support this law are confident they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because they are "obviously" American. Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
The problem is that we've made criminals a protected class in America for so long that they have more rights than legal citezens. IMHO, the rights of the Constituion should only apply to citizens. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore.
That's not the way it ever worked.
Criminals are not a protected 'class', and the constitution has never applied ONLY to citizens.
In fact, beyond the obvious loss of rights that happens to someone when they're incarcerated, the government doesn't suddenly have a legal reprieve to ignore the constitution. Think for example the 8th Amendment regarding "cruel and unusual punishment". How would that make any sense if all of a sudden the constitution ceased to apply once you've been convicted. Could you then be punished "cruelly and unusually"?
At the time that the US Constitution was written, there was no universal requirement of citizenship. In fact the word citizen wasn't even mentioned in the constitution until the 14th Amendment was added nearly 100 years later.
The US Constitution is probably one of the most noble documents ever written. And the denial of rights, or the selective application of its laws, is anathema to the entire purpose of its text.
You must not know a lot of cops. What you are saying is technically true, but if someone who appears to be Hispanic, and they swerve ever so slightly in their lane, the cops can and often will stop them for that minor infraction, so that they can check their status. The cops I know in Georgia don't do this for immigration purposes, but if you drink a few beers with them, they'll admit to stopping Hispanics because they have a higher likelihood of carrying drugs.
Laws like this are meant to give the police HUGE latitude in stopping someone. They are also targeting a group that doesn't have the wherewithal to hire a good lawyer to invalidate the original stop.
An important change for education.
Question: Where did these illegal immigrants get money for stuff like food and clothing?
Are they ALL thieves, drug dealers and such? Or do they possibly work (illegally) in the country? Why aren't anyone punishing the employers who are enabling these illegal immigrants? Why aren't you throwing them in prison for violating the law? Conspiracy to break the law at the very least. Aiding and abetting a criminal.
Change these charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Throw the responsible parties in jail (including the illegal immigrants), from foremen to CEOs, single citizen hiring maids, gardeners, nannies etc.
It's supply and demand at work. There's a demand for illegal immigrant workers, because they're cheaper. No need for insurance, lower salaries all round - they aren't going to be paying tax, so you can cut that away from their salary, you can press their salary even more, because they won't complain about working 12-16 hours a day, because that can get them deported etc. And since there's a demand for these workers, and a natural amount of replacement due to deportation, there will be a massive supply of these illegal immigrant workers.
What is the punishment for hiring illegal immigrant workers at the moment? Is there any kind of punishment at all? As long as it is not only cheaper to hire them, but still cheaper even when you get caught red handed hiring them. Essentially you have a law stating that it is illegal for radioactive waste being stored in kindergartens, but you're just moving the waste and not giving a rats ass about who put it there in the first place. No wonder you have a problem.