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H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal).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.'"
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?
No worries, they would only would only stop people if they have "reasonable" suspicion. As long as you make sure you appear reasonably white you'll be fine.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-26-2010/law---border
En libertad, como los pajarillos.
En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?
Wie sagt man, ihre papiere bitte!
Coming to a municipality near you. Welcome to 2010. Age of the guilty until proven innocent, malicious until proven benign, privatized profits, socialized losses. And more ridiculous, pointless, noneducational, and downright fucktarded news stories perpetuating the mass media every day. Hatemongering, blatant flaming with red this blue that labels, and social backtracking. Man I can't wait for the future! What wonderful things will the world bring us next!
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Federal immigration law requires that 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,'
So it already was a crime.
The real news is a state is now making an effort to enforce the law, since the executive branch of the federal government has quite clearly failed to fulfill their constitutional duties on the matter, in regards to enforcing the US borders.
People should read the law first. They should not turn someone's hit seeking web article into anything important. Arizona resident's have very legitimate concern about the criminal activities of organized crime in Mexico.
This is not a new story: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1
If you do not like the law, change it... do not disobey it.
I do not think that Indian, Russian, Chinese, etc engineers are really at risk of having their civil rights violated.
US citizens can also be stopped and asked for their papers too, and can be arrested, and held until they can prove their citizenship.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
I know the 4th amendment applies to US citizens, but does it apply to foreigners?
And how do you tell americans from foreigners?
Cause it's not against the law to not carry ID if say, your a mexian born american, but the cops won't know where your born at.
And considering "profiling" is illegal from what i understand, how can they actually enforce this law?
I don't live in AZ, but I'm not going to carry my ID around much anymore just in protest of stupid ass laws like this.
Be seeing you...
When you are visiting a foreign country, you always need to have some paperwork showing you status. That applies to every country that I've visited except, perhaps Canada. While in Canada, I don't really feel like I'm in a foreign country, so perhaps it is because there isn't a language barrier that I feel comfortable. I dunno.
In all the other countries (Europe, Japan, China, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico), I've been told to carry my passport with the VISA inside. Usually, I leave the passport in the apartment or hotel safe and carry a photocopy of it and the VISA I'm traveling under. In most of those countries, my appearance and dress target me as a foreigner, so it is very easy to pick me out.
Ok, so you are a non-permanent resident in the USA. Why wouldn't you carry "your papers with you?" Seriously?
I fully support Arizona in this experiment. I suspect the reason they have done this is because, unlike other border states like Texas and New Mexico( all three of which showed incredible job growth pre-2009), Arizona now has the county with the highest percentage job loss in the country. I am sure scaring foreign visitors to Texas and New Mexico, instead of Arizona, to shop at the stores, pay sales tax, eat at the restaurants, and even take helicopter rides from the airport to our shopping malls, will help their economy greatly. The kids may even go to university and settle down to engineering jobs that pay huge amounts of payroll and income tax. So far, at least in Texas, it has worked well.
But that is fine. If Arizona thinks that foreign money has negative value due to documentation or the blight of having people looking for work instead of playing video games or skin color(arizona is the only of the three states that is majority white non-hispanic) or whatever, so be it. We will see if they can achieve economic growth in an isolationist environment. Given that they have one of the highest federal support rate in the country, I doubt it.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
This law so clearly violates the fourth amendment that it will never hold up when the inevitable challenge comes in the courts. Some have predicted it will go all the way to the SCOTUS but I don't see it getting nearly so far.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Are you sure?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
When I visit Canada, China, etc. If I don't have my passport with me, and an official requires it of me I could be detained and eventually handed off to my government to get new papers or explain to them where my papers are located.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
(On the other hand, I don't have anything I really need from Arizona).
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
It is going to be tied up in the courts for years. Even if it passes every legal challenge, it doesn't change much really. Officers or the courts will check with the government databases before people are penalised, so forgetting one's papers when they run to the 7-11 won't affect much.
Depending on location (it is not legal everywhere), citizens need to produce I.D. when asked by an officer.
As for individuals being harassed by the cops, the cops can do that currently.
Also, AZ (and the rest of the US) have people from all over. People who try to blend in will be fine and will blend in. Those that try to stand out will get harassed, just like always.
20 characters max for the password? How will I use my favorite poems as passwords?
And I live in a pretty laid-back country, too (Finland). Arizona is just trying to enforce the existing law. That is not a tragedy. It's a tragedy if it's done inconsistently.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I live in San Francisco, and trust me, no one listens to the city council.....
I'm not sure why everyone's panties are getting bunched up. As the header states, Federal law already requires you to carry your visa around with you. People on H1B, tourist, and educational visas shouldn't have problems.
The issue will really hit illegals and US citizens. Citizens generally don't carry documentation around with them. Illegals generally have no documentation, or fake documentation. There's really no way to tell a non-english speaking citizen from a non-english speaking illegal. What'll probably happen is something like this:
Police: are you a US citizen?
Potential perp: si
Police: well then.
In general, the police have better things to do than walk around randomly asking people for their papers. The law really just allows them to export illegal immigrant criminals to other jurisdictions, saving the state of AZ money.
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.
Japan does this already; people are required to carry their foreigner ID cards or passports while they're in the country. Failure to be able to present them can lead to a visit to the police station or jail. Some areas have lots of people who report being checked for absolutely no apparent reason at all; foreigners in other areas have never experienced this.
Honestly, it doesn't bother me. For me, having my wallet or ID with me when I go out is just common sense... not some kind of panty-twisting injustice that I have to carry like a ball-and-chain. It's just common sense.
So I don't see what the big deal is. Now, on the other hand, if people are just stopped randomly on the basis of their appearance and not because of anything in particular they were doing, then yes, that would bother me. That bothers me in Japan, too. But having to carry an ID? Not a big deal -- you should be doing it already.
http://www.tenjou.net/
Agreed. Arizona is just looking out for their own good. The amount of drugs and violence brought over by illegals is astounding. It has nothing to do with race/ethnicity/etc, it's just defending communities.
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
The sad fact is that the "but" after that phrase is a necessary evil. The federal government has been unbelievably lax in regards to immigration law. If the feds would enforce their own laws this whole thing would be unneeded.
Citizens generally don't carry documentation around with them
I, and pretty much anyone i know, carry my drivers license around all the time. Since in Arizona that's proof of citizenship, this law will effect only people without drivers licenses or other valid forms of ID.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Most H1-B holders don't look like Hispanics...
This law is de facto targeted at a very specific minority group. There's no getting around it. Even if other groups could theoretically be targeted by it, that's not going to happen as long as the AZ police have Hispanics to round up.
That is all.
Actually the federal law does not make it a felony not to carry documentation all the time. Its not possible to carry documentation all the time. Its not just one document you know. For people with greencards, maybe but not others. There are plenty of ways you can prove that you are here legally without carrying 2 to 3 different pieces(Passport, I-797 or I-20, I-94) of document that are required to prove that you are legal. Lose those documents you have to wait 2-3 monts and spend $$$s trying to get duplicates. You cannot get driver's license in any state without proving to DMV that you are here illegally. Also, are the local LEOs going to check with federal databases if the paperwork that someone gives them is authentic or not? I understand why this law was enacted but its impractical to work the way its supposed to.
As a legal immigrant, I have spent years on F-1 and H-1B and more years just waiting on my greencard, I don't mind that I have to prove that I am here legally when needed but to ask me carry documentation all the time is at best debasing. Also, there are more people legally than illegally. What baffles me is why the businesses that employ illegals are dealt with stronger?
Will get off my soap box now.
I think Shepard Smith coined the abbreviation Breathing While Latino.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
How about people just comply with existing immigration law so the states don't have to pass laws specifically aimed at enforcement? Oh wait, it is racist to expect Mexicans to comply with US Federal law. My bad.
while walking around the streets when visiting Ecuador. I did not have my passport on me (a legal requirement), but my girlfriend had hers. The solution that Ecuador's finest came up with was to propose that they detain my girlfriend while I went back to the hotel alone to fetch my passport. Thankfully one of them saw what an idiotic suggestion that was and talked his colleagues out of it.
Nullius in verba
Survery Says? Because they are ~90% white
Legal immigrants will have papers - Federal immigration rules requires them to carry them anyway.
Illegal immigrants are breaking the law in the first place, and yes this makes them being discovered more likely, but they should be worried already.
Citizens on the other hand are not required to carry proof of citizenship and are not already breaking the law. They are the ones who are going to be impacted most (well if they look mexican...)
All the brown skinned citizens should just not carry anything that identifies them as a citizen. I'm sure lots of lawyers will be willing to help them sue whenever they get arrested for not carrying their birth certificate/passport.
Gee, I wonder why this isn't such and important issue for them...
They could ask you why illegal immigration isn't an issue for you
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Laughably, the same a**hole seemed to have more than one mod point - you got a "flamebait" downmod too...
Whoever is running amok with points to spare (probably fregare's twin brother), go ahead, keep moderating like the idiot you are, you're doing a heck of a job!
The bill doesn't require citizens to carry documents, it can't, that'd be illegal. So you have the problem that more or less you'd have to take someone at their word. Now while you may argue that smart enforcement of it could be useful, that isn't what will happen. What will happen is Arizona is going to get on the losing end of a federal civil rights lawsuit:
A racist cop (because there are some police that are racists, just like any other segment of the population) is going to decide that someone is brown enough that they must be an immigrant and has done something allegedly suspicious demand their papers. Said person, who is a citizen, will tell them to fuck off. They arrest him. Turns out, like many people, he doesn't have ready access to documents to prove his citizenship so he's held in jail for some time. Citizenship is established, he goes free. He files suit against Arizona for violating his rights, since citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Arizona loses money they really do not have.
That is a real problem here.
I mean, I'm all for immigration, study abroad etc, but, if I'm required to carry identification, as a US citizen, so should people from elsewhere be required to carry papers proving legal status to be here. The article mentions that the immigrantion office could be behind, and there should be provisions for that, but NOT HAVING PROOF of legal right to be here should be charged as a crime the same as me not carrying ID. There is a different matter for not being willing to PRESENT ID, but not having what you need to prove you can be in a country should be a no-brainer.
I read this law last Friday.
It is astonishing in its scope of stupidity.
Ignoring the civil rights issues which have been fully explained above, here are a couple of points not covered, because they are just truly bizarre:
It criminalizes bus drivers, cabbies, limo drivers, etc that do not make a "reasonable" attempt at determining passenger identity. All because it's intended to make it criminal to pick up a bunch of day workers with a truck. The law is so overbroad that if it was enacted in an urban area, it would cause chaos.
It also makes everyone guilty of a double misdemeanor by *also* charging them with Trespassing while being undocumented. This... this is just being spiteful.
The whole "papers please" bit is odious to actual citizens. I can't wait for the first Puerto Rican abused by this law.
It leaves "reasonable suspicion" and "careless disregard" completely undefined.
It makes local law enforcement do ICE's job when they'd rather be solving actual crimes. They would also like to be able to interview witnesses to real crime. But now that's all gone because someone's grandma is going to be deported to Mexico if a witness to a crime approaches police. No illegal immigrant is ever going to report a crime now.
The Sheriff's Departments are already strapped for cash. Now where are we going to put all the *other* illegal immigrants that committed no crime but one of status? Hey, let's build new prisons! Yay!
All of this is unfunded. There is no allocation with this law. Nothing to help with staffing and hiring more bodies to do this work.
Arizonans don't want to pay for the above. Well, guess what, you will. You will pay through the nose.
People have told me that this law is because the Federal Government has not followed through with reimbursing local law enforcement, and that ICE and the DEA and the rest of the feds are not doing their jobs. Well, this law doesn't do anything to solve that problem does it?
If the Feds have been sleeping while on watch, where is John McCain's legislation to fix this? Eh? *crickets.wav*
This law is a load of shit.
Please, keep this out of the rest of the US. Thanks.
--
BMO
As a resident of Japan, I officially have to carry around my foreigner's registration card at all times. Also, just as will happen in Arizona, a police officer may attempt to check my papers, but is legally restricted from doing so unless he has probable cause. Many foreigners get harassed this way, anyway. Rumor has it that you can turn it around on the officer and ask for his ID, which will usually get them to back down. Again, the same rules should apply in the states.
Quid pro quo, as a blonde, white man I'm usually left alone, because it's assumed that I belong to the right group of foreigners. A black friend of mine, also an American, has been stopped once or twice a year for six years. Where Japanese have a hard time is when they discriminate against other Asian ethnicities, since they look like everyone else. That's where Arizona may run into difficulties as well, since they have a large population of Hispanic Americans.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
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.
The US government already requires green card holders to have their green card on them - or at least it did 6 years ago when I was living there. There was even some relatively large fine if an official asked for it and you are unable to immediately produce it. Of course in practice you are never asked for it except at the airport but it meant that I had to carry it with me wherever I went "just in case".
The problem with this law is that I imagine that many US citizens will end up being hassled by police. It is easy for immigrants to prove that they are legal by showing their papers but unless US citizens start carrying passports or birth certificates how can they prove that they are NOT immigrants?
The most amusing is that the federal government have been running immigration status checkpoints inside the US for years, and nobody knows and/or cares about it.
Witness: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.ars
Or am I missing something about this new law that's substantially worse?
I lived in Flagstaff for 2 years. Most of my Navajo friends spoke english as well or better than my non-native friends.
While I have no problem with the Arizona law that simply makes it illegal to do what you are already 'required' to do, it doesn't solve the problem. The problem isn't that we can't find the criminals, but that we don't do anything when we do find them.
I live in TN and here there are several instances of people being killed by illegal aliens who have been arrested and released time and time again. We catch them for crimes for which we would put citezens in jail, but when we discover that they are illegals we release them for political pressure. Don't think that they don't know this and take advantage of it.
Also, let me ask a few questions. For those of you who say that we should just open our borders to anybody or that it is somehow immoral to dictate who can come into your property, would you say the same of your house? How many vagabonds have you invited to live in your home? Would you offer a burglar the status of family member because he broke in? That is your property, so how is it any different for a state? If you practice what you preach, that's fine. Post your address and I might consider moving in. It would sure beat paying rent. Also, will you pay my medical expenses too?
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
Leaving your homosexual intentions behind, this law will be found legal under the 10th amendment. The AZ law carefully mirrors federal law, it does not call for the round-ups you liberal national socialists dream about.
There is no way to enforce this law without harassing American citizens and legal residents. If a cop thinks you might be Mexican (or Canadian, or German, etc) you will be asked to produce your proof of citizenship, green card, etc. And, no, your driver's license is not proof of citizenship. If YOU (an American citizen) go out for smoothie and forget to take your notarized birth certificate and social security card, you can be locked up while they process your status.
Don't believe that can happen? It happens already... the only difference is now this new law REQUIRES the police to do it and encourages citizens to sue the police if they don't. It is going to be a godawful mess and will probably bankrupt some rural municipalities. If they try to uphold the law they will be sued by improperly detained citizens. If they fail to uphold it they will be sued by other citizens who still see too many durn Mexicans walking around. Its a no-win situation for the police (and any too tan citizen).
This is a big deal, and if you think it is not, I'll leave you with this final point: A major consulting client based in Texas just told me they are canceling their expansion into Arizona. The owner of the company is 3rd generation Hispanic American and about a third of his work force are either Hispanic, Indian, or Asian. Whether or not enforcement of this law becomes the debacle many of us suspect, the expectation of harassment is enough to cause major economic damage to the state.
There is a much better way to handle the problem of illegal immigration: Crack down on the business that hire undocumented workers. Have real enforcement with real financial penalties for the businesses that don't follow the rules (not the token effort and paltry wrist slap fines we have now). Without job opportunities, you remove the incentive for illegals to even enter in the first place.
The Bolachek Journals
Just compile a DNA database of all US citizens. As an extra bonus, it will shortly end up in the hands of homeland security, the CIA, marketers, "health" "insurance" companies, and Nazis.
I always have embassy certified paper copies of several ID-papers with me.
It is stored together with critical phone numbers and other information that might be handy.
Me, my wife, and our biological child are born on three different continents. We currently live in a very different part of the world than the birth place of any of us.
Travellers tip: Shit happens. Be ready.
around the same time ICE stripped Maricopa counties sheriff of his authority to arrest illegal immigrants (only ICE has this authority under federal law) due to his questionable human/civil rights practices. So everyone who keeps pointing out that it was already existing federal law is neglecting that he was essentially deputized by ICE to make immigration arrests and that this law was not necessary *until* he started violating other laws and ICE said 'okay no more' when DOJ et al started investigating him, MCSO and the county attorney's office (indictments are expected for all of the above) for ... (wait for it) violating civil rights while enforcing immigration standards (well the investigation is more encompassing than that-- it also includes things like using police resources to essentially wage war on anyone who disagreed with him/political rivals). Only *then* did the law become necessary, because he couldn't continue doing what the federal government already said was illegal for him to do.
Plus the way the law is written, it legitimizes his practices of racial profiling and such. Yes I am aware the law says it cannot be the *only* factor. However anyone that makes this point has never dealt with MCSO or the overall corrupt government in that state.
Source required. Never mind, you're just trolling. Even us uneducated Canadians can figure that much out.
Om, nomnomnom...
because federal law already stated people under immigration law were already qrequired to have their papers. Don't blame Arizona for federal law.
And I live in a pretty laid-back country, too (Finland). Arizona is just trying to enforce the existing law.
For some reason the USA, alone in the world, is not allowed to have borders or exert any control with immigration like everyone else. I've looked very seriously into retiring overseas and, holy shit, some of the hoops you have to jump through even if you have money and skills on the particular country's most wanted list are amazing.
The stupid thing is Arizona has been doing this for three years with no problems. The law just formalized it. The ruckus is made by people who live in little reality distortion bubbles and sit around in ideological echo chambers their entire lives. The law's passage and its farcical coverage by our piss poor, controversy fabricating, yellow news media raised it's profile past the threshold of awareness for the armies of idiots.
Also, this is Slashdot where a small legion of tech geeks likes to pretend they are the rag tag rebels fighting the tyranny and the fascism they imagine infests their lazy, pampered and privileged Western existences.
Sadly this is the level of public discourse in the USA. The allusions to Nazis or Soviet Russia come spewing out of the marching morons like projectile diarrhea at a salmonella festival. I guarantee anyone making such a comparison had not read the (easily accessed online) law. And it's not just babbling rhetoric. Many really, honestly do think Arizona has suddenly transformed into Nazi Germany. That's *really* the image they have in their ossified minds. And even if you prove otherwise, they will become *defiant* and even *proud* in their beliefs.
The USA has become the Bizarro world, a parallel universe where every day it Opposite Day. We no longer have to wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes because we *are* the rabbit hole. We're a nation of Mad Hatters celebrating the un-birthdays while the truth sits in a dusty corner, withering away.
So how are things in Finland? Not sure I'd like the weather, but I'm open to many things to get the hell out of this kingdom of eternal idiots. Seriously, this place is fricking doomed.
Agreed. Arizona is just looking out for their own good. The amount of drugs and violence brought over by illegals is astounding. It has nothing to do with race/ethnicity/etc, it's just defending communities.
Why is it unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of race and gender, but it's perfectly fine to make the exact same arguments on the basis of national origin? If you said "The amount of drugs and violence spread by black people is astounding, so defending our white communities is just common sense", you'd be making a racist statement. But so long as we're discriminating on the basis of geography and not skin color, it's all supposed to be fine? I don't get it.
Nearly 80% of the Arizona population fully supports the bill so all the crying in the world is not likely to stop it.
In fact just 5 days ago a local phoenix grocery chain got busted for employing nearly 300 illegal workers. The very next day hundreds upon hundreds of legal american workers showed up to apply for those now vacant positions. I guess that just proves the nobody wants those jobs theory all wrong.
What happens if I step foot in Mexico? Thats right if someone asks me for my passport I had damn well better be able to produce it.
The truth is the law is gonna work and I am sure the fed govt is running scared about it for that very reason. When the unemployment rate drops like a rock the other states will follow suit extremely fast.
This is not a political blog. Please keep these topics (medical, political, etc) off the frontpage. If it's on the frontpage news, we don't need it repeated here.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power... To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"
(The rest of the items in this section are pretty clearly exclusive rights of the Federal government, such as "borrow money on the credit of the United States;")
As immigration laws are part of the naturalization process the States are most likely explicitly barred from enforcing immigration.
As for "liberal national socialist"... the National socialists were conservatives...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Martin Luther King might have suggested having every citizen of color in Arizona go to their local police station without their papers. If the police had to process two hundred thousand people who otherwise can easily prove citizenship AND the courts had to give them their due court time, it would clog the system for decades and cost the state a fortune.
Wrong.
You only need to do that if you're crossing a border. That's probably why they tell you to carry it in Europe. It's easy to cross a border, even in western Europe and not know it.
I've travelled extensively around Asia. I have never been required to constantly carry my passport or Visa papers around with me. In fact, any experienced traveller, including myself will tell you DO NOT carry your passport around with you when you don't need it. Keep it locked in your hotel safe, if you have it with you 24/7 it is likely to get stolen and you passport is your lifeline, you need it to get home, you need it to get money from a bank or Western Union, if you lose it you're screwed and it will cost a mint to get a new one from your embassy.
Personally I can confirm that:
Thailand
Cambodia
Vietnam
Laos
China
Malaysia
Singapore
and the Philippines
to be non-"papers please" nations.
It is your responsibility to have a visa and produce it when needed, it is not a good idea to have it on you at all times as the police will quite happily issue you with a fine (invalidated when you produce the paperwork) or take you to your hotel room to get it. In most nations the regular police do not handle immigration issues, the immigration service does this and issues fines or arrest warrants for over-stayers.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
See?
MSNBC: ‘Law makes it a crime to be illegal immigrant’
Best headline ever!
The two suspect categories, subject to strict scrutiny, are race and religion, not race and sex. Sexual discrimination is only subject to heightened scrutiny.
Gender (masculine/feminine)is somewhat different than Sex (Male/Female). As long as the gender discrimination does not amount to sex discrimination, it's subject to only minimal scrutiny.
While a person cannot change their national origin, they can choose to change their citizenship. The same cannot be said of race.
If I were in another country illegally, I think having my ID checked and getting tossed out on my ass would be the best I could hope for.
What the hell is it people don't get about "Illegal Immigrants"??? The word "Illegal" is right there for christsakes!!!
I think it's pretty damn pathetic that my friends that own a house here, and follow the letter of the law in their travels to and from the US, are treated like criminals every time they land, but people are beating their chests over people that are f'ing CRIMINALS!!!
If I break the law, I get punished.. If a person is here illegally, breaking the law, people want to throw them a damn parade.
My great grandparents on both sides of my family came over right before and right after WW I, LEGALLY... The obeyed the law, they learned English. They got steady work and paid taxes.. Why should people too crooked to do the same get any special treatment? Hell, why should they get to take any shortcuts when there are many that are here legally? What example will we be setting? What precedent will we be setting???
I think it's past time for me to hop on my sailboat and leave, and flip the bird as I go.. The US is beyond help if the majority of people are too stupid to get how f'd up this debate is.
In order to be a nation every nation must control its borders. In the case of the US it is more than blatantly obvious that the majority of people in Mexico, Central and South America as well as numerous nations far away all would like to immigrate to the US. If we do not lock down our borders we risk being totally over run with immigrants. Pakistan and India alone would destroy us if we did not keep control of immigration.
I don't think it is a big deal at all for people to carry a wallet with either a driver's license or state ID which enables law enforcement to easily verify their status. And raiding businesses that hire illegal immigrants should result in the seizure of the businesses. If law enforcement does its job we will have no illegal immigrants at all in America.
So suppose someone is an "illegal" foreigner. Suppose this someone has a job at a respectable software company, pays the rent on time... and helps the landlady take out her garbage. If only the tax department let them, they'd gladly pay tax too. So what's the *real* problem about being an illegal foreigner? Is it really just xenophobia?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
As immigration laws are part of the naturalization process the States are most likely explicitly barred from enforcing immigration.
You seem to be confusing law enforcement with lawmaking.
Am I missing something? Did Arizona's legislature not pass a law?
Hey, if congress wants to pass a law permitting states to enforce immigration, that is their constitutional right.
However, a state legislature cannot pass a law permitting them to enforce immigration.
(Or so goes my argument, this is not "the truth", we need the courts to settle it for sure.)
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Kudos to Arizona for having the backbone to stand up in this foolhardy clime we live in and fight for what is right. We have been overran with illegal immigration. Our politicians have lacked the character and backbone to enforce the laws of the land. It's reached critical mass at last; we are about to explode. Globalization is a concept fed to the foolish to excuse corporate imperialism about the globe. This sick, fallacy riddled logic has found foothold in our education system where it thrives and propagates. It doesn't help that the US has accelerated backwards in the realm of education, in fact it's entire attitude towards education has become mocking. With such slack standards, its no wonder it has fostered forth the mindsets that rail against the sound logic of Arizona's new laws.
Behold now the hysterical rhetoric that will spew forth about this situation. We must wake up to the facts of our present day condition. We can't let a masochistic mindset that "we are the evil white people, we should bow our heads in guilt" cloud our reasoning. The border situation is wildly out of control, and by the time its consequences reached the high ivory towers where those who reside scorn Arizona, and rattle them from their delusions with bone jarring abruptness and clarity, it will be far too late. We must face the simple facts of the matter; we must fight even ourselves in these matters to save ourselves. We are at a crossroads, if we don't face the hard fight now, the campaign to our salvation will never be won. Too much ground has been lost, the wrong people have had ample time to gain power and traction. We see even here, on /., the fragments of a war of mindsets.
It is time to make a stand, to call fools out for what they are, and enforce the rule of law.
Take the Red Pill.
For states that are not on the border, immigration may not seem like it's a bad problem
It's pretty sad when even people who oppose illegal migration fall into this trap.
Immigration is not a problem; immigrants pay, are productive members of society, and get deported if they break any laws.
The problem is illegal migration. Illegal migration is not immigration. Stop confusing the two.
Source required. Never mind, you're just trolling. Even us uneducated Canadians can figure that much out.
You know, you could Google it before you accuse someone of trolling. The true number is ~80%, and so the GP's point - that Tea Party supporters will mostly not be impacted by this law, because they are overwhelmingly white - is a reasonable one. Gallup poll here...
And if you are a us citizen what do they do? Do they ask you to prove it? Do they demand to see ID for no crime?
I fear the Y2038 bug
As usual people on the left who don't know anything about the Constitution assume it says things it doesn't say. The law is constitutional - it doesn't give Arizona authorities any powers federal police don't already have.
The local economy would collapse. There's this myth that illegal immigrants loot the welfare system, but the truth is that they're here to work, and we couldn't afford to do without them.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
> They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status.
Wrong. We have a stop & identify statute. They can use that to check on anyone they want.
See also: the sweeps that are performed whenever our sheriff is up for reelection.
> Alright, so if you're a US citizen who believes the police may have reason to suspect you're in the country illegally, you have a few options to avoid any issues. First and foremost, a driver's license works wonders.
Yeah, a driver's license sure did this guy a lot of good.
And you think that you're saying that US citizens are never affected? Or that dumping thousands more people onto a broken system is a good idea (rather than going after the violent ones or, God forbid, funding the system so that it can actually process things at a reasonable rate)?
I don't think that the police are Gestapo by any means. As a matter of fact, all the policemen I've met were fundamentally decent. But I hate to see so many people outraged over illegal immigrants so much that they support a bad law that will lead to so much trouble for US citizens and other people here legally.
There simply is nothing other than race and speech (AKA racial profiling) that can give you a "reasonable suspicion" that people are here illegally, but many citizens and legal immigrants look and sound the same as your stereotypical illegal immigrant. Combined with our long history of conducting immigration sweeps, in which large numbers of people are detained, it becomes both suspect and Constitutionally troubling (why aren't people defending our 4th Amendment rights as much as our 2nd Amendment rights?). We also have a long history of losing civil rights lawsuits (which costs our states millions... but they'd rather press on and force us to chose between tax increases and education cuts than admit that the policies we have are bad).
But yeah, never mind that your points are undermined by things that have actually happened. The politicians scapegoat all of our problems on immigration. It makes it so much easier than them actually having to fix things. I've watched people scapegoat immigrants for all sorts of problems, even troubles I've had at work. It didn't go over very well when I pointed out that I knew who was responsible for those problems and that they were both US citizens and white. We don't even employ any non-citizens and the only one we used to was an H1-B from the UK who left due to unreasonable delays in processing his application for permanent residency (and who we haven't been able to adequately replace).
And, yes, if you don't carry any identity documents, the police can't find you in databases, and nobody on the outside can help you, you are fucked; do you want lack of documentation to be a get-out-of-jail-free card?
When would lack of documentation get you out of jail free? If there is evidence you of a crime you can still go to jail even if you refuse to identify yourself.
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 since 80% of us have never held a passport, things get really interesting really fast. Birth certificates are often time consuming to get (mine took several weeks from when it was ordered to when it arrived), and don't exactly offer photographic proof that you are the person on the certificate (how could they: you were a baby at the time and probably look very different now...though in the case Rush Limbaugh, maybe not).
This will be a nightmare for anyone, citizen or not, who the cops don't like. It may start with racists going after those of hispanic origin, or those with foreign sounding accents (like, say, someone from Bostin in Montana the locals think sounds English, Irish, Scottish, or Welsch cuz, don't ya know, no 'Mericans talk like that), but eventually it could be any of us. After all, what's to say your lilly white, perfect American accented self isn't Canadian? Papers please! (Except this is America, so we'll just drop the 'please' part).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Bostin=Boston. God, I really should check for typos before hitting submit.
Welsch=Welsh, except in Germany. Probably a dozen or so others I've missed...alas.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This law is work for word the same as a federal law that has been on the books forever.
He's not discriminating on the basis of national origin.
The amount of drugs and violence brought over by illegals is astounding.
He's "discriminating" on the basis of the legal status of a person's immigration. Which is fine. Not "supposed to be fine." Is fine.
IF employers start getting perp walked. I've seen first hand the fraud and abuse in the H1-B process, and there are two victims here: The H1-B worker, who is almost always abused and is usually never paid what the employer is claiming to the government that they are, and American IT workers, who have to compete with unfair competition in the form of what amounts to indentured servitude, a form of slave labor.
Corporatism != Free Market
These are people who have identification on them but not a birth certificate complete with official state seal. Who walks around with a birth certificate 24x7? Do you?
Camping on quad since 1996.
OTH, I am guessing that Az will work towards a new and fairer law. Basically, change this law to:
Personally, I hope that they will change that to exclude all those under 18 (i.e. schools, medical care for children). Ideally, they would also allow exceptions for children that were brought there by parents (easily proven by school records) and are now adults. But, I doubt it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hey hey hey - No spouting off 'FACTS' in the middle of the 'OMG it's Unconstitutional!' hysteria by people who don't know diddly about the Constitution or the way it works in every other Nation on the planet.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Living in AZ the talk is now how to keep it constitutional. My assumption is to be constitutional the extent will be as simple as to be able to respond in English "US Citizen" barring some other indication of a crime, they should be done. This is how it has always worked for me going through the Federal immigration checkpoints spread through the State today.
So this really isn't anything completely new to Southern AZ citizens today (but that doesn't make OK.) Today, without this law, if you look foreign, and you are traveling without documentation, your risking a very long day (or more) with INS. This Law (IMHO) only increases the scope of the existing problem, not only can Border patrol grab you and lock you up forever (unchanged by the law) Now Arizona police can also do the same (Although not forever, they would eventually have to turn you over to Feds.)
Although not having the law never slowed down Sheriff Joe Arpio. He was quoted before this law was in consideration, as saying something along the lines of "if they look illegal, well find some reason to detain them" (Again, just because we have hick sheriffs already behaving badly, doesn't mean we need a law encouraging saying the were right.)
When rich white folk start having to pay real money to legal citizens for what they deem "menial" jobs, that law is going to vanish with great rapidity. I'm not saying that I'm happy with that dynamic but there's not a whole lot I can do about it from here.
A passport accomplishes the same thing as a birth certificate. When I traveled overseas I had my passport on me at all times.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
After all, Arbeit macht Frei.
Unless your an undocumented alien in AZ...then Arbeit (work) lands your ass in jail.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
How about a US born citizen who is of Mexican descent. They do not have a green card to carry with them. If they don't drive and haven't been abroad they don't have a drivers license or passport. As a US citizem why should they need to carry any identification - just because they "look" like a Mexican.
I have a drivers license that says I'm a US citizen. I can also produce a birth certificate. I have produced both in the past to gain employment. I also carry a military ID card. When in other countries I always carry a passport. I have never complained about providing evidence of citizenship. Go cry elsewhere. It is a federal crime to be here illegally, the only thing different is in Arizona its a state crime too. It still a crime!
I had to carry my Alien registration card and visa with me at all times when I was living in Japan. It wasn't that big of a deal - kind of like carrying around your drivers license and insurance if you're a driver. I don't know anyone who doesn't carry around important documentation with them at all times anyway. The only real problem I have with this is the assumption that being born on a certain piece of land entitles you to rights, health care, etc that a person born across the border has no access to. Obviously this is an extremely complicated issue, but it just never seemed very fair in any way a person could look at it.
From the excerpt above:
So, exisiting law, being enforced - Oh, those haters in AZ!
What is the penalty for failure to produce my driver's license on that same "7-11 run"? How about if I forget my car insurance paperwork? Registration?
Requiring paperwork is nothing extra-ordinary, and if I understand the first excerpt above, when foreign nationals choose to come to America and work/live here under H-1B, Student, and other visas, they agreed to carry their paperwork with them - it was a condition on the offer to come her, in effect.
Is the argument that existing laws can not be enforced, or is it that AZ is the wrong entity to enforce these laws? If the Federal Government won't enforce their own existing laws, and (apparently) has no interest in changing the existing laws, then who will? Remember, AZ is mirroring existing federal law, if the federal law were changed, AZ would be forced to change it's laws.
Ken
Create an opt-in state registry whereby legal non-citizen residents can "prove" their legal status and map that status to a more common form of identification (e.g. driver's license). If they're stopped by police they show this *common* form of identification, which the officer can then look up in the registry to verify legal status.
I repeatedly see people discussing the costs illegal immigrant incur on society, particularly since they typically don't have car insurance or medical insurance. What I don't see is a discussion of the demand driving them to be here:
1. Employers, who are US citizens, seek them out because they are cheap labor and can be abused without repercussions, since they are afraid to report the abuse to authorities.
2. Consumers, who are US citizens, choose to purchase the goods and services created by their labor, because they are cheaper than the competing products.
Did you buy a newly built home in the last 10 years? Did you visit the construction site? Can you honestly say you were not aware that many of the day laborers working on the site where probably illegal? Did you do anything about it?
Have you bought berries on sale at the grocery store brought in from California? Can you honestly say you weren't aware that they were probably picked by illegal immigrants?
If we really want to quell the flow of illegal immigrants across the border, we need to address the demand for their services. Take an active role in NOT buying goods and services provided by them, and the demand will go down. Yes, its going to cost you money. Lots of money. That's the reality - we will all pay more for the goods and services currently provided by illegal immigrants if they are instead provided by legal immigrants and US citizens. Let's talk about that for a while.
You left out one word in your last sentence, let me help you out ;^)
Illegal aliens come in all sizes, colors, and genders, that most illegals in AZ have a certain skin color might make the job easier, but there are people here in US who have overstayed their visas, etc. that are just as illegal...
Ken
Suppose you actually understand respect the law instead of putting mocking quotes around literal concepts, and I would think you're actually interested in the answer instead of being a pompous ass.
Are you seriously looking for enlightenment? Because what you posted shows that you've already reached your conclusion, and you're passing that concept on to us poor unwashed.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
And.. do you carry your passport around with you in the US? Legal residents and citizens will fall under detainment procedures as well.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Sorry but the law is simply NOT unconstitutional.
#1 - If you are driving a motor vehicle, you are required to have your ID (drivers' license, insurance paperwork, and immigration documents if any) with you to present to any police officer who pulls you over. This is the law in all 50 states. No one questions the constitutionality of this.
#2 - If you are a PASSENGER in said motor vehicle, you are required to be able to identify yourself to an officer as well. This is constitutional.. Reference: US v. Slater.
#3 - Even if a motor vehicle is not involved, if police have any reason to stop and question you under a "suspicion of wrongdoing" , they may demand you identify yourself. THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. reference: US Supreme Court, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
#4 - Consistent with Hiibel Arizona already has a constitutionally legal stop-and-identify law.
The only difference with the new law and the old is, before, they could haul you in for failure to identify. Now, if you fail to identify AND they subsequently find out you're an illegal alien while you are in custody, they can hand you over to ICE.
how hard is it to keep your green card in your wallet?
It's very hard. They took away my green card when I became a US citizen.
Yoghurt
That the cop must have a valid reason for making legal contact. This means the individual is already under investigation for another crime or the police has probable cause to stop the individual. Then if during questioning he has reason to believe that person's legal status in the country may not be what he represent then he can ask for the required documents that visitors and legal foreign residents are required, by federal law, to carry. U.S. citizens just need to show a driver's license, state issue id or a valid passport. Just like when starting a job. The governor also issued an executive order requiring classes and training to avoid any type of racial profiling. Now as to the real reason why this law was passed 1) Phoenix, the state capital, is the kidnapping capital of the nation because of the illegal immigration. 2) It is not safe to live any where near the border with Mexico. Just ask the people who live in border towns like Bisbee, Nogales or Douglas. Or even the family of the rancher that was killed simply because he was on his land when illegal immigrants were trespassing. 3) No fencing along the border with Mexico along with inadequate patrols and no anticipation of any improvements. Now someone will mention how our wonderful Secretary of DOH stated that the border is as secured as it ever was. Well Janet Napolitano used to be Governor of Arizona. Then when everything began falling apart like the state economy and the violence from Mexico spilling over into Arizona she was given a lifeboat out of the situation by Obama so she would not be stuck with any of the blame. The same Obama who has not provided any solutions so this law would not have even been considered let alone enacted.
I live in Belgium, and like so many countries, I've been legally obliged to have identification on me at all times, iirc whenever I'm more than 2km from home. There's also a legal requirement to carry some money, used to be 500 BEF / € 12.50 - dunno if the amount has changed since the introduction of the Euro.
It's not a big deal. Get over it.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Not to mention that those who live on an Indian reservation are not full citizens (they don't pay taxes and I believe they can't vote) meaning.... I'm still right!
Sounds great to me, immigration is overworked and will never catch up to all the illegals so any help at the state level should be welcomed, and it will probably open up the door for some US citizens to get tech jobs in their own country while the foreigners are being carted off to jail. And I know what you are gonna say, "this is a free country", yes it is, for the citizens anyway. I live in an area where illegals are the norm for regular jobs such as farming and timber, so I would like to see this take hold. I watched as companies are put out of business by one legal with a crew of illegals, happens all the time (some of which they brought upon themselves by hiring a few illegals and training them in the industry...not they are paying for using that cheap labor). Now of course this is mostly illegals from Mexico, but I would love for this to happen here in the south.
I find it interesting that people are getting upset about one state actually doing something about a situation that is harming the state and its residents due to the federal government failing to enforce existing laws.
I also find it somewhat disingenuous that people are arguing against the state law on the basis that immigration control is the province of the federal government - if the federal government were enforcing its own laws, state action would be unnecessary.
That said, there is a simple process by which illegal immigration can be stopped cold, and we can simultaneously rid ourselves of the illegals already here:
For purposes of this process, "employer" shall mean anyone with direct hire/fire authority over the worker in question AND the overall manager in charge of the location at which the worker is employed.
1) Require that all employers verify citizenship or legal immigration status of each worker as a condition of employment for that worker.
2) Anyone found to be knowingly employing an illegal alien will be subject to fines and penalties as follows:
a) A fine of one year's pay for the illegal alien worker, for each worker so employed (or $5000 per illegal alien worker, whichever is greater), shall be paid by the employer.
b) Employers shall be subject to 5 years prison at hard labor per illegal worker, sentences for multiple offenses to run consecutively.
3) Illegal alien workers shall be subject to 5 years prison at hard labor each time they are caught. They will be paid nothing for this time in prison, and at the end of their sentence they will be deported.
4) Employers and illegal workers serving prison terms under the above points shall be put to hard labor building roads as chain gangs or doing other hard labor, as the state where they were captured shall dictate. This hard labor may include leasing inmate labor to corporations or other states at a rate of up to one half the federal minimum wage. Funds received for inmate labor must be used first for the feeding and housing of the inmates, and then for the general expenses of the prison system should any funds remain.
5) One half of the amount of any fines collected under section 2a above will be paid in a lump sum to informants who lead authorities to illegal workers and employers, once those individuals are convicted and the fines levied.
---------------
Follow the above process, and employers will stop hiring illegal workers - it won't be worth the fines and prison time.
Illegal workers will stop coming here - it won't be worth the prison time, and 5 years of making absolutely no money, even if they can find someone to employ them.
Even the illegals will be reporting their employers, to get the financial windfall that their share of the fines will represent. For a large employer, a whistleblower might never have to work again.
The source of cheap (prison) labor would still be there, long enough for the country to grow acclimated to not having a huge pool of unskilled workers available who are basically economic slaves.
In six months, you wouldn't be able to find an illegal worker in the country, outside of prison... and if they can't work, there is no reason for them to be here.
With the illegals gone, the country can then see about adjusting its immigration policies accordingly, to ensure the necessary labor pool is available.
No they won't. The law specifically says that drivers licenses or any other form of state or local ID provide presumptive evidence that the person isn't in the United States illegally. Maybe you should read it before you reply with another incorrect assumption?
I can go down to my local sheriff's office here in New York State and get a "Sheriff's ID" for $5. By the letter of this law in AZ such an id would be all that's required to prove I'm not unlawfully in the US.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
My ancestors killed no one on this continent. Further, the children of illegals today are (incorrectly, IMO) classified as American citizens. We don't deny healthcare to anyone - we just haven't, to this point, forced doctors to provide it for free.
Learn about Photography Basics.
What troubles me about the law isn't that it requires people suspected of wrongdoing to prove their citizenship, it is that it requires police to determine citizenship status in "any lawful contact".
That means if you witness a crime, but you speak with an accent the cop taking your statement is required to ask you about your citizenship. If you are the victim of a crime and here illegally you cannot report it in Arizona without being deported.
Everyone should stop and think what that means. Do we really want violent crime to be not reported because it's perpetrated on people who aren't here illegally? And good luck finding a witness if you're jumped in a Home Depot parking lot when only day laborers are present.
This much is established -- and reported in AP summaries elsewhere A drivers license OR valid state issued ID or Military ID or Passport or Immigration document (H-1b or Green card, which holders are required by FEDERAL LAW to have on them at all times) creates the presumption of legal residence. Also the law requires the "reasonable suspicion" standard to be met -- something that makes it very difficult for a "just because" stop - -the police officer MUST be able to provide a legal and rational reason for having a suspicion --- and by that it means that race gender or other constitutionally protected attributes may NOT be part of that reason. Race or color cannot be the reason for asking - its actually written specifically into the law. Furthermore, before this law actually comes into play, it must be a LEGAL CONTACT - a term that means the law enforcement officer is stopping you for some other reason. Finally, this basically extends enforcement of Federal Law to state law enforcement agents. THe law is nearly identical to the constitutionally lawful Federal statute.
Instead of jumping to conclusions based on partial and bad information, why not read the law and the implementation language? Also ask the correct question - its not about citizenship, its about legal residence. Those are different things - you lose your argument when you start arguing about the wrong things, and are ignorant of the facts of the matter..
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
You do understand that States don't get to have powers just because the Federal government does, too. Right? You understand that there are powers granted to the Federal government that the States Constitutionally cannot enforce, right?
Step one for you is to understand that the Constitution is more than your favorite Amendment.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
It's not like no one has thought about what might go wrong with a plan like this in the past.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
But the Federal government has constitutional authority, AZ does not have authority to create immigration laws. This si why we can freely move from state to state and become residences of any state we choose to reside in.
And the papers please aspect is also a violation of civil liberties.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Being an illegal foreigner doesn't prevent one from paying taxes. In fact, many illegal aliens pay taxes, based on the false social security numbers given to their employers.
There are problems with illegal aliens in general, and more specific problems with the vast majority in the country:
1) The federal government has no control over their entry. Like many nations, the US bars entry by convicted felons, terrorists, etc. These people can be perfectly nice to their neighbors, pay taxes, etc. They're still not the sort of folks I want as neighbors.
2) A certain minimum command of the English language is a requirement for citizenship in the US. Legal non-citizen immigrants need not speak English, but generally have sufficient income or are staying for a brief enough time that economic factors are not an issue. Many, if not a majority of illegal immigrants speak little to no English, and as a result of this and their immigration status, cannot get jobs doing anything but minimum (or below minimum) wage menial labor.
3) Even if these people have employers who give lip service to the rules and pay employment taxes (and many do not), those taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of providing social services for these workers - almost none of whom will ever pay income taxes (the bottom 40+% of income earners in the US now pay none). In fact, those that have social security numbers and file tax returns actually cost the government tax money, since thanks to our tax code they can get "refunds" greater than the amount of money they paid in.
4) In numbers, they strain the social services of anywhere they live. Since they almost never have health insurance, they use the nearest hospital's ER for all their health care needs - for which they rarely pay. Hospitals in areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants tend to go out of business for this reason, and legal residents and citizens find it difficult to get emergency care. Schools too have a difficult time - not only because the tax base does not support the extra children, but also because many of those children also speak little or no English - and additional resources must be emplaced to teach English as a second language.
5) In places where the local government is not willing to step on federal toes in immigration matters, illegals tend to get a free pass when they commit anything but the most violent crimes. If released before trial, they simply do not appear in court. They have few assets in country, so fines mean nothing. If deported, they pay a mule to get them back across the border - often in a matter of weeks.
6) Given the economic differences between the US and Mexico (from which the majority of our illegals come), they tend to spend a bare minimum of their money here, and send the rest out of country, where it is worth more to their families. So in addition to paying less in taxes than the social services they use cost, they don't even add much to the economy.
7) Illegals form a ready made class of people to be exploited, since they are afraid to go to the police. This attracts criminals, who prey not only on the illegals, but on legal residents and citizens as well.
8) Illegal immigrants very often do not wish to be Americans. They are here to exploit our economy and send the money home. Evidence of this can be found anywhere you see a rally regarding immigration reform, and see all the flags of foreign nations (usually Mexico, but sometimes others) being waved. If they wanted to be Americans, they could start by respecting our traditions (rather than demanding they be changed for their convenience), and our laws.
but the federal government has virtually abrogated its responsibility by poor enforcement of existing immigration laws.
The problem here isn't that the Feds don't enforce the law.
I visit a friend in Bisbee, AZ once a year and you can't swing a dead cat on the road between Bisbee & Sierra Vista without hitting a half-dozen Border Patrol vehicles. It's not unusual to see handcuffed illegals sitting on horse trailers or the side of the road during enforcement sweeps. And all this is on one 20 minute stretch of road! There's a manditory (even for US citizens, which frosts me) Border patrol checkpoint (featuring paramilitary fatigues, machine guns, dogs, humvees, the whole movie) in Tombstone on the "main" route north to the Interstate.
The problem is LOCAL GOVERNMENTS don't or won't or BAN the enforcement of immigration laws. There's two main reasons that crop up:
o Local police are short on resources and getting "tied up" in immigration enforcement is an unfunded mandate that hurts policing.
o It's claimed that enforcing immigration prevents cooperation with the police among immigrant groups (many red herrings here!).
The former is a bureaucratic dodge, but almost seems justifiable; I don't know what kind of clusterfuck it is to process an illegal immigrant for the local police -- is it a 20 minute handover to the Feds? Or do they have to house and feed them until the Feds get around to transfering them to Federal custody?
The second point doesn't make sense -- documented immigrants have no reason not to cooperate with the police, illegals do -- their illegal status! Part of the reason I think police go along with it is that areas with a high concentration of illegals have major crime and gang problems and police believe that illegal immigration is less of a worry than the spillover of crime.
The common reality though, is that many of these municipalities are Democratic strongholds and they view immigration reform through a narrow prism as racist and view stopping immigration enforcement as some kind of political score they're settling against racist country club Republicans. Most of the time the practical justification has little to do with the primary ideological motivation.
Nope. #1, I was born here, thus not an immigrant. #2, none of my ancestors were around to kill off any natives. Some of them were legal immigrants, when the US immigration policy was much looser. Even if some were illegal immigrants (I doubt it; not much reason to be then), that doesn't make me an illegal immigrant. The US _does_ have birthright citizenship, though some of the anti-immigration types want to do away with it.
Forgot one point on #8 - Evidence of this can also be found at any check cashing place or Western Union office - or anywhere else in the US that allows wire transfers of money. You'll find instructions in Spanish on how to wire money out of the country to Mexico
You know, I hear this argument fairly often, and I still consider it really f*cking stupid. I'm from Canada, but we hear the same B.S. here, so let's get a few things straight:
a) There were no immigrations laws at that time. You can't be illegal if there's no fucking laws to break.
b) Yes, lots of terrible things happened, it doesn't mean that every "white man" shot a dozen indians in order to make claim on the "new world." Some did, but saying that all did is like saying all Germans are Nazis.
c) My ancestors moved here quite sometime after the early colonial days. They weren't trapping beavers and shooting natives, they came as legal immigrants to help do thinks like work mines, build railroads, etc
d) I work born in my home country, again legally, as a citizen.
So how the hell would you classify me as an immigrant? Also, as many people here have stated, it's not immigrants that are the problem (hell, my GF is one), it's illegal immigrants that functions as part of an essentially "underground society" because they aren't supposed to be there. This law unfortunately may have some affect on non-illegals too, which is the part that is stupid and sucks (and needs to be fixed, IMHO), but we don't need to bring the "white man who killed and pillaged" arguments around to deal with that.
Seriously. I have never to my knowledge harmed any indigenous person, but some people expect me to pay and/or feel guilty for it. While indigenous people's may warrant some support for those events that occurred, I myself deserve neither the debt of blame, guilt, nor any other exorbitant costs associated with such.
Insighful? I say nay nay.
When my ancestors immigrated here from Ireland way back in the mid 1800s, there were no real immigration laws on the books. There was no way to "enter the country illegally" really, as all you needed to do was register your name in a book and you were good to go.
Things have changed since then. The country back then was sparsely populated and immigration was open to everyone. It isn't now.
There are rules and ways to immigrate. Don't like them? Don't immigrate to the US. Illegal aliens DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. WTF is this so hard to understand?
Sent from your iPad.
Maybe you should read the law? I've seen a whole ton of FUD from racist groups like La Raza out there, and none of it is based on any reading of the law itself.
The law makes specific provision to allow officers the leeway to not worry about immigration in the case of witnesses, etc: "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. "
Secondly, it establishes quite clearly what the police are looking for:
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Your quote: "...but you speak with an accent...":
Law text: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
The law is pretty clear: the trigger for "lawful contact" is the occurrence of something meeting Terry Stop standards. What the police are looking for is what they are legally allowed to ask for anyways at such a stop.
Now if you have problems with a specific section of the law, please point the section out? I've provided the text of the law for you, fully linked above.
This particular law is severely flawed and will cost Arizona dearly in civil rights lawsuit payouts if it ever goes into effect. But Arizona residents are in their rights to be upset with federal immigration policy. The feds have essentially closed the borders on both sides of the state causing an through Arizona that this small state is completely unable to cope with. They can't be and shouldn't be expected to hire the law enforcement needed to deal with the migration. These migrants don't settle in Arizona and pay taxes, they move through it on their way to places with an excess of jobs and pay their taxes there.
The problem on the federal level is that there is no consensus among the American people on immigration. I believe migration is a human right that should only be curtailed when there is a compelling state interest, for instance the state has a compelling interest to prevent foreign troop movements within it's territory. But this founders' view hasn't been the consensus view for over a hundred years. People with money tend to also believe in open borders because it creates jobs and keeps the economy strong, whether or not they believe migration is a human right. But there are many people who don't believe migration is a human right and who also believe it deprives the descendants of earlier immigrants of good pay due to the increased competition for jobs. There is also a significant minority who are just plain racist; these are the folks who will make the Arizona approach fail, since some of them happen to be police officers. The problems in Arizona need to be solved at the federal level by debate and compromise between the reasonable people on both sides of the issue. But the politics of migration doesn't currently divide along party lines, there are still a few pro-business folks in the republican party and there are democrats with significant union support. And to be perfectly honest, there are is a small minority of racists serving in congress on both sides. The republican party has decided (rationally) that it is in the party's best interest at the moment not to pass any popular laws, as that would bolster the standing of our president and potentially hurt their chances in the mid-term elections. This may change after the mid-term elections, but I wouldn't bet on it; I believe only laws that have broad support in the democratic party are likely to pass until at least Obama's second term. By then republicans will have regrouped and started thinking about becoming the party of good government again, if only to have a chance to recapture the White House in 2017.
PS Arizona was a founded racism. It was the part of New Mexico that seceded from the United States as part of it's residents' fight for the right to keep slaves, which was at the time illegal in all of New Mexico. This was only 14 years after we conquered the territory in the Mexican-American war. It was a hinterland of the Mexican state of Alta California, which included present day California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. Partly due to it's residents' history of betrayal to the USA and largely due to it's insignificant population prior the invention of modern air conditioning systems, it was the last State to be incorporated prior to Alaska and Hawaii.
...It is a side effect that I don't mind, as it leaves more opportunities for actual citizens.
I don't mind picking up the slack from people trying to boycott this law.
This law keeps on getting better every day.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."
The specific wording is "Lawful Contact" ... which is not defined anywhere in that law, or in the entire AZ law code (I looked). So ... if a car is pulled over for a busted tail light, how far does that "lawful contact" entitle the LEO to start dewtermining? The driver, certainly. But then what? All the passengers? Some of the passengers? Just the swarthy guy in the sombrero?
And then there is this: where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States. How the heck can you tell the state of "unlawfully present"? What triggers suspicion? How do you tell an Arizonan who grew up in the barrio, from a family that was living here before the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo from someone who just arrived via the coyote express? What about the snowbacks from Canukistan, or the lutefisken who have "overstayed their visas" from the fjordlands? The only way to find them is to check everyone at every contact ... and the backlash from that will be amazing.
Where's the popcorn?
but only hear noise. There is a lot of speculation from slashdot users. Which i'm one of, but more importantly I believe I have a unique perspective on the situation. I actually live in Arizona, more importantly I lived on the border ( look at google maps for Douglas, Az then street view for 1st street, pick any corner and you will see how far I lived from the border, I could spit across it). I lived in Douglas for more than a decade in my youth, and currently reside in Tucson. The rancher that was killed, we knew his family personally. It's easy to point fingers and take a position and speculate on what should be done when you don't live any where near where it's happening. This is a complicated situation, i'm on the fence about it. I want to protect my country and it's citizens but not at the price of sacrificing our personal liberties and civil rights. Also, imagine what the foreign nationals must be thinking to consider crossing the border which could take 5 days or more without water, in 120 degree blistering heat with children less than 5 years old. It's basically a suicide march, and yet they chose to do it because conditions in their home country are far worse - the rancher that was killed (a family friend), he always helped immigrants with giving them food and water, which is illegal if you didn't know, and it shouldn't be, their human and it should never be illegal helping a dieing man, woman, or child. However, in the same train of thought, some of these illegals aren't searching for a better life, some of them are only crossing the border to leave drugs or other illegal items, then they return back across the border or allow themselves to be caught to be returned back to their country of origin for free by our Customs Border and Protection agency. Also, DON'T be IGNORANT and think all illegal immigrants are MEXICAN, their not, there from china and pakistan and russia and south american countries. This is the reason why were trying to protect our border.
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
Thanks for the link. I had skimmed the law before, but I missed the "except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation." part.
That's important, but we already know that the police have a tendency to use strong-arm tactics to get information out of reluctant witnesses - this law gives them another tool in that regard. A tool that I'm not comfortable with.
I'll retract my statement about victims - that clause seems to somewhat ameliorate my concerns in that regard.
As far as "reasonable suspicion" and Terry stops go: Before this law the police needed a reasonable suspicion that you did something wrong besides being here illegally to ask you to identify yourself. Now immigration status by itself is sufficient to ask for papers.
True, they can't drive up to someone on the street and demand papers, but if they have any reason to talk to someone - and this doesn't require reasonable suspicion - and then they become suspicious then they are required to ask for your papers.
As far as racial profiling: Yes, technically this law and the governors executive order prohibit racial profiling. In reality it's impossible to enforce this law without relying heavily on racial considerations. We know that driving-while-black is still a real problem in this country, and you want me to believe that the police won't interpret this law to give them license (or even require them to) profile?
I'm also concerned about sections G, H, and I, which let you sue the law enforcement agency and recoup attorney fees if you don't think they're following this law. Shouldn't the AZ AG be doing that?
Maybe if you would educate yourself about what minorities actually think about illegal immigration your racist opinions would change...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You carry your birth certificate with you at all times? Or your passport? Those are the only two documents you list that prove citizenship or legal status. Neither a military ID nor a driver's license is considered a proof of status. I carried my military ID around for years, but still had to provide a birth certificate, Social Security Card, or Passport as proof of legal right to work when I got a new job. I was a National Guardsman, so I changed employers several times while still carrying a military ID, and it was never once accepted as proof of citizenship (not surprising, non-citizens can be in the military. We had a Brit in our unit. He eventually got US citizenship, but was a legal resident for the first two or three years of his service. He couldn't get a clearance until his citizenship went through, but not all jobs require them).
That's the problem here. Actually, there's two problems. Requiring someone to show any form of identification without a their being a suspect in a crime or otherwise falling somehow under the jurisdiction if the police is wrong, and generally one of the things we see in over the top satires of authoritarian states ("Youa paapas, plaeze!"). That a US state should make it a matter of course for law enforcement to ask citizens for proof of citizenship lest they face arrest would be comical if it wasn't depressing. The *secondary* problem is that proof of citizenship is actually a pain to carry.
Your Social Security Card says right on it that it should be kept in a safe place, not carried. Your birth certificate is probably a fairly large and cumbersome document to lug around (not to mention that it should also be kept in a safe place), and Americans are not required to possess Passports unless they plan to travel abroad. What do you suggest US citizens of Mexican decent carry to prove their citizenship? Driver's license isn't proof. SSC and birth certificate shouldn't be carried. Passport they may or may not have and are not legally required to have.
Who the law is aimed at is completely immaterial to who it may affect. One could reasonably argue that legal residents have to carry a green card. It's a pain, but one could make a reasonable argument, that it's a burden they bear for living in a country not their own. The fact that there is absolutely no way to externally tell the difference between an illegal Mexican immigrant, a legal Mexican immigrant, and a US citizen of Mexican decent creates a dilemma though. The citizen should not be required to carry proof of citizenship, but without such proof how do you know he's a citizen? If this was a rare and unusual use case, it might not be that bad, but there are hundred's of thousands if not millions of US citizens of Mexican decent in Arizona.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
I say good on ya, AZ. I don't get into the dinghy without my drivers license, at least. Always, I carry some sort of identification. In my case, I live on a boat on a mooring. IF I should succumb to the water around me, I want someone to be able to tell (my few) family and friends that I'm no longer able to attend their parties.
I may not surrender this document upon request; that's situational, but I always have some sort of identity on me. I can't see why this should be a problem for anyone else. Got a pocket? Make a packet of what you are required by law and common sense to carry.
I carry a little waterproof bag with wallet, knife, Fischer pen, cell phone, keys to the USPS box and storage, chap stick, cigs and lighter(s) with me always. This pouch is attached to me until I get ashore. Then I transfer some of the stuff to pockets and carry on.
As for 'undocumented aliens' being here, get the legal paperwork, folks, or get the hell out of my country! It isn't hard to get legal status. Jumping the border is illegal. This is a constitutional republic; that's how it works here. Get legal and then keep yer head down.
Bah! I'm going fishing. Ya'll care about those other things....
Offhand, I'd say that this illegal alien must be using someone else's SSN to gain said employment. Where did he get it? Since most people don't want to share theirs with someone else, there's a good chance that it's stolen. Now, since this guy is completely imaginary anyway, lets further suppose that in order to get to this respectable job, he buys a car, in the process taking out a loan, again using this SSN. I imagine a bank account, a few credit cards, all the usual stuff that someone who has a respectable job does. Then, disaster strikes, layoff. Our intrepid hero is unable to find work right away (like many legal residents), and falls behind on his car payments, racks up credit-card late fees, falls behind on the rent leading to an eviction. Oddly, Rich Smith, living 500 miles away, is somewhat unhappy when he looks at his credit report, which lists all of these things, and finds that he can no longer take loans himself because his credit rating has dropped like a rock.
Our intrepid adventurer though, is free to start over, walking away from this debt, and picks up a new SSN because the old one just doesn't work that well for him anymore.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
SmallFurryCreature, my genetics are a bit mixed so there is no yes or no answer... grandma is native american if that counts.
To clarify, the immigrant is complaining about illegal immigrants. Also, the legal system is a mess and that's on a federal and state level so its not just my legal system but yours too brother. Last, the healthcare isn't being denied to anyone and is being abused because of that, because there are loopholes (yes, all over the country) emergency medicine is being used as routine medicine.
I may come off as an ass but sometimes you have to when making a point in a sensitive area. Its just one big ugly problem with no one sure way to fix it.
Is that everyone is talking about the Arizona law and no one is talking about the path that led to them creating this law.
Some think it was a failure of our Federal government.
Some think it was hype FUD from media in Arizona.
I don't know, but I would rather see a discussion about this and gain more insight into why Arizona felt they had to take these actions.
I talked with an Arizona resident and they indicated that a lot of the swing for support began when a rancher was killed in Arizona by illegal aliens.
Well here in Texas we had a serial killer that was an illegal alien and currently have a freaking war going on a stones throw (literally) from a border city.
I think if we don't start understanding what motivates the populace to support these actions we are going to have more laws passed, more actions taken.
he law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."
What? Did you even read the law?
If you have, please revisit Article 8, Paragraph E:
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Emphasis mine.
Extra text to satisfy the lameness filter:
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I gave two examples including links of people who were detained for a period of time (from days to months) who had driver's licenses but not a birth certificates. One even had a birth certificate but it was still ignored by immigration. It's in the sibling thread. I won't duplicate myself.
The fact here is you are the naive fool assuming local police operate strictly according to the letter of the law with no racial bias. You also assume immigration, which is a federal agency, will mirror arizona state law. Hint: it does not and will not.
Camping on quad since 1996.
The states run the presidential elections, which choose the state electors, who then choose the president. Any state has the power, I'd say the duty, to ensure candidates are qualified before allowing them on the state's ballots.
I fail to see the relevance of using other examples to discredit a law that specifically says that drivers licenses will meet it's requirements.
I would also be interested in hearing you explain why racial bias is unacceptable in policing (or gods forbid, airport security screening) but acceptable in college admissions, employment/housing decisions, etc, etc. I doubt it would be an insightful conservation, since you've already resorted to insulting me.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You're missing something important: what "identify" means. You might want to read that Hiibel vs. Nevada link all the way through.
I may be required to identify myself to an official; that has been accepted as Constitutional. What that means is that I have to tell the official my name. I am not required to provide any sort of documentation. The Hiibel article mentions that the Supreme Court noted that it was a requirement for identification, not documentation.
The Arizona law says that somebody may be required to provide documentation of identity. That's an entirely different thing, and is not Constitutional.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But as a citizen, I have no obligation to show proof of citizenship. I'm perfectly entitled to walk down the street without any identification on me. Even under this law, if my understanding is correct. So what happens when I am walking around, perfectly legally, without any identification and they detain me under suspicion of being an immigrant?
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
It's not clear that California license, such as the one I carry, will do the job... #4 under the heading you're probably reading to support the assertion a driver's license is all you need is worded strangely, and seems to refer to applications to Arizona state agencies rather than officers. An officer may be within the law refusing to recognize an out-of-state license as proof.
An out-of-state visitor is also unlikely to have things like a birth certificate or social security card on them if for some reason a license isn't accepted. The question is... what do they do then?
Tweet, tweet.
This sucks for people on work visas. I don't know how to say that better. For citizens who want to ensure they don't get too screwed by this, GET YOUR PASSPORT. (Can permanent residents get passports too? I hope so...) Make sure you and your loved ones know where it is; consider making a photocopy so they can fax that, too.
While I sympathize with Arizona residents who are fed up with illegal immigration, this policy is one that makes me want to never visit your state. Sorry.
And what about when you're walking down the street without ID? You do realize the only time americans are legally required to carry ID is when driving. So when you are a law abiding american citizen who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant, abiding the law but with no ID - for example while doing yardwork - what happens?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status.
While the law doesn't grant statutory authority for officers to begin contact by requiring someone to show documentation without reasonable suspicion, you have to remember that police are largely free to do anything any citizen can do. That includes initiating conversation with someone and even asking probing questions. Many officers are trained to question people in ways that elicit answers which increase an officer's options under the law, and they get a chance to practice extensively. This, incidentally, is why it's generally a good idea to not talk to the police, but as officers will tell you, most people do anyway (heck, I'm familiar with the issue and my general impulse is to treat officers like other people and just talk to them).
In practice, an officer might see someone they wish to target, whether for completely legit reasons or shady ones, engage them in conversation, ask them where they're from, what they do for a living, and where they were born, and if during the answers the suspect says anything the officer can justify as even thinly "reasonably suspicious," then the officer can probably ask for proof of citizenship without fear of repercussion (even if his justification doesn't meet a standard a judge holds up in court, what's going to happen to the officer?).
Tweet, tweet.
We're talking about US Citizens who might be arrested for not happening to have proof on them, not visitors or aliens failing to carry them (which is, or course, illegal). Do you carry your passport to the grocery store (in your home country)?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
You prove you aren't an illegal immigrant by telling them who you are and offering to retrieve your drivers license/other form of acceptable ID? The vast majority of police officers would allow you to retrieve said ID, if only to save themselves from the paperwork they get to fill out after an arrest.
You might just as easily have said "What happens when I'm walking around, perfectly legally, without any ID and they detain me because I look like the escaped ex-con from the prison up the road?"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
the reason this law is getting so much negative attention is because it makes the President look bad
Which President?
to have states enact laws to enforce federal laws that aren't being enforced.
Have ICE/INS had their resources limited, or been ordered to stand down?
Tweet, tweet.
No, but I carry my drivers license. The text of this law says that would be sufficient. Someone who doesn't have ID would simply have to tell the police officers who they are and allow them to look it up in their database and/or retrieve said id.
This really isn't complicated.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Let's see how long you last when being followed by a cop that has it in for you. Especially if he's willing to lie, like more than enough cops are.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I'm also concerned about sections G, H, and I, which let you sue the law enforcement agency and recoup attorney fees if you don't think they're following this law. Shouldn't the AZ AG be doing that?
Given how little faith the people of AZ have in their current AG?
When the public isn't given standing to question the actions of the police or elected officials, it is a problem. I'm much happier with the public being able to sue and say "you are not obeying your duty under this law" than have so-called "sanctuary cities" trying to get similar lawsuits dismissed on the grounds that only the local/state AG (who usually is a racist La Raza member themselves in on the "sanctuary city" scam) has standing to do so.
All it will take is one youtube video to prove you wrong. Sit back and wait. I give you 2 months max. Add the link to my comment on your calendar and come back and tell me I'm wrong then. I think I'm being generous.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Now immigration status by itself is sufficient to ask for papers.
According to federal law, they are required to have those on them anyways. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 264(e):
As far as racial profiling: Yes, technically this law and the governors executive order prohibit racial profiling. In reality it's impossible to enforce this law without relying heavily on racial considerations. We know that driving-while-black is still a real problem in this country, and you want me to believe that the police won't interpret this law to give them license (or even require them to) profile?
Based on my own experience, most of the people claiming to have been "profiled" have, by their own conduct (and not skin color) already drawn attention to themselves. People who are not taught how to behave in stressful situations, especially the 10 basic rules, seem to crop up more in the latino, black, and "white-trash" communities - indicating it's an economic, not racial, thing.
You will note that the video I link above begins with a kid claiming he was "profiled", and maybe he was, BUT his own conduct made the situation much worse.
What we're going to have, most likely, is some dumbass who happens to be latino, may or may not be an illegal alien, will try to start a fight with the cops and then his lawyer will later scream "profiling" anyways. And when that happens, I'll have little sympathy in the matter, because I prefer that to watching the cops get gunned down by illegal aliens.
Every American I know keeps their passport ON them when they are legally in a foreign country. Most states require some form of state approved ID for persons over a certain age to be presented when asked by law enforcement. For said IDs, social security numbers are required, ergo you must be a US citizen. Whether not it's legal to just ask for ID is a separate argument. Search and seizure without a warrant is already broken. In many states if you violate some law while in a motor vehicle, your car can be searched without a warrant. If you refuse you can be arrested and your vehicle searched anyway.
The answer isn't just "Let's ignore problems because the system is fucked up."
I don't think he said "ignore the problem." I suspect he (along with the rest of us) would be happy to see the INS adequately organized and funded. The issue in play at the moment is whether local police officers have a legal means to completely disrupt the lives of people who may be legit (citizens and legal immigrants) but not currently carrying everything they need to assuage any concerns about their citizenship.
They don't seem to want to forward solutions,
There's no shortage of other solutions forwarded, including generally increased immigration (which would help us offset some demographic problems associated with the boomers) and penalties for people who hire illegals ($1000 a pop, Arizona? Seriously? Why, that'd bring the $1500 you were paying a migrant for three months of labor before you were caught up to $2500, which means you'd end up paying roughly minimum wage. What a strong deterrent!). Instead we seemed to end up with something that focuses on immediate detention of people who for whatever reason aren't carrying their documentation.
Tweet, tweet.
But you don't HAVE to carry your driver's license. I often don't when I ride my bike somewhere or go jogging. Point in fact, I probably should, if only so they can identify my body if I get run over or something, but I often don't and there is no legal requirement that I do. Nor is there a legal require you that you or any other citizen do. Unless you happen to be a Mexican-American in AZ apparently. And if the requirement is merely that I tell you my name so you can look me up in database, then the whole law is laughable anyway. "I'm Julio Sanchez, course I'm a citizen". What do you suppose the chance are that there *isn't* a Julio Sanchez (or 50) in the AZ DMV database?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
And you don't see a problem with a citizen being required to PROVE they are a citizen to any random cop (in AZ) that asks? W/o probable cause (the law specifically states "reasonable suspicion")? The difference between this and the ex-con thing is that one MIGHT happen to me once, possibly twice if I have terrible luck. I accept that "shit happens, what are you gonna do" type situations might occur that slightly inconvenience me. The other seems likely to happen very very often if I have the terrible luck of being brown in AZ. And it isn't a "shit happens" situation, it is a law specifically designed to harass foreign looking citizens; not intended, intended to identify illegal immigrants, but designed in such a manner that it guarantees the harassment of foreign looking (or sounding, or whatever criteria the cops will actually be using) citizens.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Based on reality, there are plenty of people of all ethnic and economic groups who draw attention to themselves all the time by being dumb asses. However, black and brown dumb asses tend to be arrested more frequently than white dumb asses. And that's the important factor - not whether fault can be found with any individual arrest.
There's a fairly large body of scholarly research decoupling racial and economic factors. In most places minorities are still significantly more likely to be stopped for doing something dumb than white people.
It's like discrimination in the workplace. Even if for every new hire you can give a cogent explanation as to why you hired the white guy over the black guy, if you've got an all white workforce your hiring process is discriminatory.
There used to be a common and ridiculous situation where a van full of obvious illegals, no ids, no english, would be stopped and as long as they weren't caught in the act of crossing the border and as long as the driver had a valid license, the cops couldn't do anything.
"Ridiculous"?! I find this to be a common and sensible situation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unless you happen to be a Mexican-American in AZ apparently.
Can you honestly come up with no better argument than the racism card?
What do you suppose the chance are that there *isn't* a Julio Sanchez (or 50) in the AZ DMV database?
This may come as a surprise to you, but you can look up database records using more than one identifier. Home address, zip code, birth date, height and weight, restrictions/endorsements (i.e: corrective lenses), etc, etc. Somehow I doubt they have 50 Julio Sanchez's all residing at 123 Main St with a birth date of 12/18/1985
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
However, black and brown dumb asses tend to be arrested more frequently than white dumb asses. And that's the important factor - not whether fault can be found with any individual arrest.
If you can't find fault with any individual arrest on the merits, then the "black and brown" are obviously behaving, as an aggregate subculture, in a way that is a problem, no?
There's a fairly large body of scholarly research decoupling racial and economic factors. In most places minorities are still significantly more likely to be stopped for doing something dumb than white people
The body of research is actually pretty damn lousy, however. Last time I saw such research attempting such a feat, they failed to account for the fact that low-income gang behavior led to larger numbers of cops being assigned to low-income areas of urban environments, which then led to more cops arresting the people in those areas, which recorrelated with the fact that the people in those areas tended to be "black and brown". In other words, the "decoupling" statistical effort was incomplete and therefore useless.
It's like discrimination in the workplace. Even if for every new hire you can give a cogent explanation as to why you hired the white guy over the black guy, if you've got an all white workforce your hiring process is discriminatory.
And if you are hiring a less-qualified guy based on skin color just to meet a racial quota, what then? You're still being "discriminatory." Hell, if you require someone to have a certain certification to do the job, you're being "discriminatory."
The word "discrimination" - every time I hear it, I want to slap someone and say "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
For example, there's a decided underrepresentation of blacks in certain career fields. What causes this? The research is as yet unfinished, and will likely remain so, but clearly the idea that it's just skin color - as opposed to economic factors, gang membership, "black culture" that treats kids as a racial traitor for being above a certain IQ level and "acting white" - is ridiculous.
#4 actually reads differently:
I read that as applying to situations in which you're attempting to get something (probably ID, a permit, or a license) from an Arizona state agency. I also don't think it's particularly clear that "State" means "any U.S. State" rather than "the state of Arizona."
Overall, I don't think it's clear that any ol' driver's license will do the job.
Tweet, tweet.
If one enters a country without following said country's entry and immigration laws, one is an illegal alien. In many other countries, it is a criminal offense.
The real problem is that said illegal alien entered the country illegally. As someone else mentioned, said person may be nice to his landlord and neighbors and still be a wanted criminal, a child molester, or carrying a contagious disease. How often do you see a surprised friend and/or neighbor on the news saying "He was such a nice guy. I can't believe he did that." If we want to go down the road of terrorism, remember that according to reports the 9/11 conspirators were good neighbors and tenants.
Now, let me demonstrate the fallacy of your argument:
Do you see the problem with "supposing"? Even if you point to a specific person, it is still cherry-picking.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
A "REALLY good reason" and a reasonable suspicion aren't necessarily the same thing.
you'd better believe it'll be the first question out of the court appointed lawyer's mouth.
If you're not a citizen, do you get a day in court and a court-provided lawyer?
If you do... after you've been in jail for a few days or weeks, what happens to the officer whose suspicion doesn't turn out to be "reasonable" by court standards... vs what happens to you while you're in jail?
Tweet, tweet.
It does not just makes an effort to enforce the law, it (appears to me, will see how it actually gets applied) adds penalties, at least detention/arrest, even for US citizens !
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
So an American could be detained for 'reasonable suspicion' unless they carry their papers (at least until the status is verified); moreover
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
It would seem to me that an *American* could be arrested just for not having/presenting their papers, since that could be construed as probable cause ... that hasn't been in federal law.
"If they don't drive and haven't been abroad they don't have a drivers license or passport. "
/., we don't need no stinkin ID so we have nothing to worry about
Then something is wrong. How can they get a job or buy alcohol or get into a bar without even a state ID?
The police asking someone to identify themselves is normal. Why would anyone not tell show the police who they are unless they have something to hide?
Besides we're on
Stormtrooper: Let me see your identification.
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] You don't need to see his identification.
Stormtrooper: We don't need to see his identification.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Teabagger logic, huh? Anyone who disagrees with you is an America-hating socialist fascist homo? And, the idea that State law can "mirror" Federal Law is a silly talking point you've all been indoctrinated to run amok regurgitating. Federal law TRUMPS State law. Is Arizona going to "mirror" Federal declarations of war next?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The main problem is that, in the US, people are NOT required to carry Ids, or even to obtain them (of course, having them makes your life much easier); it is considered (I think) one of the guarantees in the constitution; in many other countries you have to register with the govt, and carry a national Id; not here, and that's the big issue.
I agree that 'In general, the police have better things to do than walk around randomly asking people for their papers.'; however, I see a big potential for abuse; some US citizens will encounter some cops who happen to be SOBs, and they will have trouble if they don't carry enough documentation (or they want to mess up with those cops :). I don't live in Arizona, and don't plan to visit it; if I lived there, I'd make sure to carry my license, but I'd also try to look for other places to move to :)
Other identifiers that Arizona law specifically states you are not required to give.
Fuck you pal. My wife is part Mexican (but US born), and definitely looks Mexican, and we plan on visiting friends in Phoenix Arizona later this year. If she leaves her purse at home while we go out to eat dinner, then we get stopped on the way back, she can be detained and 'arrested' on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. And she is an natural born citizen of the United States of America. Welcome to the reality of police states. I can't wait.
Related portions of the actual law, in case you didn't actually read it:
"Lawful contact" can be 'hi, how are you today?' or 'welcome to the police checkpoint'
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
This is a doozy, an illegal immigrant can be removable form the United States just based on being an illegal immigrant, this allows them to use probable cause suspicion to arrest just about anyone they want. 'Oh it was 2am and we coudln't get confirmation that this guy was actually a US citizen'
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
And here's the coup de grace, you are commiting a specific state crime by being an illegal immigrant on public OR private land in Arizona, which provides probable cause for your arrest, which will lead to arrests of people who just happen to not have their identification:
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(E) OR 1306(A).
8US Code Section 1304(e)"
Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.
Ergo, if the officer thinks my wife is an illegal immigrant, asks her to produce proof of citizenship and she doesn't have identification, he can arrest her for trespassing. Super.
The real truth is, its fear and cowardice that are leading us down the police state road we are on, man the fuck up and don't be scared. And stay the fuck off my lawn, damn kids.
Here's to your acceptance and apathy towards a permanent police state.
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
According to federal law [duke.edu], they are required to have those on them anyways. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 264(e) [uscis.gov]:
The problem I have with this is not the legal immigrants having ID, it's US citizens having to have ID. The police are supposed to take a citizens word for it that they are legal? I'm assuming that answer is no, so that means that a US citizen will have to have proof of identity with them at all times. No more going for a run with nothing but a $20 bill stuck in a sock.
And producing a drivers license? A drivers license is hardly proof of citizenship - you can get a license that is good for 25 years when you have a 1 year work visa (I know this from personal experience).
Also, what about kids? A fifteen year old american citizen, perhaps of hispanic descent that looks a few years older than he is. Will he have a drivers license?
Actually your remarks seep cognitive dissonance. The current AZ law is based on xenophobia. If you feel its not, please explain. Why or how are undocumented immigrants causing an issue for your day to day life (and anyone you know). Are you in the construction business? farming? landscaping? mexican restauranting? meat packing? Are you just afraid of the gangbangers ala Latin Kings, MS-1234567, etc? What is it that has you kids so afraid of the hard working sob that speaks better spanish than english? Do you think they are the cause of some issue with your health care provider?
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
When I'm visiting other countries (Mexico, UK and Japan mainly) I don't walk around with my Passport. I leave my passport in the safe back at my hotel room and only carry around my CA DL, the cash I plan to spend immediately and a credit card for unexpected purchases or for an emergency. I guess I've been breaking the laws in those countries; better think twice about carrying my passport.
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change" --Thich Nhat Hanh
> You understand that there are powers granted to the Federal
> government that the States Constitutionally cannot enforce, right?
False. A local authority always has the right to enforce the laws of the higher levels of government. Granted, your local police are not likely to arrest you for treason, but they certainly can, just as they could arrest you for fleeing arrest across state lines. OTOH, you could murder someone in front of an FBI agent (while not on a Federal reservation or property), and he or she can only make a citizen's arrest, until a local officer can take you in custody, because Federal authorities have no power to enforce state or local laws.
There is a reason that state government oaths of office include swearing to uphold the US Constitution and its laws, usually before the clause to uphold that state's laws, and local authorities swear to uphold the constitutions and laws of all their higher levels. It is not just to make the oaths of office longer.
Wrong, try enforcing diplomacy or declarations of war with armed sheriffs. I believe it was Wall Street fraud investigations that States just had their enforcement powers stripped from. If it's under Federal jurisdiction, then the Feds get to say if you get to enforce it. Just like Sheriff Arapaio lost his immigration enforcement authorization by blindly profiling dark-skinned American citizens.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
#2 - If you are a PASSENGER in said motor vehicle, you are required to be able to identify yourself to an officer as well. This is constitutional.. Reference: US v. Slater.
Nice try, but US. v. Slater is a case about copyright infringement and has nothing to do with passengers being required to carry identification.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
It’s very hard to say, actually. I have no idea what could be offensive or libelous about my current sig. In fact, I’m sure it isn’t.
Oh, and pretending you’re not apk? Yeah, it isn’t working.
Oh, and posting anonymously pretending to be me? Yeah, that isn’t working either.
Oh, and replying to your anonymous posts accusing them (you) of being me? ... Still not working.
Hopefully that gives you something entertaining to do all day long, though. You obviously have nothing better to do.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
You carry your birth certificate with you at all times? Or your passport? Those are the only two documents you list that prove citizenship or legal status. Neither a military ID nor a driver's license is considered a proof of status.
Perhaps you should actually READ the law:
"A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification."
An additional document would be the Naturalization Certificate, which is generally considered very precious and kept under lock and key, not something one would take around (and it clearly states it's illegal to copy)
We are frequently told that fake driver licenses are readily available, so that a real illegal would be home free until they stop accepting driver licenses, at which point technically Jessica Simpson as a passenger (not of a /. reader of course), or 8 year old Susie Blue Eyes, without her birth certificate (where is it?) could spend some time with the authorities.
But this is only meant for Mexicans, so it wouldn't affect "regular" people, would it.
Give me a break. Calling La Raza racist just shows your ignorance. The real racist is Russel Pearce, the guy who wrote the law and freely associates with white supremacy movements.
Time makes more converts than reason
> Wrong, try enforcing diplomacy or declarations of war with armed sheriffs.
Wrong, again. Diplomacy cannot be "enforced" by its nature; OTOH, try telling a court that a local sheriff that arrested German or Japanese agents just landed from a submarine has to let them go because he doesn't have the right to enforce laws coming into force from the declarations of war against Germany or Japan (obviously, this would be during WWII, unless we have a rematch like Cordwainer Smith suggested), and see how far they would listen to you.
As for the good sheriff, he was forbidden from enforcing those laws, but not because he had never had that authority, but because he misused it. He can still arrest you when you violate some other federal law (assuming that he can investigate it -- I doubt that he can handle interstate securities fraud by himself).
This was all worked out during the litigation against the Fugitive Slave Laws, which decided that state authorities HAD to assist in recapturing slaves, regardless of whether the state allowed slaves or even had laws forbidding assisting slave catchers.
You seem to think a year is a long time in really almost any court case, much less one that encompasses an entire police department and last month was expanded to include the county attorneys office. Just wait, it's coming, the only downside is that he'll go to a federal pen and not one of his gulags. As for the why he had his authority removed, and I realize this is a stretch of brain power for the avg 96.4 PHX IQ, but maybe, just maybe its because what he was doing is illegal. You know illegal isn't a race right?
Absolutely. The immigration issue would end tomorrow if a felony charge for hiring illegals applied to businesses and individuals alike. Direct your anger to your local and federal elected representatives. Wonder why Arizona didn't enforce THAT law instead...?
There are illegal immigrants in the US because everyone from rich people to meatpacking companies like to exploit cheap labor. It also provides a straw man for the right to knock down over and over again. At the end of the day, who's gonna weed whack your lawn if there's a $50,000 fine for hiring illegals and they all left to find work elsewhere?
Ask Me About... The 80's!
You might want to figure out how to read that poll. Support !=individuals.
Om, nomnomnom...
The general tone in these comments gives the impression that the people here understand the issue much better than the uninformed masses spouting cable news rhetoric. A few days ago I was unintentionally an audience to such unmitigated ignorance and was feeling very angry and disappointed in people who called themselves Americans, but I'm glad to know that people of greater intelligence are far more understanding and compassionate.
But the Federal government has constitutional authority, AZ does not have authority to create immigration laws. This si why we can freely move from state to state and become residences of any state we choose to reside in.
And the papers please aspect is also a violation of civil liberties.
They aren't making immigration law, they are requiring their officers to arrest violators of existing law and turn them over to INS. As for your "papers please" comment, you already have to verify your identity when you are arrested or detained as part of an investigation. Why is it that you liberals always want to protect criminals, what is it you have against following the law?
Well lets HOPE President Obama doesn't go driving through Arizona and get pulled over !!!!
I wonder if the Arizona courts would accept a CLB certificate as proof of citizenship???
FragHARD or don't frag at all
Which a) still sucks. I often don't carry my driver's license. I am not legally required to carry my drivers license. Apparently though if I'm a Mexican-American citizen in AZ there's a back-handed requirement that I do, just in case.
And b) makes the law pretty toothless. Fake driver's licenses (especially out of state ones, which would be harder to verify), or even licenses issued while a person was a legal resident, when they are not now, mean that many will get away with it.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Lots of blather from an AC. Must be spring coming, people getting their ACs out in anticipation of the warm summer days.
Who is this "I"? All I see is some anonymous troll accusing someone else of trolling ...
Here, let me fix that for you. Exchange servers are KNOWN to stall and what stops it? Not using Windows.
At least get an account so we can tell your different sock-puppets apart, mkay thx.
First, allow me to introduce you to the <p> and <br> tags. They are your friends if you want to look a bit less retarded on the net. Learn to use them. Even a dummy like you who relies on notepad should be able to do that much.
Otherwise, your posts will continue to resemble a puddle of drool. Your thoughts will continue to run together, soft and runny, inchoate, like post-burrito diarrhea.
Now, back to "a more serious note" as you put it - there are several very good, serious operating systems out there - but Windows is not, never has been, and never will be, one of them, for the simple reason that a fish rots from the head.
And contrary to the the balance (or should I say, imbalance) of your logorrhea, there has been no "ac being libeled here by clone54321" - as I pointed out, it's not legally possible to defame someone without identifying them, so you can't libel an anonymous poster.
Besides, I've read the thread with the email threats of legal action, and they were obviously empty, kind of like the writers' head. But that's just my opinion (because I'm being both diplomatic AND charitable in my phrasing :-)
My goodness! What a terrible story! These people sound like awful, awful people!
You know what you should do? I suggest calling your local news station. They love doing specials on things like this, where there are obvious scandals when someone posts something on the Internet and someone else disagrees with it.
I'm sure the publicity will help your cause immensely, and people who watch that news special will sit around and nod at one another and say things like "Goodness, that poor Mr Uhwhateverhisnameisyouknowsamenameasthatpenguinonmadagascar, what with people going onto the Internet and saying he's wrong, and then criticizing him for posting the same comments over and over and over again even though all he's trying to do is get his point across."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So there's perception, and there's reality. Maybe the reality is the police won't ask a victim to prove they're in the country legally. If an illegal immigrant's perception is the local police will deport them if they report a crime, do you think that they would report it. Likewise, if an illegal immigrant witnessed a crime, would they come forward if they believed doing so would get them deported?
My other sig is extremely clever...
Actually that does sound a lot like Eric Raymond..
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Still waiting for you to explain how someone can be defamed if they're anonymous.
BTW - if you're defending the total moron who posted this:
So tell us the REAL story. Did you sell your Ritalin to another kid in school? Or is the lithium not working again?
Chicken.
I’ll let you decide whether he is apk, or (as he claims) multiple people who definitely are not apk but who all agree that apk’s opinions are the best thing to hit the internet since Algore invented it.
http://i40.tinypic.com/25f6kxy.jpg
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The sock-puppetry is pretty lame, but it gives me the opportunity to rub in that you cannot libel an anonymous poster :-)
Plus the whole "I'm talking to my lawyers" bit is funny.
Plus, there's in this thread
Two quick points for APK for the next time you try to make it sound like you have some legal beagle eagle scout at hand:
A real winner on "Lets Sue Teh Innert00bs", for sure. Then again, anyone who thinks that a hosts file is anything but minor protection from threats is probably posting from a r00ted computer - oh wait - that's the "400 hz I has 2 viruses a month computer wunderkind" - I'd really like to see a video of someone posting to /. with those 300 baud acoustic couplers (I think they went as low as 120 baud).
this and this prove how wrong you are about that. so bring it on, asshole.
And this shows very clearly who, exactly, obviously has no worth and posts on slashdot all day and nite long.
p.s. I’ll be unable to respond to your harassing posts for a few hours; unlike you, I have a life.
p.p.s. I’ll say it again. Stop stalking my profile and posting harassing replies to all of my posts, and stop illegally bypassing Slashdot’s “you must wait longer before using this resource” message by changing your digital identity to trick the system into thinking you’re a different person.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I think that says it all ... "subscribing member of Windows IT Pro" ... yeah ... right ... that makes you sound like a real winner ...
Get at least some experience with a real operating system if you're going to try to run with the big dawgs.
"Windows IT Pro magazine" ... that's funny.
Getting 2 viruses a month shows you don't even know how to run a Windows box.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
The facts, which you ignore:
Anyone who recommends using the hosts file as a security measure is a moron. That includes you. And your other sock-puppets.
Funny how I have javascript enabled and I don't get viruses, and I don't use a modified hosts file. Not one virus. Not this year. Not this decade. Not this century. Not this millennium.
Your "solution" is akin ot fixing Toyota's brake problem by removing the wheels. It sucks.
apk and anyone else who recommends a hosts file as the be-all and end-all of security is a moron. That includes you. But you already knew that, sock-puppet.
Are you tired of all those problems on the Internet? The viruses? The spam? The netkooks who just WON'T leave you alone?
Well, did you know there's a solution to ALL YOUR PROBLEMS? Introducing ALL NEW KowalskiBeGone! It's the EXTRA SPECIAL anti-spammer tool that turns those frowns upside downs!
Here's what happens when you use a normal anti-malware tool to clean a PC infected with Kowalski.
(Screen shows head popping out of PC, wearing Ski-mask)
"Hey! Hey! Stop that! I'm one of Alexander Peter Kowalski's many anonymous admirers and you're LIBELING HIM by describing his habit of replying to all your comments with threats of legal action and bizarre misogynist insults as MALWARE!"
(Screen shows second head popping out of PC also wearing ski-mask. "Head with ski-mask' looks suspiciously like black sock over hand with a hole cut in it showing lips drawn in crude lipstick
"What Anonymous Coward says is right! Alexander Peter Kowalski is a great person, why look at all these articles he's written! Thanks to him, I now know the secret of dealing with all spammers except for Kowalski himself who isn't a spammer and that's a GROSS LIBEL he's just someone who posts the same thing over and over and over again, which is to edit my hosts file!"
(Screen shows third head popping out of PC also wearing ski-mask, looking suspiciously like the second hand... er, head.)
"Hi, I'm also not this APK person, whoever he is, but I just wanted to say that APK is in the right here and you are in the wrong! Sure, Kowalski writes applications that work terribly well as malware components such as programs to crudely hide other programs, but that's just because Kowalski writes great programs that everyone wants to use, even malware writers! How dare anyone suggest otherwise! They're just LIBELING me... er, him!"
As you can see, ordinary anti-malware tools not only don't work, they cause you to end up with even more Kowalskis than you started with!
But now watch what happens when you use All New KowalskiBeGone! Just sprinkle some of the magic formula on your PC, and watch what happens.
(Exactly the same thing happens as last time, but this time with a laugh track)
You see? Suddenly your Kowalski invasion is Kowalski Entertainment Time!
Don't believe us? Just listen to these totally real and honest testimonials!
"the use of KowalskiBeGone has worked for me in many ways. for one it makes APK hilarious, it helps speed up your computer as well. if you need more proof i am writing to you on a 400 hertz computer and i run with ease. i still get 200++ replies from APK to all my posts as i use to. but now everyone's laughing at them. if you want my opinion if you stick with KowalskiBeGone then you will be safe and entertained, but if you do get upset because it doesn't work then it will your own fault. keep up the good fight SquiggleIndustries!" - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot.org
"Its 1987 - still laughing at Kowalski! I was told last week by a co worker who just avoids mentioning APK by name, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but now I get a good laugh every time I check the responses to my posts. He said good point. I will say it again, KowalskiBeGone is FANTASTIC! Although it did kind of ruin Madagascar as it took out that penguin and now half the jokes surrounding the penguin don't make any sense" - Anonymous Coward #2, user of KowalskiBeGone
How much would you pay for a tool like this? I mean, KowalskiBeGone, obviously. How much? Well, what if we were to tell you that if you order in the next five minutes, we'll include this HILARIOUS Hosts file containing such gems as:
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
and
127.0.0.1 ads.pointroll.net
at NO EXTRA CHARGE? And we'll EVEN pay the shipping! That's right, order now, and you get KowalskiBeGone, a HILARIOUS Hosts file, and you don't have to pay shipping and handling!
So don't delay. Order now. Call the number on your screen, and let us take care of Kowalski!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you missed out on our special offer on MogTrolls several years ago, you don't want to miss this one!
Now that Bush is gone, are you itching to satisfy your inner Gitmo Beach Water Torture instincts, but you DON'T want to harm either a human being or an animal? Don't worry, be happy! Now there's KowalskiInABox.
Approved by PETA, the SPCA, and DHS, you too can have hours of fun turning a KowalskiSockPuppet into your very own trained pet. That's KowalskiInABox. Just like a jack-in-the-box, KowalskiInABox will jump at your slightest nudge. He even winds himself up! How's that for convenience?
Consider. The typical Kowalski Sock Puppet is terribly lonely. So starved for any attention that, just like MogTrolls, it only takes a few pokes to get them to perform for you, providing hours of entertaining fun. And you're keeping one more wannabe troll off the streets. It's a win-win-win. It's your civic duty! and it's fun :-)
You can get your KowalskiSockPuppet to follow you all over the place like the pitiful lost puppy^slug that they are. They'll take abuse that would be illegal in all 52 states (yes, I know there are only 50, but we're throwing in an extra two to make KowalskiInABox feel real REAL important).
And for a limited time, if you order a KowalskiInABox, we'll throw in the Petey Kowalski Sock Puppet Random Quote Generator - part of the KowalskiInABox Special Edition game pack. Just look at the latest gems:
"I post from a 400 hz computer"
"it's true because I'm a subscriber to Windows IT Pro"
"I take care of her computer and she only gets two viruses a month"
But wait - theres MORE
Act now, and we'll throw in a Second KowalskiInABox absolutely free. That's right folks! Two for the price of one. Who can resist? Put them together and you'll swear you hear "Dueling Banjos". They may even start squealing like a pig.
Remember how you chuckled about "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the special olympics?" but you felt a bit guilty about making fun of the mentally handicapped? With KowalskiInABox those days are gone. KowalskiInABox is your road to 100% guilt-free guilty pleasure. Even people who would argue about withdrawing sustenance from the brain-dead have no moral qualms about you kicking your pet KowalskiInABox. With an IQ somewhere between a pet rock and freezer-burned ice cream, there are no ethical concerns over KowalskiInABox - even your two-year-old terror can safely vent their temper tantrums.
And that's not all - theres MORE
That's right. With KowalskiInABox, you also get our free guide - "Troll trolling." Written by trolls, for trolls, it's your insiders guide to competitively scoring your KowalskiInABox. Remember, the more of these fails your KowolskiInABox says, the higher your score. Because ...
That's not all - theres MORE - you get entry into the "Trolling Petey Sweepstakes and Beerfest"
That's right! When slumming on Craigslist just isn't enough, you can test your troll-bashing skills against other KowolskiInABox owners. Compete head-on for pink slips. Put your KowalskiInABox in a claim race. Try to win the big one with the KowalskiInABox Bullshit Bingo competition - does YOUR KowalskiInABox have what it takes to fill the whole card?
And as a final bonus
You have the option of getting your Kowalski Sock Puppet branded as a KawolskiInABox instead of a KowalskiInABox - because intentionally mis-spelled names drives your KowalskiInABox nutzo!
There's only one way to find out folk. So remember - act now and you get:
Being serious for a moment: I no more need to write snake-oil and have it reviewed favorably in a collection of Windows magazines than Jon Stewart needs to run a giant, corrupt, corporation in order to poke fun of Kenneth Lay.
You know what I also don't have to my name? An application listed as dangerous by large numbers of authoritative anti-spyware companies.
My customers have always been pretty happy with my software. What am I doing right that you're not? I think it probably involves not being an ass.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Whatever small amount of money that is, it's not a lot clone54321. Is that supposed to impress us? I make that much in less than a week's pay, lol!
No, you don’t. In fact, you don’t make that much in a MONTH. Unless you want to prove me wrong? Nah, didn’t think you would.
You obviously missed the part where I said that is pocket change. You obviously missed the part where I posted another screenshot showing something around $25,000 and that’s just in my PayPal account, not to mention bank accounts and brokerages.
And you obviously fail at counting. $524 is not “$300 or so”. LOL!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The word is not "did", it's "does". It's present tense, dear. Your software, right now, is classified that way.
And yes, my customers (strictly speaking, my employer's customers who use the software I developed) have never felt the need to report my software as malware. Neither fleetingly, nor presently, not at all. Nor do I have a reputation across the Internet as being a malware developer, fairly or otherwise, and I also don't have the reputation of being an uptight cretin who threatens to sue everyone for no good reason.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That's an interesting claim given it's from the author (or someone pretending to be a "fan" of the "author") of apkapp2backgrounddaemonprocessengine.exe:
CA
PestPatrol
SpywareDB ("Dangerous!")
Freedom Anti-Spyware
Spycheck (Spanish-language) - "Recomendacion: DESACTIVAR Y ELIMINAR"
Spyware No-More [spynomore.com] ("Threat risk: High risk", "Advice: Remove This is a very high risk threat and should be removed immediately as to prevent harm to your computer and / or to protect your privacy")
There is one person involved in this conversation who has written software identified as "malware" by the security community. That person is the one promoting the idea of using a HOSTS file to block malware. That same person says that even after using HOSTS the way they claim, they're getting hit by two viruses a month, two more than the vast majority of Windows users.
Your gall is astonishing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
FUD is a business/marketing term. Stop using it incorrectly, slashdot people.