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H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal).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
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 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!
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
En libertad, como los pajarillos.
En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?
You sound suspicious -- Show me your papers.
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'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.
En libertad, como los pajarillos.
En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?
I believe this is the reason that Arizona has gone Nazi on illegal immigrants. Now New Mexico on the other hand has a state constitution that embraces the bi-lingual hispanic community. Maybe you should just move there.
Arizona's new law largely mirrors existing federal law. The only people "going Nazi" are the hordes of activists that are violating Godwin's Law faster than the illegals that are actually crossing the border.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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/
stop this non-sense of saying this has anything to do with guilt or innocence. That's for the courts to decide, and a prosecutor to prove, but it has nothing to do with the Police and their ability to detain, question, or stop you.
If you don't like it move to Canada.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
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
It's about f...ing time My wife spent 5 years learning English and social studies in order to become an American citizen. It makes me crazy listening to the bleeding hearts complain about the horrible treatment being afforded people in this country ILLEGALLY!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break already!!!
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.
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.
It mirrors the requirement that immigrants carry papers, but that's not the issue. The part that's problematic is that this law allows cops to ask anyone that they interact with to show their papers, whether they are required to have them or not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
This law is work for word the same as a federal law that has been on the books forever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.