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H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal).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.'"

Comments

What about the presumption of innocence?

[NewtonsLaw]

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?

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[peterofoz]

Getting arrested or detained does not make you guilty. You'll still have your day in court or clear things up at the station.Think of it like a beefed up curfew law for minors.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[lena_10326]

Given that you'll probably serve 3+ months in jail waiting to find out that you are indeed innocent still feels like a 3+ month prison sentence no matter how you spin it.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[BountyX]

I think you are misunderstanding that presumption. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anyone can accuse you of any crime at any time. Being temporarily detained or arrested until get a trial, is NOT a presumption of guilt. You have the presumption of innocence in court becuase it is the prosecuting party that assumes the burden of proof for their accusation.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arizona is just enforcing fed law:

(d) Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this Act shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.

(e) 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).

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8289.html

If we are not going to enforce the laws, take them off the books.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[DesScorp]

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?

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[onefriedrice]

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?

As usual, the media has portrayed this bill according to whatever political slant the news outlets see fit. In reality, the Arizona bill is not much different than the federal law on illegal immigration (which obviously just isn't enforced). In particular, more than a few pundits are trying to portray this law as giving law officers the power to go door-to-door in search of illegal aliens to bust. In actuality, there is no such powers, and officers may only ask for papers if there is an altercation. In that case, since officers usually ask to see ID's of any involved persons during any dispute on the street, nobody should have a problem with the Arizona law unless they're trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Clearly, the reason this law is getting so much negative attention is because it makes the President look bad to have states enact laws to enforce federal laws that aren't being enforced.

There are more points to the issue, though. The residents of Arizona overwhelmingly support it because the fact is (although many want to ignore this), illegal immigration is a big problem, economically and socially. As much as people like to avoid talking about this, a huge chunk of crime (especially violent crime) is caused by Spanish-speakers, many of whom are here illegally. I don't blame them! Or at least, I can see the problem they're in. Illegal immigration is akin to slavery, pure and simple. Humans deserve better, which is why this problem needs to be fixed. If nothing else, at least the Arizona law has made it an issue the federal government now wants to address.

The simplest thing we can do to fix this problem is to make it easier to immigrate here legally. Talking about amnesty or anything regarding what to do about illegals who are already here is like bailing water without stopping to fix the hole. If it's easy to immigrate here, more of those who would be illegals become tax-paying, fairly-payed citizens. Then we can work to help illegal aliens who are already here find their way to the back of the line. The longer we wait, the longer this modern form of slavery is going to continue.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that guy was stopped by the ICE (a federal department, not state) doing the job they always do. Funny how it's suddenly a problem. More sensationalism at work.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Foobar of Borg]

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

You seem to have missed the point that not everyone with brown skin in Arizona is an alien, legal or otherwise. Or, to put it another way, if I took my aunt who was born in Germany (but is now an American citizen) to Arizona, they are probably not going to stop her and demand to see her papers to prove that she is here legally.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[blowdart]

Actually no. As an H1B myself we're supposed to carry the passport containing visa and the last entry we received when entering the country. I have a US drivers license, but that doesn't prove I'm here legally - after all my visa could have ran out. Now do I do it? No I don't, because the risk of being stopped and jailed is minimal compared to the risk of losing my passport, which is an even bigger mess. Even with a green card you're supposed to carry that around all the time, lose it and it's $290 to get another. And passport or green card loss leaves you ripe for identity theft.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Trepidity]

Technically yes, but those requirements usually aren't strictly enforced. I don't usually carry my passport on my person in foreign countries, because it greatly increases the risk of it being damaged/lost/stolen. Especially if you go to the beach; are you supposed to take it swimming with you, or leave it unprotected under a beach umbrella? I've never heard of tourists being arrested for that, either, at least in relatively sane western countries. If you get stopped for some reason and tell the policeman that your passport is back in the safe at your hotel, they'll either just take your word for it, or follow you back to your hotel to get it. They won't charge you with a criminal not-carrying-passport offense, because that would be stupid.

And in the U.S., permanent residents typically aren't hassled, at least until now. Officially a green-card holder needs to carry their green card with them, but in practice this has never really been enforced in an onerous way. My mom was a permanent resident for decades before eventually getting around to getting citizenship, and I don't think she was ever asked to show her green card outside of circumstances where it was clearly necessary, like upon reentry into the U.S., I-9 employment verification, or other such bureaucratic stuff. She certainly didn't carry it while jogging.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[causality]

How is this a problem? By Law they are required to carry documentation with them, like a drivers license.

Because it's so easy to demagogue.

Any problem here is with the federal government, as enforcing immigration laws and taking reasonable measures to protect the country's borders is properly their job. As they have utterly failed to do this job, and their utter failure is causing many problems for certain state governments, one of those states is now trying to do something about it rather than ignoring it and continuing to have these problems.

My bet is that the Feds aren't doing jack shit about this because both political parties benefit from the current situation. Republicans are allied with some corporate interests who view the illegal aliens as low-cost workers, while for Democrats, the joke is "they're not illegal aliens, they're unregistered Democrats." Both stand to lose those benefits if states start dealing with this. Both are powerful political and monied interests. That's why this has to be portrayed as negatively as possible with the most highly emotional rhetoric available. Certainly no critical analysis of this rhetoric will be allowed in the news, though it may appear in some editorial programs.

Right now most of the problem of illegal aliens is coming from Mexico; at least in Arizona this is the case. Thus, these laws will mostly be applied to Mexicans who are here illegally or are here legally but failed to produce the paperwork. None of the people enforcing this law caused Mexicans to come here illegally. They are merely recognizing that this is happening and acting accordingly. Yet because Mexicans are a racial/ethnic group, and because the media eats this kind of shit for breakfast, this measure is being called "racist". It's pure bullshit.

If we had many illegal immigrants from England, Spain, Mexico, and Canada, yet the immigration laws were only enforced against the illegal immigrants who are Mexican, that would be an instance of racism or ethnic discrimination. That isn't the case. Right now the problem is coming from Mexico and illegal immigrants from elsewhere are more like statistical error by comparison. Again, some percentage of Mexican citizens are responsible for that, not anyone who wrote or plans to enforce Arizona's new law. You'll practically never see such a common-sense recognition in the media.

Really, people who think this is some horrible extreme law should take a hard look sometime at Mexico's immigration laws, or those of most other countries for that matter. There's an almost 100% chance that none of the highly emotional people screaming bloody murder about this have done so.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[adelporto]

So you're fine with being asked to provide proof of citizenship during a routine traffic stop? Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship. Given that the US is a country of immigrants and therefore anyone and everyone looks like an immigrant, police can detain you until you prove that you are a citizen. You obviously don't care if that happens to brown citizens going about their day, because, and this is a wild guess, you're white and don't think this law would affect you, but think for a second about what that means if you happen to be protesting something the government doesn't like. Can't prove your citizenship? Detention for you.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Achromatic1978]

Speaking as someone who is "in between" (I have a 2 year green card, which is in the process of 'removing limitations', i.e. being issued as a 10 year green card), there are things you should know:

1. Backups are so bad that you are advised to send in your paperwork four to five months before your current papers expire. They will not accept paperwork more than six months prior. However, tThis is no guarantee that your new ones will be issued by the expiry. Indeed you might find yourself waiting an additional YEAR or more after expiry before new cards are issued
2. During this time, you are "on a stay authorized by the Attorney General", in essence, "until your application is accepted or declined". However, this status is not one of record. You will get a letter from USCIS stating that your application is in process, and that this letter does not suffice as a visa, etc, etc. If you contact USCIS, you will be told that you can NOT get a letter confirming that you are in that period - that, essentially, you are at the mercy of the various bureaucracies and service centers.
3. Do you know that if you are a foreigner who wishes to marry a US citizen, it is both QUICKER /and/ CHEAPER for you to come here on a tourist visa, sign a waiver saying you have no intention of marrying a citizen, get married anyway, and fill out a visa application that basically says "Oops. Can I stay anyway?" than it is for you to actually go through the process the "proper" way? Just one of the reasons immigration is ... "problematic".
4. Despite having paid nearly $1000 two years ago for "processing" (just part of the nearly $15,000 my immigration has cost me in fees and direct expenses alone, not counting airfares, moving, etc) and biometrics, you now get stung for another biometrics to the tune of a few hundred dollars (in case, for example, your fingerprints have changed...)

So, really, fuck you Arizona - through no fault of my own, you feel entitled to detain me because of the failings of the government system? Because I can't get documentation of my status?

Blah.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[fredjh]

It's already written into the bill... they need a REALLY good reason to suspect you; they are not allowed to "suspect" you do to skin color, race, or country of origin...

Now proving what their suspicion was in court may be difficult, but you'd better believe it'll be the first question out of the court appointed lawyer's mouth.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[timeOday]

they are not allowed to "suspect" you do to skin color, race, or country of origin...

Driving While Black isn't a crime either, so I'm SURE minorities aren't subject to any extra traffic enforcement either... right?

The law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."

If it isn't based on skin color, what will it be based on? English competency? Off-brand tennis shoes? We already have Tom Tancredo calling for poll tests! Wow, next week it will be "separate but equal."

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[jackchance]

Getting arrested or detained does not make you guilty. You'll still have your day in court or clear things up at the station.Think of it like a beefed up curfew law for minors.

Getting detained doesn't make you guilty, but you could lose your job for not showing up at work.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Trepidity]

That depends on the state. Several states require that government-issued photo ID be on your person at all times.

I'm not aware of any such state. I'm not even aware of any state that requires a U.S. citizen to have a government-issued photo ID. If you don't drive, you aren't required to get a driver's license, and if you don't exit the country, you aren't required to get a passport.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[www.sorehands.com]

Most countries require you to carry papers when you visit the countries.

I thought the Nazis were decried because of death camps, not requiring papers.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[lena_10326]

First off the topic was general: "presumption of innocence". Second, (rolling with it anyway) you may be assuming everyone has easy access to their birth certificate. If no one on the outside can help you, you are fucked.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held Warziniack for weeks in an Arizona detention facility with the aim of deporting him to a country he's never seen. His jailers shrugged off Warziniack's claims that he was an American citizen, even though they could have retrieved his Minnesota birth certificate in minutes and even though a Colorado court had concluded that he was a U.S. citizen a year before it shipped him to Arizona.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/01/24/25392/immigration-officials-detaining.html#ixzz0mMredX8e

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[still cynical]

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

But what about non-visitors? US citizens don't carry birth certificates or passports with them every day, nor are they required to. So how do they prove their citizenship when stopped? Would they just be detained until they can have someone bring their passport to the local jail? No one seems too concerned with that scenario because of the unspoken assumption that anyone who "looked" like a citizen wouldn't be stopped. And that's where the concerns of discrimination come into play. I'm sure the vast majority of people who support this law are confident they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because they are "obviously" American. Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[DesScorp]

Given that the US is a country of immigrants and therefore anyone and everyone looks like an immigrant, police can detain you until you prove that you are a citizen.

I'm a native-born US citizen of Italian descent who is frequently mistaken for a Latino, even by actual Latinos who come up to me and start speaking Spanish. I also travel through Arizona on a fairly regular basis. I will be curious to see if I'm ever asked to prove my citizenship. Sure hope I'm not going to have to start carrying a passport to in order to keep from being shipped to Mexico.

Showing a drivers license will suffice. One of the rumors floating around about this bill is that everyone will theoretically have to carry a birth certificate or citizenship papers with them, but that's not the case. The police will ask for a form of ID first... which they routinely do during things like traffic stops anyway. In my state, there are random sobriety checkpoints set up where state troopers will ask to see your license and registration and ask if you've been drinking. And they've been doing this for decades. So it's not like Americans have never had to deal with the inconvenience of police asking for ID before.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[GameMaster]

Honestly, perhaps you should re-direct that anger to the people that have, actually, earned it (a.k.a. the Federal immigrations officials responsible for the back-log and the congressmen/women who haven't bothered to fund them adequately). If they were doing their job right, you wouldn't be having problems.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[clarkkent09]

Please don't exaggerate if you haven't read the law. The new Arizona law is essentially the same as the existing federal law that is not being enforced. The law gives police the right to ask for papers ONLY when they lawfully stop somebody. They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status. However, for example in case of traffic violation or something like that they can.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[DesScorp]

" And in the U.S., permanent residents typically aren't hassled, at least until now. "

And if that happens, you can blame three parties for that in the US; the federal government, which has to a great extent ignored the problem of illegal immigration, the politicians that want them to continue ignoring the porous borders, and the businesses that keep them coming because they don't want to pay market rates for labor. Don't blame the people who finally got fed up with coyotes leading columns of illegal aliens across their lawns at 2 in the morning. The states are acting now because the federals are not.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Sycraft-fu]

While I'm not at all a fan of this bill, what you are talking about is a completely separate issue. If the US has a fucked up immigration system, and it does, then it needs to fix it. The answer isn't just "Let's ignore problems because the system is fucked up."

That is actually a large way that we've gotten in to the current mess with illegal immigration. A non-trivial amount of the population does not seem to want a solution, they just want to ignore things. They don't seem to want to forward solutions, such as streamlining the process, reducing costs, having work visas, etc, they just want to allow things to continue illegally. That is a bad situation. Fix the system, don't ignore the problem.

So same shit here. There are reasons to be mad at Arizona about this law, but that because the federal government sucks at the paperwork is not one of them. The paperwork should be done properly and if ti isn't the feds are who to be mad at.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[snowgirl]

THAT'S ODD...

The guy is talking about how a LEGAL alien can be here LEGALLY, yet not have any documentation.

You seem to have missed his point?

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Trepidity]

The case you link explicitly notes that the person in question was not required to carry or produce papers, only to identify himself verbally. The opinion makes pretty clear that they were upholding Nevada's "stop-and-identify" statute on the understanding that the "identify" part included no requirement to produce ID:

As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[ArcherB]

They are stealing your time. I hope people can clog things up real good for this. Fight it every way you can. It's outrageous.

I know. Seriously, what kind of law enforcement agency actually tries to enforce the law? What a bunch of dicks!

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Hooya]

Here's an interesting story for you:

Some fifteen years ago, I was one of the three "foreign" students in our dorm. I'm brown. The other was Hispanic. Our dorm was more nerdy than most. More social than nerdy really. Most of us hung out in the lounge, played piano, etc.. But for most of the year, there was a guessing game going on as to who the third foreigner was. No one could figure it out. Towards the end of the year, it came to light that it was this girl - who was hanging out with us ALL THIS TIME when we were trying to guess who it was. Now, the ONLY difference between me and this girl (apart from the anatomical differences between a dude and a dudette) was that I'm brown and she was nordic. Neither of us had an accent or other tell-tale signs of 'foreign-ness'. Yet, people pegged me as a foreigner without blinking. No one - and I mean no one - guessed her.

I'm now a citizen. I would imagine by now she is too. If both of us are driving down a highway in Arizona guess who will be stopped? Guess who has to carry documentation on his/her person at all times. "Papriska, please?" (think Red-October)

Fine. If Arizona is just enforcing the fed law, tell me how they can enforce it EQUALLY and I mean non-racially. Would they ever stop this girl and ask for her papers? Would they ever stop me and ask me for mine? On what basis? If your answer is anything other than the perma-tan-age of my epidermis ... The point of the above anecdote is that people start out with the assumption that I'm a foreigner (btw, my son isn't. but he isn't going to fare much better.) Yet no one "sees" other foreigners just like me if they don't look quite like me.

I know it's a bunch of hypotheticals (would they? who knows). But the point is that as a minority I already have to tread carefully. In AZs case, I have to not only avoid drawing suspicion, I have to carry docs - just in case I get pulled over. Midnight run to taco bell? Umm... where's the passport honey? Fuck that noise. And fuck AZ. Hide behind the justification of "it's the law" all you want. All kinds of things have been "the law" at some point or another. Don't mean it's right.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[ArcherB]

Police are also able to demand that you stand on one leg and draft up a 5 page essay if they want, doesnt mean you legally have to. Cops can ask to search your car any time for any reason; doesnt mean you have to let them.

Perhaps I should have explained more clearly. When he didn't show them his birth certificate (and who carries this around with them 24/7?), they *arrested* him!

Those were Federal Agents. Strange. I don't remember seeing the protest over that. It wasn't until Arizona passed a law that says, "We have the same rights as the Feds do in our state" that everyone started throwing such a shit fit.

So, where was this post back when the FEDS arrested this guy? Actually it supports the idea that maybe local Arizona police should be handling this.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Foobar of Borg]

Next person who types "NO CARRIER" as a punchline will be mercilessly bludgeoned.

Ha! You wouldn't dare bludgeon someone who us)*(&@EKJn^ [NO CARRIER]

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Sparr0]

And what if you can't prove it? At one point, for a period of about 6 months, I was unable to get a state ID in either of the states that I lived and worked in, because the state I was born in would not give me a copy of my birth certificate without my already having an ID issued by a state or the federal govt.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Sounds like you have a problem with the federal immigration system, just like Arizona does.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[causality]

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

You seem to have missed the point that not everyone with brown skin in Arizona is an alien, legal or otherwise. Or, to put it another way, if I took my aunt who was born in Germany (but is now an American citizen) to Arizona, they are probably not going to stop her and demand to see her papers to prove that she is here legally.

And if we had a big problem with literally tens of millions of Germans sneaking into this country by illegally crossing its borders, then maybe I'd see your point.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out the best part!

 

Unlike suspects charged in criminal courts, detainees accused of immigration violations don't have a right to an attorney, and three-quarters of them represent themselves. Less affluent or resourceful U.S. citizens who are detained must try to maneuver on their own through a complicated system.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[deltharius]

Well, thankfully an AC knows the laws of every single state.

Why don't you look at (for example) Arizona's legal requirements for getting a driver's license. I'll admit it took me a whole 30 seconds to get them on Google. Having a legal license from the State of Arizona does actually prove that you are either a citizen or legally in the country, because that is the only way that Arizona will issue a license to you. Idaho is the same way; no birth certificate, no green card, no legal papers = no license. So, is it completely foolproof, no. You could get your license with faked documents, or just a fake license, which just adds to your crimes, but a legal, valid license certainly does imply your legal status.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Loki_1929]

I don't think anyone disputes that current US immigration procedures and handling are pretty well screwed up. That, however, does not change the fact that we have 12 - 20 million people here illegally who are (per laws and policies) to be found and booted from the country. As our Federal government is more interested in granting amnesty to law-breakers in this area of the law than it is in actually enforcing the law, the state of Arizona has decided that it has had enough of what is - by any measure - a full-scale invasion.

Ideally, I would like to see all our immigration policies and procedures overhauled so that everyone coming in legally is able to do so with as little trouble and expense as possible while everyone trying to come here illegally is either prevented from doing so or is quickly located and deported. Unfortunately, far too many in Congress want to tie making your life easier with giving tens of millions of illegal alien invaders amnesty and citizenship as a reward for violating our sovereign borders and ignoring our laws. Considering the fact that these illegal alien invaders are now kidnapping US citizens and have been raping and murdering our citizens en masse for decades, and considering the fact that the drug cartels from Mexico are now extending their wars across our borders, you're just going to have to wait until we can get the idiots in Congress to fix the legal immigration system.

Your beef is not with Arizona, but with the US Federal government. It is not Arizona's fault that the Federal government is leaving you in limbo. It is not Arizona's fault that the Federal government isn't providing you with up-to-date status paperwork. You and I have two common enemies in this fight: the Federal government that's basically screwing you while leaving my country's borders insecured in the middle of one of the largest invasions in history and the illegal immigrants who are flooding into the country without bothering to go through the process you've been working with (because you apparently care about following the law and respecting this country - two concepts utterly foreign to illegals) who have forced Arizona into this position.

If the citizens of Arizona weren't under constant threat from drug cartels and other criminal aliens, and if there weren't an ongoing invasion of the country that's overwhelming our social services and draining our economy, then I'd say we shouldn't resort to states doing things like this just yet as it's really the responsibility of the Federal government to fix things. However, we're under attack and it requires a more urgent response. We've been waiting for the Federal government to fix the problem of illegals flooding into this country by the millions for decades. It simply isn't happening. Now that our people are being kidnapped, taken away, murdered, etc on the verge of a full-scale drug war spilling into our streets, dealing with the illegals has become the overriding priority.

You're in the immigration emergency room telling me your foot hurts. I got gunshot victims to deal with first. Will get to you ASAP. Want to improve your situation in the meantime? Get together with a whole bunch of other people who are in favor of fixing the immigration system without amnesty for illegals and get the Feds to fix their broken system. In the meantime, if you're a non-citizen in the US without documentation showing that you're here legally, ya might wanna steer clear of Arizona and several other states considering similar legislation.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Moofie]

"IMHO, the rights of the Constituion should only apply to citizens"

Fortunately for all of us, the authors of the Constitution knew that this was a stupid idea, and specifically and explicitly constructed the document to disabuse people of this notion.

But don't let the words on the page disabuse you of your humble opinion.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Sancho]

Are you an American citizen? If you were stopped in Arizona for a busted tail light, how would you prove that you were (assuming the answer is yes)?

Of course the truth is, if you're not hispanic-looking and don't have a latino name, they probably won't demand that you verify your status. But amazingly, racism only a secondary problem. The main problem is that they may ask an American citizen to show proof that they are in the country legally, and Americans have no legal responsibility to carry that kind of documentation. So now what? Minor traffic tickets can be used to arrest people until they can provide a birth certificate?

This is probably one of the most ill-conceived laws to come about in recent times.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[sldghmr]

I live in Arizona. I see your perspective and experience; so here is mine.

I've lost one vehicle to theft; found weeks later with an illegal alien (from Mexico) behind the wheel. All removable components removed. It was paid off prior and insurance did not cover full price to get a new one though they did pay a lot. But they probably raised everyone who pays insurance a little to cover it so no worries to the illegal immigrants.

I've been hit twice in hit and runs; luckily I was able to follow them and get police to their location. First time, the police gave them a ticket, told me they were not legal (from Mexico) and to just deal with my insurance. When I asked why they weren't being detained to deport it was due to the city of Phoenix police not being allowed to enforce immigration (this was around '02). Second time, they were detained by the sheriff dept which is all I know, and again it was my insurance that had to pay the tab (see the trend here) each time with me paying deductibles and 100% of aftermarket equip.

My son was in an accident and his foot was sliced open to the bone. I carried him in to the ER that evening and it was packed wall to wall, no room to stand. We checked in at the desk and then we were asked to step outside and wait because it was safer outside. You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance and were using it as a clinic to treat the flu, common colds, strep throat... stuff you take to a regular Dr. So the facilities tax payers have contributed to so its there in the event of an emergency is over-run. A nurse came outside after a half hour and walked us around to a side door where they finally treated my sons foot.

For states that are not on the border, immigration may not seem like it's a bad problem but for states that are on the border its a huge problem. It's expensive and though activists will tell you otherwise it's a big impact on crime.

A few points you should understand since you want to be a citizen of the US.
- Illegal immigrants do not have a right to be here. That's why they call it 'illegal'.
- It's not the burden of the US for an immigrant to gain citizenship; it's the immigrants burden!
- This country is losing money fast and illegal immigration costs more each year than the war effort overseas.
- Many of us already citizens have fought for and killed for this country, possibly close to you right now; it is NOT a good idea to tell us to get fucked.

I congratulate you for taking the high road and doing whatever it takes to get your citizenship. You seem to be jumping through the hoops and paying for it. It's not easy to be an American is it? It's damned expensive and it doesn't stop when you get the paper either. Maybe you can move to Arizona and help us pay for the illegal immigrants that flood across the border. That would be great! We need all the help we can get.

Could you imagine living in a state where you have to pass a state law just to make state law enforcement enforce federal laws already in place? Is that not the strangest concept? Honestly I never thought it would pass, the opposition for it is very large. Unfortunately, the lower ranks of law enforcement will probably find a way to abuse it. I hope not though, I sincerely hope that its put to good use and impacts legal citizens and legal immigrants as little as possible.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Loki_1929]

If you believe the police in the United States are "the local gestapo" who simply "pistol whip" people on a whim, it's probably past time for your medication. When your persecution complex is muted by the Aripiprazole, we'll look at the reality of the situation.
.
.
.
.
.

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. If you're driving a vehicle, you have to have one of those anyway. If you simply don't drive at all - ever, and don't want/need a driver's license, you can get a state-issue ID for little or no cost. Either should be perfectly sufficient to resolve any questions from law enforcement.

However, it's more likely that most cops are going to know pretty quickly if you're someone they need to check. If you don't speak English, that's probably a good place to begin. If you get pulled over and don't have a license or other ID (which is, itself, a problem), then that's kind of a clue too. If you take off running when they say 'Hello', that'd also be a good starting point.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[lena_10326]

They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status.

Right. Tell that to these people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7F49dUaZMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMDW4Fszj2U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQLFITnwgDI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmPi2GbbUes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udf1tY3Fl2U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frL6rRbGAdw

However, for example in case of traffic violation or something like that they can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Fast forward to about 3/4's through. An experienced cop admitting that when he followed a car long enough he could make a legal stop because at some point everyone makes a mistake. (I presume feeling nervous that a cop has been following you the last 8 blocks also doesn't help one's situation.)

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[pipedwho]

The problem is that we've made criminals a protected class in America for so long that they have more rights than legal citezens. IMHO, the rights of the Constituion should only apply to citizens. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore.

That's not the way it ever worked.

Criminals are not a protected 'class', and the constitution has never applied ONLY to citizens.

In fact, beyond the obvious loss of rights that happens to someone when they're incarcerated, the government doesn't suddenly have a legal reprieve to ignore the constitution. Think for example the 8th Amendment regarding "cruel and unusual punishment". How would that make any sense if all of a sudden the constitution ceased to apply once you've been convicted. Could you then be punished "cruelly and unusually"?

At the time that the US Constitution was written, there was no universal requirement of citizenship. In fact the word citizen wasn't even mentioned in the constitution until the 14th Amendment was added nearly 100 years later.

The US Constitution is probably one of the most noble documents ever written. And the denial of rights, or the selective application of its laws, is anathema to the entire purpose of its text.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[snowgirl]

I went through the TN-1, H1-B, GC process, and always had proof of status on my person. I still do.

And I was born in the United States, yet I do not have a proper birth certificate...

What's your point? That a single datum makes data?

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Loki_1929]

Maybe you should read the Arizona law. Maybe the Arizona law tells you. Maybe reading things before commenting on them / bitching about them is just good practice. What do you think?

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B) ... 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 TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. A VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[street_astrologist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Fast forward to about 3/4's through. An experienced cop admitting that when he followed a car long enough he could make a legal stop because at some point everyone makes a mistake. (I presume feeling nervous that a cop has been following you the last 8 blocks also doesn't help one's situation.)

True. If this happens to you, pull over and walk away from the car as soon as possible before you do commit that violation.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[edumacator]

They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status.

You must not know a lot of cops. What you are saying is technically true, but if someone who appears to be Hispanic, and they swerve ever so slightly in their lane, the cops can and often will stop them for that minor infraction, so that they can check their status. The cops I know in Georgia don't do this for immigration purposes, but if you drink a few beers with them, they'll admit to stopping Hispanics because they have a higher likelihood of carrying drugs.

Laws like this are meant to give the police HUGE latitude in stopping someone. They are also targeting a group that doesn't have the wherewithal to hire a good lawyer to invalidate the original stop.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Alioth]

Given Arizona used to be part of Mexico (as did most of the southwestern US, right up to Oregon and Colorado) - and the United States took this from Mexico by force - be glad that the Mexicans are just taking back what's theirs by peaceful means. So hardly an "invasion".

(yes, I am trolling).

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[sg_oneill]

Because only the federal government can make laws about immigration, according to the US constitution.

According to an AZ lawyer friend, this law won't last 15 seconds in court before its invalidated.

The US constitution provides that:
1) The "Papers Please" part of the law is unconstitutional. If you refuse and are arrested, you can most likely sue for breaches of civil rights, regardless of AZ law.
2) AZ has no constitutional authority to pass this law.
3) It violates the 14th ammendment. ...and a bunch of other stuff.

Between laws banning the antichrist (actually Im not sure if thats AZ, but lol if it is), the nutty "president must have birth certificate" (Hmm, yes I'm SURE AZ has the authority to make federal election laws) and this, plus the fact that Sherrif Arpaio *STILL* isn't in Jail for massive breaches of every god damn law regulating police powers and police brutality ever concieved, AZ is apparently a pretty embarassing place to be a lawyer right now.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[sg_oneill]

It's far easier to just arrest all the brown people.

Considering the mass move away from the republicans by conservative hispanic voters due to the nutty racist shit coming out of the likes of Tancredo et al, which played a large part of the republicans nosediving in the last election, on top of the fact that the republicans seem hellbent on scaring the hell out of almost everyone with the batshit crazy teaparty stuff, do you ever get the feeling the republicans are TRYING to create a "permanant democrat majority".

The funny thing is, considering the widespread perception of innefectiveness thats dogged Obama, it wouldn't actually be too hard to win the next election, except for the fact the republicans seem hell bent on totally alienting the all important hispanic vote (think florida!) , and somehow seem to have taken away from the last election that they where not right wing enought, I doubt they'll be able to capitalize on that.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[MartinSchou]

There IS a reason to be upset with Arizona for this law. They are punishing people for something they cannot possibly fix or even rectify. It's not as if the Arizona state legislature doesn't know this is an issue.

Imagine this situation:
You're arrested for whatever trivial reason. The phone system is down, so you can't get to call your own lawyer, so you're assigned a court appointed one. Once in court, your lawyer suffers a stroke, but the court don't want to waste its time arranging for you to get another lawyer, and not only convicts you of whatever you were arrested for, but also holds you in contempt of court for wasting its time because your lawyer had a stroke.

You have no way of influencing the things that get screwed up. Same with the green card system. You apply in time, you're told that while they're working on it, you can stay, but you have no paperwork showing they're working on it, so you can be arrested and deported (to Mexico? who will then deport you to somewhere else for not having a VISA). Now you've been arrested and left the country, so your green card might not be approved. And it will make it impossible for you to come back.

So yeah ... a state deciding to punish the victims of Federal incompetence is quite immoral. What next? Jailing and deporting women who have been kidnapped, raped and transported to a foreign country against their will to be sold off as sex slaves? Oh ... right ... maybe Arizona's taking a page out of the Danish rulebook.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[MartinSchou]

You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance

Question: Where did these illegal immigrants get money for stuff like food and clothing?

Are they ALL thieves, drug dealers and such? Or do they possibly work (illegally) in the country? Why aren't anyone punishing the employers who are enabling these illegal immigrants? Why aren't you throwing them in prison for violating the law? Conspiracy to break the law at the very least. Aiding and abetting a criminal.

Change these charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Throw the responsible parties in jail (including the illegal immigrants), from foremen to CEOs, single citizen hiring maids, gardeners, nannies etc.

It's supply and demand at work. There's a demand for illegal immigrant workers, because they're cheaper. No need for insurance, lower salaries all round - they aren't going to be paying tax, so you can cut that away from their salary, you can press their salary even more, because they won't complain about working 12-16 hours a day, because that can get them deported etc. And since there's a demand for these workers, and a natural amount of replacement due to deportation, there will be a massive supply of these illegal immigrant workers.

What is the punishment for hiring illegal immigrant workers at the moment? Is there any kind of punishment at all? As long as it is not only cheaper to hire them, but still cheaper even when you get caught red handed hiring them. Essentially you have a law stating that it is illegal for radioactive waste being stored in kindergartens, but you're just moving the waste and not giving a rats ass about who put it there in the first place. No wonder you have a problem.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[betterunixthanunix]

Land of the free indeed.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[TimSSG]

FYI: Each state has the rights to decide some issues related to what is needed to get on there state ticket for presidential election. Tim S.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Lakitu]

Unfortunately, the lower ranks of law enforcement will probably find a way to abuse it. I hope not though, I sincerely hope that its put to good use and impacts legal citizens and legal immigrants as little as possible.

This is the problem with the law. Everyone gets caught up talking about illegal immigrants, but that's not the issue -- if there were a way to deal with illegal immigration without it affecting actual citizens quite so much, it would be done, and that would be that.

When you're entrusting police officers with powers that you "sincerely hope" will not be abused, you are throwing away the protections of citizenship and removing the burdens we have placed upon government to ensure that we have those protections.

This law won't "probably" be abused, it WILL be abused, and it will not only target illegal immigrants. If this law actually comes into effect, then every single person in the state should be carrying every kind of identification they have with them at all times, especially if they are of latino or hispanic heritage. You can be a perfectly legit US citizen and get pulled over for speeding and have to deal with the police hassling you because they don't like you. You may think it unlikely, but "sincere hope" isn't enough to ordain the rule of law. You may be white as can be, but if a cop dislikes you, sees your name McPatrick after pulling you over for a minor traffic violation, he could walk his way down the line of questioning to "so you just moved here from Ireland illegaly, eh son?"

The reason illegal immigration is so hard to deal with is because the USA guarantees protections of its citizens. You can deal with illegal immigration easily, but to do so means giving up those protections!

The goddamn president of the country can barely present enough proof to satisfy millions of people, many of whom serve in the military or on police forces -- how do you expect a legal US citizen of Mexican descent to do so? This law will not fix the problems you have just complained about, and it will provide legal protections to cops who get self-righteous enough to feel like harassing just about anyone they choose. It's a travesty, and even lending it a scent of legitimacy, let alone speaking out in favor of it, does more harm to this country than any amount of "fighting for and killing" for it could ever achieve. Get off your high horse and stop pretending that it's not so bad since it probably won't affect you. It WILL affect US citizens, and you are just throwing them to the wind with your support of the legislation, no matter how tepid it may be.

It's a travesty that so many people can seemingly support even the concept of this legislation, let alone an actual state government actually coming so close to putting it into effect. Anyone who supports this law, including you, should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Lakitu]

I left something out of my original reply.

You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance and were using it as a clinic to treat the flu, common colds, strep throat... stuff you take to a regular Dr. So the facilities tax payers have contributed to so its there in the event of an emergency is over-run. A nurse came outside after a half hour and walked us around to a side door where they finally treated my sons foot.

This little passage shows just how easily it is to abuse a law like this, and how quickly it will happen. How do you know these people were in the country illegally? Did you ask them all? Did you check their papers? How do you even know what's wrong with them? If you can so quickly diagnose them all with the common cold, then perhaps you should get a job working at that hospital, because you're a fucking genius with some kind of magical powers. If it's really that easy, then they wouldn't be clogging up the ER, since the people staffed there would be able to treat them just as quickly as you did.

You are putting yourself above other people in this country and using legality of immigration or color of skin as a justification. Thank god not everyone is like you, and the country's system of government gives everyone equal protections under the law.

You "sincerely hope" that the law will be abused. What a joke! I sincerely hope that you go fuck yourself and stop thinking you are more deserving than everyone else.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[eggoeater]

This is no different than if the EU State of Poland mobilized its laws and cops to protect itself from militias from Russia.

Actually it is very different. We are the f'ing USA; we have a constitution and a supreme court that specifically says this type of action (arresting/detaining people without probable cause) is illegal and a violation of civil rights.

It will be a short matter of time before this law is declared unconstitutional. I have no problem with the State of Arizona trying to deal with the immigration problem, however rounding up and detaining people is way WAY out of line, and making people carry their papers at all times or else go to jail is repugnant.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[dkleinsc]

An experienced cop admitting that when he followed a car long enough he could make a legal stop because at some point everyone makes a mistake. (I presume feeling nervous that a cop has been following you the last 8 blocks also doesn't help one's situation.)

It's definitely nervewracking, I can tell you that. I've been in that very position, not because I was non-white but because my car was a bit beat up and I had longish hair at the time, and I'm pretty sure the cop had decided that I didn't belong in his small suburb.

The basic picture: I saw the cop start to pull up behind me, and I was going about 40 in a 30 mph zone (which everyone else does too: it's a rural area that has no business having a speed limit so low), so I slow down to 35. The officer continued to pull up behind me, and I slowed to the speed limit. I gave him opportunities to pass just in case he was just trying to get by me, which he didn't take. I took a somewhat less direct route out of town, following every traffic law to the letter (including things like signaling 100 ft before a turn) and making a few turns. He followed me every step of the way until I left his jurisdiction.

Now imagine having to drive like that all the time, and you'll know what a Hispanic person in Arizona needs to do to avoid getting stopped.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[jeff4747]

How exactly is this a bad law?

Two problems:

What does an illegal immigrant look like? How would a police officer decide when to demand papers and when to not demand papers? As far as I can tell, the supporters of this law want all Hispanics to be checked, but they don't think it will inconvenience the white folks. You do realize we have a good number of illegal immigrants from Canada and Europe, right? In addition, the only way to enforce this law while not violating Federal anti-discrimination laws is to make EVERYONE show their papers.

However, the big problem is what papers are we supposed to show? I'm a US Citizen. My ancestors arrived in North America in the 1600s. I do not carry any proof of citizenship around with me, as a Driver's License is not proof of citizenship. Carrying around my birth certificate or SS card would be really dumb, since that would expose me to identity theft. In addition, there's no good way for the cop to determine that it's not a forged birth certificate or SS card.

The theory of this law is that the police can properly identify immigrants from citizens. That is simply not the case. And since we constantly reject the idea of a "national ID card", citizens do not have any "papers" to show.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[jeff4747]

That's still the wrong target for your anger.

If you are upset about illegal immigrants, your anger should be directed at the people who hire them.

The illegal immigrants would not be here if there were no jobs for them.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Jawn98685]

Oh, my. Where to start with addressing your ignorance? Might as well be at the beginning, I guess...

It is pretty damned obvious by now to anyone with a brain that the feds aren't gonna do jack shit about illegals, and as anyone who has lived in one of the border states can tell you illegals are turning the towns into war zones!

Hyperbole much? Jeezuz, you make it sound like lead is flying down every street in every border town. Not that there isn't a serious problem going on, but it's the "war on drugs" that's failing here, and BTW, it's not "immigrants" who are doing the shooting. It's smugglers and organized crime. AZ's new "show uz ze papers" law is going to do exactly dick to solve that problem.

Lets be honest here folks...having a wide open border is the biggest clusterfuck of our century!

Can't argue with that, other than to point out the practical impossibility of shutting down thousands of miles of border. Or did you have some heretofore unheard suggestion on how to do that? Nah, didn't think so.

... anyone who has been in one lately can tell you the ERs are looking at 12+ hour waiting lines thanks to illegals using them as clinics (and of course never paying so YOU get to pick up the bill on your insurance),

Though it's been a few years since I retired, as a paramedic I spent a fair amount of time in ER's, certainly far more than you have, and I'm fairly certain most of the people sitting in the waiting room with non-emergent complaints (those who are using the ER as a "clinic") are U.S. citizens who have been kicked to the curb by the rest of our fucked up health care system. You're right about one thing though, the rest of us have to pick up the tab for every runny nose that get's treated in an ER instead of a more appropriate venue (that would have cost a tiny fraction of that ER visit).

just look at the crime rates for places like Phoenix, the towns are becoming warzones!

No points for repeating yourself. Besides Phoenix isn't a border town. Neither are L.A., Detroit, N.Y.C, Boston, Atlanta, etc., but those towns damn sure have places where it isn't safe to be unarmed and alone. I suppose now you'll tell us that it's just a different color of hoodlum in those cities and that they're all the problem and we should get rid of them next.

So until the fed gets off their pandering asses and actually does something about the borders the states are gonna have to step up. If you don't like it, don't go there! That is one of the nice things about having 50 experiments in democracy, if you don't like one state's laws you are free to move. As someone whose state (AR)...

Why am I not surprised.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

What does an illegal immigrant look like?

Easy, just keep an eye out for the following signs:

• No feathers on head
• No bow and arrows
• No horse
• Doesn't live in a tent
• Doesn't speak any of the native languages

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[lena_10326]

It is pretty damned obvious by now to anyone with a brain that the feds aren't gonna do jack shit about illegals, and as anyone who has lived in one of the border states can tell you illegals are turning the towns into war zones!

Yes. It's a failure of the federal government to act. The response should be to bring troops home from the middle east and militarize the southern border to Mexico to bring law and order back to the border towns.

illegals naturally hate cops (because they are illegal themselves, duh!) so criminals in their neighborhoods can do whatever they want without fear of being turned in

That's an irrelevent point because there is gang violence in northern and north-eastern major cities (such as Seattle, Chicago, New York, etc) yet the illegal mexican population there is substantially lower. (In new york, the hispanic population is mostly legal cuban and spanish--not mexican.) The majority of illegal mexicans are ordinary families raising children--not hardened criminals. (Yes! Think of the children!)

anyone who has been in one lately can tell you the ERs are looking at 12+ hour waiting lines thanks to illegals using them as clinics (and of course never paying so YOU get to pick up the bill on your insurance),

You say they are using ERs for clinics. True, but by implication that means they are merely seeking basic care that clinics handle such as treatment for colds, infections, minor cuts and scrapes, etc. You know.. the cheap stuff. Why not provide that care in the form of an actual daytime free clinic? (Provided 1st paragraph is done 1st). The cost would be 10 to 20 times cheaper than what we're paying now. They're gonna scam the system anyway right? We either get hit with $1500 ER bills or $100 doctor visit bills. Let's take the cheaper option. Oh wait--that would mean implementing basic universal health care. Crap. We can't have that can we?

just look at the crime rates for places like Phoenix, the towns are becoming warzones!

See 1st paragraph.

So until the fed gets off their pandering asses and actually does something about the borders the states are gonna have to step up. If you don't like it, don't go there! That is one of the nice things about having 50 experiments in democracy, if you don't like one state's laws you are free to move. As someone whose state (AR) is starting to get flooded by illegals frankly I'm sick of it.

Meandering digression skipped.

I've known too many folks that have gotten seriously injured by illegals driving without insurance (because they are already breaking the law, what's one more?).

Why not legalize them and convert them into tax paying citizens so that they can drive legally? Have you seen the national debt obligations lately? Almost $79 trillion (or put another way 1 year's GDP for the entire planet!). That's $254,545 (=70b/308m) per citizen. Don't forget only half the population pays taxes via a paycheck. We need the mexicans to grow out of this financial mess. Besides, you know we're going to be legalizing them anyway. Deporting them all will never fly. Even the most radical rightwing republican recognizes that.

And with double digit unemployment I'm really fucking sick of jobs like construction, which used to be filled by hard working Americans that actually paid taxes, going to illegals because they will work for peanuts and send their money back to Mexico.

Solved by legalizing existing illegal workers which puts them on our tax collection and thus on equal par with american workers. That combined with the enforcement of existing laws and pushing through penalties on violating corporations will tighten that leaky faucet.

Hell it is so fucking bad here that guys yell "Immig

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[DavidShor]

"It is pretty damned obvious by now to anyone with a brain that the feds aren't gonna do jack shit about illegals, and as anyone who has lived in one of the border states can tell you illegals are turning the towns into war zones!"

I live in Miami, a city with one of the highest percentages of Hispanics in the country. Most crime in my area is committed by Russians. Despite your assertion, study after study has shown that Hispanics, and illegals in particular, are far less likely to be criminals then the over-all population. This makes sense, if you're illegal, you don't want to rock the boat and get yourself deported. See http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00022// . To quote:

"Nearly all of the most heavily Latino cities have low or even extremely low crime rates, and virtually none have rates much above the national average. Eighty percent Latino El Paso has the lowest homicide and robbery rates of any major city in the continental United States. This is not what we would expect to find if Hispanics had crime rates far higher than whites. Individual cities may certainly have anomalously low crime rates for a variety of reasons, but the overall trend of crime rates compared to ethnicity seems unmistakable."

"And with double digit unemployment I'm really fucking sick of jobs like construction, which used to be filled by hard working Americans that actually paid taxes"

From a pure fiscal point of view, there wasn't a chance in hell that construction workers were net tax payers. Illegal immigrants don't receive EITC, Medicaid, or food stamps, and still pay sales taxes. Not only that, put the money saved accrues to owners, who probably pay taxes on it at a pretty high rate. Not only that, but from what I understand, illegals work with fake SS numbers, and so their paychecks are automatically withheld. But because they're not actually tax payers, they don't get the refund that anyone working in construction would be entitled to.

Also, because of the housing burst, there is a huge surplus of housing. If I remember correctly, Arizona has enough houses to last for another 15 years. You know what would create more construction jobs? Population growth! Which also boosts demand by creating more potential customers, creating jobs for everybody in every sector...

"Hell it is so fucking bad here that guys yell "Immigra!" in front of construction sites for a joke. Yell Immigra around here and you can watch an entire job site turn into a ghost town in seconds, they just scatter like fucking deer."

They scatter like *people* trying to feed their family. It's perfectly fine to oppose illegal immigration, but the immigrants themselves are nearly all just hard working people trying to create a better life for themselves. Dehumanizing and mocking them isn't necessarily racist, but it's fucking cruel. To paraphrase the Bible, "Be kind to immigrants, remember that you were once a slave in Egypt".

"So until the fed gets off their pandering asses and actually does something about the borders the states are gonna have to step up. If you don't like it, don't go there! That is one of the nice things about having 50 experiments in democracy, if you don't like one state's laws you are free to move."

No. Arizona gets far more money from the federal government then they pay in taxes, as well as billions of dollars in defense related pork, and in exchange for that, they have to follow basic standards with regards to treating their citizens. If they want to succeed, then fine. But if they start violating central tenants of our constitution and national values, then they better expect to be slapped down by our courts and federal agencies.

"So scream "racist" all you want, I don't give a fuck. I've known too many folks that have lost their homes and are living barely better than animals because all the non McJobs have been given to illegals, whom the owners can treat like shi

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[IICV]

As it stands right now immigration law is intentionally not being enforced for political purposes. IE: to allow as many illegal immigrants in as possible, so that they can be granted amnesty by Democrats registered as Democrats and vote Democrat, thus granting the Democrat party POWER in perpetuity.

Errr... how, exactly, do you know this is going to happen? You do realize that granting amnesty to all illegal aliens is basically politically impossible, right? Further, even if it does happen, it won't have that much of an effect; even if you assume that all illegal aliens who are granted amnesty vote, and vote Democrat, the following will happen in the next Presidential election:

• 3 million more people will vote Democrat in California, which will profoundly change how that state votes except for the part where it won't.
• 1.5 million more people will vote Democrat in Texas, which would be just barely enough to tip a Presidential election assuming nobody actually cares that we just granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal immigrants.
• 1 million more people will vote Democrat in Florida, which will give the Democrats more of a lead there
• Half a million more people will vote Democrat in Illinois, New York, Arizona, New Jersey and Georgia, which might just barely tip Arizona and Georgia over to the Democrats but won't matter to the other states because they're already Democrat.

Beyond that, the numbers get small enough that they won't really affect state elections significantly more than a well-crafted ad campaign.

So basically, your conspiracy theory consists of the Democrats expending a metric shitload of political capital (which they have so much of, now that health care's just barely scraped by) in order to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, and then with those extra now-legal alien votes they'll win Texas and Florida, but only if the local Republicans are completely retarded and don't campaign on the fact that there's a ton of scary brown people who can vote now. If the Republicans can't leverage something like this into a massive voter turnout that far exceeds the Democrat's gains, they don't deserve to be a political party.

And this is assuming that all illegal aliens will vote (they won't; I'd expect to see only moderate turnout - after all, it's not like a minimum wage employee can just take off to go vote, no matter what the law says) and that all illegal aliens will vote Democrat (they won't; at least a few of them hold conservative views).

It honestly sounds like this conspiracy theory of yours is just your way of internally justifying your racism. There's basically no way what you say could come to pass, and if it did come to pass the results aren't what you think they would be, but in the mean time it means you can hate brown people as much as you want because they're part of a scheme against you.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[AndersOSU]

Ciudad Juárez is arguably the most dangerous city in the world. There were over 1500 murder there last year. Ciudad Juárez and El Paso are a single urban area with a border running through it. El Paso is the third safest city in the US.

So yes, a rancher was killed by cartel members - that's tragic, but this nonsense about violence spilling over the border is, well, nonsense.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Slashdot Parent]

Why aren't anyone punishing the employers who are enabling these illegal immigrants? Why aren't you throwing them in prison for violating the law? [...] Change these charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Throw the responsible parties in jail (including the illegal immigrants), from foremen to CEOs, single citizen hiring maids, gardeners, nannies etc.

As a small business owner, I think you are asking an awful lot.

Employers are not Federal Immigration Officials. We simply don't have the ability to determine someone's residency status beyond what we already do (and apparently ICE doesn't do such a stellar job, either).

Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to hire illegals, and I fulfill my requirements with respect to the I-9 form. But if an applicant

1. Presents me with a false document, I'm never going to know it.
2. Presents me with documents that don't contain a photo, I have no earthly clue if the applicant is who he or she claims to me. And yes, no photo ID is required for employment: a voter registration card with a social security card will satisfy the I-9 requirements, and it is illegal for me to require more documents. If my gut tells me something is wrong, it is illegal for me to discriminate based on national origin.

And do you really verify the immigration status of everyone who works on your property? Would you even know how to? My Hispanic maid, handyman, and gardener are business owners, so I remit payment directly to a business (i.e. no I-9 or 1099s need to be completed). I'm guessing that they are legal, but I have no way of knowing for sure, and no way to check.

I guess where I'm going to with this ramble is that employers are not Government Immigration Officials. Tell us what you want us to do, and we'll do it, but don't get upset when employees figure out how to circumvent the system.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Blue Lozenge]

Now imagine having to drive like that all the time.

My god. The roads would be safe.

Quite reasonable

[Kelbear]

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

Re:Quite reasonable

[Qzukk]

Appearing reasonably white is no protection.

Re:Quite reasonable

[iluvcapra]

That's not true, they can ask for your documentation in course of an "lawful encounter" (the actual language of the law), which is a novel standard and seems pretty ambiguous. If a cop breaks into your house without a warrant, then he can't ask for your passport. Any other situation appears to be fair game.

Uh... contradictory?

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Uh... contradictory?

[BountyX]

While your point is valid...I think the bigger issue with enforcment is how it effects the citezenry. Warning (here comes a hypothetical): What if you are a citizen but speak accented english, or you prefer to speak another language. A cop suspects you are an immigrant and demands immigration papers. Does the cop detain you at that point? Do you need to carry papers to prove citizenship on demand? Does this lead to frequent detention? It just seems unreasonable and ambigous to enforce something like this without encroaching the rights of citizens.

Re:Uh... contradictory?

[0xdeadbeef]

They need a new law to enforce the law that is already a law? That don't make no sense.

Just to piss you people off, we should open the borders. If goods and capital can move freely, why shouldn't cheap labor? The world is flat, get used to it.

Re:Uh... contradictory?

[pilsner.urquell]

Final version of the law. There is a lot of misconceptions and wild rumors circulating about this legislation. This article points out a few of them.

US Citizens too

[ndogg]

US citizens can also be stopped and asked for their papers too, and can be arrested, and held until they can prove their citizenship.

grand experiemnt

[fermion]

Arizona is embarking on a grand experiment, and as a free state it should be allowed to so do. We have heard the hypothesis that undocumented persons cause so much social and financial harm that any measure to thwart such persons from entering the state. Some would go as far as saying that even documented foreigners should be extremely limited as they take our jobs.

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.

4th Amendment Violation

[Trip6]

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.

Re:4th Amendment Violation

[DesScorp]

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.

Good luck with that. This law largely mirrors existing federal law, which has been tested and found constitutional. The only hope you have of overturning it is, ironically, with a variation of the 10th Amendment; the argument that in this case, a state is usurping a federal role, not the other way around. The chances of this being tossed on 4th amendment grounds are nil.

So what?

[OrangeTide]

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.

I don't see the problem.

[blind biker]

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.

Federal law already requires documentation

[mveloso]

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.

Wrong - Mod Parent Down

[nobodyman]

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.

Re:Bienvenidos a libertad

[DesScorp]

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.

Japan does this already.

[srothroc]

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.

Re:Yay!

[ProdigyPuNk]

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.

It's for your own safety, Ma'am.

[eloquent_loser]

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.

Re:Haben wir allen vergessen?

[BudAaron]

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!!!

That's the real problem

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Bienvenidos a libertad

[Imrik]

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.

no such thing as "illegal immigration"

[pydev]

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.

You forget our other laws...

[Xenographic]

> 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.

Re:You forget our other laws...

[clarkkent09]

The point is that the law essentially doesn't give any major new powers to the police except to enable them check somebody's immigration status when they are dealing with that person anyway. 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. Yes some cops abuse their powers, but they do that anyway. That's a separate battle.

Re:checks and balances, sue and cash in

[Moryath]

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.

Re:checks and balances, sue and cash in

[DrgnDancer]

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.