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H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal).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?
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.
Appearing reasonably white is no protection.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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!
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.
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/
I find it strange that the article doesn't discuss the implications for normal U.S citizens, i.e how do you prove you are *not* a H-1B worker? You can't tell a citizen from a non-citizen if neither of them are carrying anything. Obviously no-one who merely arouses the suspicion of police wants to be detained, therefore this constitutes a defacto requirement for every citizen to carry papers.
The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
The 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.
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 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.