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H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal).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.'"
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.
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
I think you are misunderstanding that presumption. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anyone can accuse you of any crime at any time. Being temporarily detained or arrested until get a trial, is NOT a presumption of guilt. You have the presumption of innocence in court becuase it is the prosecuting party that assumes the burden of proof for their accusation.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
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.
In the past this was true, but this law exists specifically to remove that stipulation. Please read the legislation. You may be stopped "upon reasonable suspicion that an entity is not legally allowed to live within the country".
Perhaps you're confusing this with with the evidence criteria provision. The law says that race may be a factor, but it may not only be an only factor. Of course this is laughable -- people will be stopped for race, and cops will find (or create) additional evidence after-the-fact.
It's telling that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes this law, as they believe it will erode trust with immigrants and distract police from more serious threats.
Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?
Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?
As usual, the media has portrayed this bill according to whatever political slant the news outlets see fit. In reality, the Arizona bill is not much different than the federal law on illegal immigration (which obviously just isn't enforced). In particular, more than a few pundits are trying to portray this law as giving law officers the power to go door-to-door in search of illegal aliens to bust. In actuality, there is no such powers, and officers may only ask for papers if there is an altercation. In that case, since officers usually ask to see ID's of any involved persons during any dispute on the street, nobody should have a problem with the Arizona law unless they're trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Clearly, the reason this law is getting so much negative attention is because it makes the President look bad to have states enact laws to enforce federal laws that aren't being enforced.
There are more points to the issue, though. The residents of Arizona overwhelmingly support it because the fact is (although many want to ignore this), illegal immigration is a big problem, economically and socially. As much as people like to avoid talking about this, a huge chunk of crime (especially violent crime) is caused by Spanish-speakers, many of whom are here illegally. I don't blame them! Or at least, I can see the problem they're in. Illegal immigration is akin to slavery, pure and simple. Humans deserve better, which is why this problem needs to be fixed. If nothing else, at least the Arizona law has made it an issue the federal government now wants to address.
The simplest thing we can do to fix this problem is to make it easier to immigrate here legally. Talking about amnesty or anything regarding what to do about illegals who are already here is like bailing water without stopping to fix the hole. If it's easy to immigrate here, more of those who would be illegals become tax-paying, fairly-payed citizens. Then we can work to help illegal aliens who are already here find their way to the back of the line. The longer we wait, the longer this modern form of slavery is going to continue.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
I find it strange that the article doesn't discuss the implications for normal U.S citizens, i.e how do you prove you are *not* a H-1B worker? You can't tell a citizen from a non-citizen if neither of them are carrying anything. Obviously no-one who merely arouses the suspicion of police wants to be detained, therefore this constitutes a defacto requirement for every citizen to carry papers.
The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
How is this a problem? By Law they are required to carry documentation with them, like a drivers license.
Because it's so easy to demagogue.
Any problem here is with the federal government, as enforcing immigration laws and taking reasonable measures to protect the country's borders is properly their job. As they have utterly failed to do this job, and their utter failure is causing many problems for certain state governments, one of those states is now trying to do something about it rather than ignoring it and continuing to have these problems.
My bet is that the Feds aren't doing jack shit about this because both political parties benefit from the current situation. Republicans are allied with some corporate interests who view the illegal aliens as low-cost workers, while for Democrats, the joke is "they're not illegal aliens, they're unregistered Democrats." Both stand to lose those benefits if states start dealing with this. Both are powerful political and monied interests. That's why this has to be portrayed as negatively as possible with the most highly emotional rhetoric available. Certainly no critical analysis of this rhetoric will be allowed in the news, though it may appear in some editorial programs.
Right now most of the problem of illegal aliens is coming from Mexico; at least in Arizona this is the case. Thus, these laws will mostly be applied to Mexicans who are here illegally or are here legally but failed to produce the paperwork. None of the people enforcing this law caused Mexicans to come here illegally. They are merely recognizing that this is happening and acting accordingly. Yet because Mexicans are a racial/ethnic group, and because the media eats this kind of shit for breakfast, this measure is being called "racist". It's pure bullshit.
If we had many illegal immigrants from England, Spain, Mexico, and Canada, yet the immigration laws were only enforced against the illegal immigrants who are Mexican, that would be an instance of racism or ethnic discrimination. That isn't the case. Right now the problem is coming from Mexico and illegal immigrants from elsewhere are more like statistical error by comparison. Again, some percentage of Mexican citizens are responsible for that, not anyone who wrote or plans to enforce Arizona's new law. You'll practically never see such a common-sense recognition in the media.
Really, people who think this is some horrible extreme law should take a hard look sometime at Mexico's immigration laws, or those of most other countries for that matter. There's an almost 100% chance that none of the highly emotional people screaming bloody murder about this have done so.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
Driving While Black isn't a crime either, so I'm SURE minorities aren't subject to any extra traffic enforcement either... right?
The law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."
If it isn't based on skin color, what will it be based on? English competency? Off-brand tennis shoes? We already have Tom Tancredo calling for poll tests! Wow, next week it will be "separate but equal."
Getting arrested or detained does not make you guilty. You'll still have your day in court or clear things up at the station.Think of it like a beefed up curfew law for minors.
Getting detained doesn't make you guilty, but you could lose your job for not showing up at work.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
Camping on quad since 1996.
Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.
But what about non-visitors? US citizens don't carry birth certificates or passports with them every day, nor are they required to. So how do they prove their citizenship when stopped? Would they just be detained until they can have someone bring their passport to the local jail? No one seems too concerned with that scenario because of the unspoken assumption that anyone who "looked" like a citizen wouldn't be stopped. And that's where the concerns of discrimination come into play. I'm sure the vast majority of people who support this law are confident they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because they are "obviously" American. Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
The 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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
Camping on quad since 1996.
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.
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.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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 must not know a lot of cops. What you are saying is technically true, but if someone who appears to be Hispanic, and they swerve ever so slightly in their lane, the cops can and often will stop them for that minor infraction, so that they can check their status. The cops I know in Georgia don't do this for immigration purposes, but if you drink a few beers with them, they'll admit to stopping Hispanics because they have a higher likelihood of carrying drugs.
Laws like this are meant to give the police HUGE latitude in stopping someone. They are also targeting a group that doesn't have the wherewithal to hire a good lawyer to invalidate the original stop.
An important change for education.
Question: Where did these illegal immigrants get money for stuff like food and clothing?
Are they ALL thieves, drug dealers and such? Or do they possibly work (illegally) in the country? Why aren't anyone punishing the employers who are enabling these illegal immigrants? Why aren't you throwing them in prison for violating the law? Conspiracy to break the law at the very least. Aiding and abetting a criminal.
Change these charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Throw the responsible parties in jail (including the illegal immigrants), from foremen to CEOs, single citizen hiring maids, gardeners, nannies etc.
It's supply and demand at work. There's a demand for illegal immigrant workers, because they're cheaper. No need for insurance, lower salaries all round - they aren't going to be paying tax, so you can cut that away from their salary, you can press their salary even more, because they won't complain about working 12-16 hours a day, because that can get them deported etc. And since there's a demand for these workers, and a natural amount of replacement due to deportation, there will be a massive supply of these illegal immigrant workers.
What is the punishment for hiring illegal immigrant workers at the moment? Is there any kind of punishment at all? As long as it is not only cheaper to hire them, but still cheaper even when you get caught red handed hiring them. Essentially you have a law stating that it is illegal for radioactive waste being stored in kindergartens, but you're just moving the waste and not giving a rats ass about who put it there in the first place. No wonder you have a problem.
Easy, just keep an eye out for the following signs: