Slashdot Mirror
Arizona H-1B Workers Advised to Carry Papers At All Times
dcblogs writes "In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday on Arizona's immigration enforcement law, H-1B workers are being advised to keep their papers on them. About half of all H-1B visa holders are employed in tech occupations. The court struck down several parts of Arizona's law but nonetheless left in place a core provision allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people in the state at specific times. How complicated this gets may depend on the training of the police officer, his or her knowledge of work visas, and whether an H-1B worker in the state has an Arizona's driver's license. An Arizona state driver's license provides the presumption of legal residency. Nonetheless, H-1B workers could become entangled in this law and suffer delays and even detention while local police, especially those officers and departments unfamiliar with immigration documentation."
Your other license and registration please.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
You know, they could be Russian mafia or that guy from Wikileaks.
Somehow, I doubt it.
Papiere, Bitte!
You mean like the work authorization card that you are supposed to carry ANYWAY?
...not to be too facetious here, but how often does someone from India or Russia sneak in over the Arizona/Mexico border?
Seriously - this state law was built to stem the tide of one particular group of people. Forget your position on it and all, but consider that Montana certainly has no such laws, even though it borders a different nation as well.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
When will we realize that immigrants, "legal" and otherwise do not cause problems but rather raise the standard of living for -everyone-?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I'm convinced that the state of Arizona just hates anyone that either isn't white, or from the US.
My guess is the vast majority of H1-B visa holders come from a different part of the world than those who are causing the problems that are driving states to enforce immigration laws. Just a guess...
I've always wondered what would happen if you just appeared with no papers of any sort - no fingerprints on file, no proof of citizenship or residency, no SS number, no passport.
Suppose you appeared in the middle of Arizona and stated that you are a natural born American citizen, and that you were born at home so there are no records?
What would happen if no-one carried any identification?
Three Squirrels
I thought that Federal Law required non-citizen aliens to carry documentation.
I'm a mid 50's white guy. I always keep my passport with me when I travel through Arizona. One never knows. From a distance, at night, I may be suspected of being a Canadian.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
In Montana's case, maybe the Canadians should build a fence?
Or no, that's right -- Canada doesn't want to make it a pain the ass to visit their country, unlike the US.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
As someone who doesn't have US citizenship but who lives and works in the US, creating businesses that have hired hundreds of people (including plenty of H1-B holders) I have an alternate approach; I shall simply be avoiding Arizona as much as possible. I shall not be holding any group meetings there, I'll see what I can do to avoid conventions there or transfers through PHX and they can kiss goodbye to any prospect of my opening offices there. I'm probably too white to actually be harassed under this law but that doesn't make it any less disgusting to me.
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
I'm pretty sure that non-citizens were required to carry "registration" papers with them before. But hey, not everything gets enforced...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1304
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Hyperom.com
Anyone suggesting that SB1070 will bring about widespread harassment of legal foreign residents is either unfamiliar with the law or simply trying to further their own political cause.
why states enact these laws other than pandering to their geriatric neoconservative constituents and ginning up a scapegoat for high unemployment rates.
Good people go to bed earlier.
These numbers are for illegal immigrants with a criminal record. Not illegal immigrants in general. It says nothing about the rate of arrests for the general population.
There is NOTHING wrong with requiring non-citizens (guests) to carry ID at all times. They are guests in our country and will act according to the law we put forth or leave.
Good-bye
So we can see beaners kicking the crap out of cops, tossing them over the border into Mexico, then turning to anyone watching and go "No ticket!"
Right?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Many states have implemented "must identify" laws, which state that you must identity yourself (correctly) to a policeman when asked. Depending on the state, you're also required to correctly answer other questions, such as "what you are doing there, where did you come from, where you are going".
These laws were brought to the attention of the supreme court, which stated flatly that these laws were constitutional so long as no proof of identity was required. Short of an arrest, police cannot demand proof of ID just for being in an area. (I don't believe that proof of license to drive a car on the highway has been addressed directly.)
With this new ruling, states can pass laws that allow police to detain anyone who cannot prove their identity, on the theory that they *might* be illegal immigrants.
The "must identify" laws effectively did away with anonymous meetings and anonymous protest. The police can simply wait outside any meeting and ask the participants their names as they leave.
Now they can demand proof of ID as well.
The right to peaceably assemble anonymously, the right to be in public anonymously, the right to protest anonymously is gone.
How do I prove that I'm a U.S. citizen with only an out-of-state drivers' license? Bring a copy of my birth certificate? Or maybe being white non-hispanic will be a sufficient proof of my citizenship?
I'm from Russia, and I was stopped at Arizona when I was there to see the Grand Canyon, I was originally on a business trip to California but had several free days. I'd been asked for papers when I was stopped by a police officer for riding a bicycle on sidewalk.
I didn't have my passport with me so a police officer offered to drive me to my hotel to fetch it or to drive me to the police station to check my identity there. I'd chosen to be driven to my hotel, I have a valid B1/B2 visa so it was not a problem for me.
"Nonetheless, H-1B workers could become entangled in this law and suffer delays and even detention while local police, especially those officers and departments unfamiliar with immigration documentation."
While local police do *what*? Please finish your fucking sentences. Did you even go to school?
Maybe they should require all foreigners to wear a yellow paper star on the outside of their clothing.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I bet some of them get tired of carrying those papers
This "advisement" is being made by immigration lawyers.. Who make a majority of their money from people who are in the country illegally. This is simply a lame attempt to deflect attention from the real problem--people who are here illegally. Of course, if you get detained for an actual crime, you may need to phone someone to provide citizenship status--no papers on person required.
Required to carry 'papers' too. Fucking Nazis!!!!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
(S.R.) ;-)
Okay, so the immigrant workers are going to carry their papers. And many of the illegal ones, or at least the smart ones, will carry forged papers - at least ones good enough to pass cursory inspection.
But what about the native-born citizens? Not everyone has a driver's license (or an Arizona license - would my Virginia driver's license count as "proof of citizenship"?), and I highly doubt citizens will be carrying around their birth certificates or anything - after all, they're not immigrants, why should they be concerned about an immigration law.
This is basically carte blanche for the police to harass anyone, and non-immigrants are going to be surprisingly affected.
In any case, I'm now mentally filing "Arizona" next to "East Germany", because both require me to have my papers in ordnung (and because both are effectively in the past - E.G. literally, Arizona figuratively).
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1303926/beavis_and_butthead_vaya_con_cornholio/
For over two hundred years, the US has benefited from cheap immigrant labor - from the indentured servant of NW Europe, to the Scandanavian farmers and soldiers, to the West African agrarian slave, to the Asian railroad laborer.
Arizona, Texas, California have all vastly benefited from a predominantly-fluid traversal of Central American labor and commerce: Housing, hospitality, and agriculture could not have grown into massive industries without them. When the US economy began to tank, many of the "illegals" searched for better opportunities - restaurants closing and hotel business down, and stalled new housing market drove many of "them" out long before SB 1070 was a gleam in the private prison industry's eye.
News flash: Until very recently, the penalties to businesses for HIRING illegals have been pretty inconsequential. American business, big and small, has had the best of both worlds for decades: cheap low-skilled labor in the US, non-union labor semi-skilled labor in Mexico with easy trade, and an up-and-coming market base in both - for everything that US citizens currently buy.
This focus on an immigrant threat is fucking ridiculous when offshoring is far more prevalent: Building a pickup truck in Mexico may raise profits for Ford in the US, but Mexicans working at a hotel chain not only help a US company's bottom line, but these employees pay for rent, food, entertainment, sales tax, IN THE US.
Shit's all about playing on racist Baby-Boomer fears and hiding the real costs and profits of labor and the Drug War (a haven for international money, weapons, and services-laundering). Same game, different century.
"Papers? What the fuck, man, I was born in East LA!"
SB1070 for the most part was to fight the thousands of illegal aliens that loiter in front of street corners and stores (Home Depot, Lowes, etc.) looking to get picked up by people for cheap labor. The cops had no power to do anything about this and literally you can drive a few miles down many of our streets in the Phoenix area and see hundreds of illegal aliens milling about in a small radius. It's like this all over the Phoenix metro area. 1070 would have given the cops the authority to check citizenship of these people. If you don't live in a border state you really can't grasp how bad it is. Since we are on the border of Mexico most of the illegals here are Mexicans. That's not the cops fault.
Old story, months ago. really? This is the best you all can do?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Ihre papiere bitte!
But the Supremes struck down the part that you must carry ID at all times.
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
I don't really see what all this whining is about. My dad did not become a US citizen until after I graduated from high school and he had a resident alien card in his wallet next to his driver's license. His citizenship was delayed for a long time due to processing backlog. In that interim period though it didn't seem to be a big deal. Why is this hard?
Oh, well then. Let me explain it to you.
You see, there's this famous expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" which means, essentially, sometimes actions which are well intentioned have negative consequences.
If you look narrowly at, well, just about anything you can spin it as a good thing. It's sometimes difficult to see the effects that something has on the global population, or society at large.
You see, even though the law is aimed at illegal immigrants, and only applies to illegal immigrants, it's pretty certain that a lot of legal citizens will have their rights violated because of this law.
Rights which we have enjoyed and held dear for many years.
If you take the trouble to see what effect this law will have on everyone, you realize (as does every other "whiner" on this thread), that the supreme court has just thrown out one of our most cherished rights, and hastened this country into the decay of fascism.
I assure you, this is something worth whining about.
..pay what the market will bear.
Hiring coolie labor to undercut US workers is great for the coolies, not so for the people the US BELONGS to.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
There is NOTHING wrong with requiring non-citizens (guests) to carry ID at all times.
Ok, so what happens if they happen to ask a citizen for ID? What happens if the citizen isn't carrying ID? What happens then smart guy!?
Do they let you go without a fuss because clearly, you must be a citizen, otherwise you'd be carrying ID, right? (snicker)
Or do you now have to satisfy them that you are a citizen by providing them your papers, even though you are a citizen and presumably do not have to present your papers.
So, even though your a citizen and don't have to carry ID, you may have to present papers to prove you are a citizen if you are so much as a passenger in a car that was pulled over for a broken tail light?
At present the injunction banning enforcement of this law is still in place.
Other legal challenges are expected so it is unknown if/when enforcement will begin.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/03/20120603arizona-immigration-law-supreme-court-opinion.html
In addition the DHS is terminating it's partnership relationship with various Az police organizations which will effectively make enforcement impossible.
And how do you separate the non citizens from naturalized immigrants? I am a citizen today, but only two years ago I had a green card instead. How does the cop tell?
Chances are that in Arizona, if I was walking down the street without my wallet, I'd be asked for papers. For all intents and purposes the law meant that if I went to AZ, I'd have to carry proof of citizenship at all times, because the cops would not believe me, and could arrest me on the spot.
Next up, having to prove you are not a drug dealer if you are black.
But they already were required to carry documentation before this law, and are required to carry it in all of the other 49 states as well...
So, whatever state you live in is also as bad as South Africa around 1912, Nazi Germany, and Iran.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The problem is with that approach is that you cannot prove that you do not actually need to carry papers, other than by carrying a piece of paper that proves that you did not need to carry it. Therefore requiring any subset of people to carry papers implies that everyone must carry them, if only to prove that one is not in that subset.
As has previously been stated time and time again, racial profiling just doesn't work. If we concentrate on Mexicans, then they will just start sending Caucasians across the border.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Okay, here it is again, for those of you who STILL don't understand the law.
A police officer, during the investigation of a possible crime, may at his/her discretion check the immigration status of a detainee, IF AND ONLY IF REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE DETAINEE IS HERE UNLAWFULLY.
It's not a "papers please" Law. It is a law that says that if a police officer has someone in his custody, and s/he has reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal immigrant, he may check the immigration status of that person.
There is nothing nefarious or discriminatory about it. A police officer already has the right to investigate crimes where reasonable suspicion exists, and arguably did not need this law to check immigration status in the first place.
This SCOTUS ruling isn't 12 hours old, and the poster makes wild and unfounded assumptions about Arizona's reaction and implementation. Right now, our greatest enemy is FUD ... let's watch our assumptions, folks.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BjW1avGcuos/S9sT7hfiqXI/AAAAAAAACQQ/8t99BR2oaHI/s1600/papers1.jpeg
I'm confused. Whenever I'm in any foreign country, I carry my passport with me at all times.
Work, vacation, any time. Passport is on my person. I think every country has laws about having ID.
If i was afraid that my passport would be stolen, then I'd carry a photocopy. In some US states, they have laws requiring people to carry government ID - -this applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.
Having your legal papers with you in a foreign country is just good sense. The fact that it may also be the law makes perfect sense to me.
I still don't understand why States need to enforce federal laws.
If the federal government doesn't want to enforce laws, that's because they have a reason to - no need for states to get involved in international affairs.
(The answer is: Americans want illegal immigration to continue)
Because most of the law enforcement and other government services that are expended because of illegal aliens happen at the state and local levels. It's easy for the federal government to be lazy here because the federal politicians get the support for looking the other way AND they're not the ones bearing the burden of it. You might as well ask why a heavily-polluting industry doesn't want anti-pollution laws to be enforced.
And no, most Americans don't want illegal immigration to continue. I know a very vocal minority likes to portray their view as representative of the general population but it isn't. The only ones who benefit from it are: big businesses who like paying lower wages, the Republican candidates they tend to sponsor, and Democrat candidates who score points with their base by pandering to the Hispanic minority.
Most people are not majority shareholders in large corporations. Most people are not Republican federal politicians receiving campaign contributions. Most people are not federal Democrat politicians receiving votes from well-meaning but stupid people who feel good about making everything a racial issue only because they happen to be on the privileged side of this particular one.
The vast majority of Americans gain nothing from this at all. The legal American citizens who live in places with large illegal alien populations not only fail to gain, but lose a lot. They lose in the form of lower wages, higher crime, language barriers, and money leaving their local communities because it's being sent to relatives in foreign nations. When it turns out they don't want to be exploited like this, they're told about how "racist" they are for not liking it, just to add some insult to injury. They're pretty damned tired of it. Do you blame them? Those legal American citizens are the hosts, while the federal political machine that benefits from this is the parasite.
They're politically fighting back at the state level because they have no voice at all on the federal level. They can't outclass the corporate sponsorship on the Republican side. Meanwhile the Democrat party will never give up its obsession with dividing people by race because playing various racial/ethnic groups against each other is how they get many of their votes. So the people are taking the options that are still available to them. All you are seeing here is that the people are better represented in state and local governments than they could ever dream of being in the federal government. This is nothing new.
Again, do you blame them? It's all easy to play armchair critic and forget that this is a direct response to a real problem.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
If illegal immigrants raised everyone's standard of living, they would be blocked by the republicans no matter what the cost. Instead, they are used to suppress wages, and raise the profits of the wealthy and corporation.
You know, a few years ago when SB1070 was first passed, tons of people made the same threats/promises (whatever you want to call it) and it had zero impact on the Arizona economy. Even several cities in California made rules that the city governments were to not buy anything that came from Arizona.
That didn't work out too well though because California already depends on Arizona for 25% of their electricity, and they already have a hard enough time trying to keep their grid powered, and there are literally hundreds of tech companies (e.g. intel) who have major presences in Arizona, so boycotting them would be nearly impossible because then you wouldn't even be able to buy most desktop PC's, and a rather large collection of smartphones. Even AMD boards frequently include components made in Arizona, notably Freescale.
A few companies I have worked for in fact (I live in Arizona) have reported record revenues since SB1070 passed.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Then move out of Arizona. Moving a tech company is a lot easier than moving a factory.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The H1-Bs are asked to wear a special arm band with a pocket for the papers. They arm band should have an yellow star embroidered on it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The biggest problem facing the States isn't MIB
It's the clash in between the Liberals and the Conservatives - leaving so much grey areas in between that people in the middle do not know how to handle
On one side the Liberals declare that people entering the USA, even illegally, should be considered as "legal", so long as they do not make trouble
On the other side, the Conservatives reacted by enacting local state laws such as what Arizona, Alabama, Virginia are doing
There are many born and bred Americans who do look like Mexicans or people from Latin America - these are the people who will be harassed, whose liberty will be threatened, just because they "do not look like Americans"
On the other hand, there are black-skinned people from abroad (from Latin America and Africa) that you just can not differentiate from African Americans - and they are the fortunate ones, because no one will dare to check their ID, for fear that the NAACP and Jesse Jackson will jump on their throats
America is in a bad shape right now - not only economically but also in term of competitiveness - and America just can NOT waste more time shadow boxing with itself
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
anyone familiar with joe arpaio knows the gestapo is alive and well in arizona.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
We gain cheap food. When immigrant workers harvest crops for pocket change we get cheap food.
But H1-B visa workers aren't citizens, correct? So honestly, this doesn't bother me... If you're a guest in my country, yes, you should be carrying your documentation with you at all times. Other than that, they really shouldn't be harassed.
just watch out for outsourcing and spiraling inflation. let me know how it works out for you...
Or move to another country. They can always pay US engineers to move to another country if they want them.
The requirement for legal immigrants to carry their papers with them pre-dates SB 1070 by a few decades...
Ken
Oh Boo Hoo. Fucking crybaby liberals, try crossing the border into Mexico illegally and see what they do to you. Or, try buying land there, or anything else. You morons, you have no clue. Move to Europe if you want socialism... oh yeah, you can't because you'd have to do it legally and guess what, you don't qualify. Go eat some rat poison or something, free up the job market for the rest of us.
Citizens are documented and can prove citizenship through birth records, driver's licenses, passports, etc. if they don't have them on their person, they can be looked up in moments by authorities.
Illegals have no such supporting documentation available.
BTW, the requirement to carry papers is what immigrants agreed to do when they got admitted to the US - it pre-dates SB 1070...
Ken
And no, most Americans don't want illegal immigration to continue. I know a very vocal minority likes to portray their view as representative of the general population but it isn't.
The legal American citizens who live in places with large illegal alien populations not only fail to gain, but lose a lot. They lose in the form of lower wages, higher crime, language barriers, and money leaving their local communities because it's being sent to relatives in foreign nations. When it turns out they don't want to be exploited like this, they're told about how "racist" they are for not liking it, just to add some insult to injury. They're pretty damned tired of it. Do you blame them? Those legal American citizens are the hosts, while the federal political machine that benefits from this is the parasite.
If I could, I would moderate this "+10 The Truth". (Posting AC so it does not undo my moderation, otherwise, I would absolutely post this with my name. I am not afraid of being called a racist.)
You have to show proof of work eligibility, and you have to have a SS # or Taxpayer ID # for the withholding, but if an employer chooses to, he can ask for some other proof that the number you gave is really yours.
Besides, with e-Verify, it's easy for him to verify the name matches the number.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So, can they also carry a concealed weapon and shoot anybody who does a search without probable cause? "Papers please" used to be the standard for police state excess. Oh, wait! It still is . . . . .
I'm a USian but living as an expat. Therefore everything in my wallet except maybe a visa card is foreign, including a drivers license without english. So, as I understand it, I don't have to present ID proving I'm a citizen because citizens aren't required to do this. However, about the only thing I can do to prove this is "trust me, I'm a citizen"...
I guess the solution is to ignore the loss of rights and carry my passport to visit Arizona?!
Maybe this is a covert measure to protect "American" jobs -- make it hard for H1B and F1 visa holders to go anywhere or do anything in AZ.
I support changes to the visa program to prevent abuse by employers because such abuse harms foreign workers and United States citizens. No only do foreign workers get unfairly low wages because of the way they are virtually indentured to their employer, but it helps "The 1%" keep wages artificially low and that damages the opportunity for upward mobility based on hard work.
However I don't support measures that seem to require racial profiling to be "effective".
I'll be perfectly happy to pay a bit more for my food if we move back to it being picked by legal migrants and US citizens.
You know...there's plenty of people out there needing work...AND, I have no problem with having people that are on welfare and the like, being required to do some manual labor such as food harvesting to subsidize the money they're being given by the rest of the working taxpayers.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
With those H-1B scabs gone, the job environment can only improve for the rest of us.
Most staple foods in the US are mechanically harvested.
The ones that can't be (notoriously, strawberries), are specialty crops.
Illegal immigration does not bring the price per bushel of wheat down in any noticable maner. What is allready obscenely cheap to produce compared to manually picked crops, when you count only total laborers involved. (A single farmer plows, irrigates, sows, fertilizes, and sprays insecticide on a huge plot of land. Several people show up to harvest, only because it takes several drivers to haul the crop off, and because many hands make lighter work, and more fields can be harvested PER DAY. Compare to strawberries, which take DAYS to harvest one field.
You don't get "cheap food" from illegal labor. You get cheap luxuries from illegal labor.
go anywhere in the US as a tourist anyway?
Boycott the US and both their products.
The US is full of total nutcases is on a mindless self-destruction trajectory anyway. Let them kill themselves on their own.
There are hundreds of far more-civilized places in the world that far more deserving of tourist money.
Regards,
An Ex-Visitor.
(The funniest/saddest thing of all is that this comment will get modded down instead of up by some brainless violence-loving gutless docuhebag. The insane are always in denial. That's why they always end up perishing.)
All you are seeing here is that the people are better represented in state and local governments than they could ever dream of being in the federal government.
So, it's state governments that are achieving record-level deportations?
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Has anyone actually read the Supreme's Court decision or, horrors of horrors, actually READ the law? Based upon the comments I have seen here I would have to say no. I am not a fan of the law but I have read it and also the signs in Sacaton and Koval valley area warning people of drug smugglers and human trafficers. These signs being posted by the FEDERAL government in areas well over 100 miles away from the border with Mexico. Maybe this decision will spur some action on part of the feds.
We gain cheap food. When immigrant workers harvest crops for pocket change we get cheap food.
Cheaper food. Studies consistently show that moving to an all-legal workforce would have a relatively minor effect on the price of food.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I didn't ask what you wanted. I don't care what you want any more than you care what I want. Cheap food is a benefit. You may not like it, you may see other problems, that's not MY problem. Undocumented workers do provide a benefit.
bout half of all H-1B visa holders are employed in tech occupations.
meanwhile American born technicians are still out of work, many can't find work.
This is entirely a right-wing issue, and the flames of racism are being fanned entirely by so-called "conservatives"
Oh, c'mon !!!
If blaming everything on the "Conservatives" can make America a better place, you'll have my full support
But it ain't gonna be that way
You insisted that there is no liberal ever support the illegals, in fact, you said:
I've literally never, in my entire life, heard any self-described "liberal" say this.
Well, isn't Obama a "Liberal" ?
What about Obama's Immigration Directive ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/obama-immigration-order-deportation-dream-act_n_1599658.html
"Obama Administration To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrants And Grant Work Permits"
What are you going to say about that, buddy ??
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I bet Intel is not amused by this. They have a huge presence in Chandler, AZ, and employ a multinational workforce.
On the one hand you have the rich people exploiting H1-B for cheap labor and pocketing the difference. On the other hand you have the anti-immigration extremists who have been manipulated by the rich so that conservatives vote for the politicians they want without worrying they are shipping their jobs overseas or giving their job to immigrants they import. Pretty funny to watch.
They were required to do this anyway, so what is the big deal?
Come here and follow the rules, or don't bother coming here at all.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not stiff enough.. If you get caught you should be executed on the spot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Problem #1: undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a LOWER rate than American citizens do.
Problem #2: immigrants ALREADY subsidize your ass by paying taxes on services they are ineligible to receive - like Social Security.
Problem #3: "illegal immigrant", noun. A term used by descendants of white European invaders for descendants of indigenous peoples. How did Arizona become part of the U.S. again? Oh yeah, a war of conquest waged by the U.S. on Mexico.
Problem #4: another interesting fact: you can shut your racist, entitled pie hole until the United States starts dutifully following the treaties it has made with various native tribes only to be broken the moment it was convenient. Until then, you can cram your "criminality" up your ass, and then smoke it.
Sounds foreign to me. Got your papers? Joe, right? Sure it isn't Jose? You sit right there while we check with INS.
Have gnu, will travel.
The problem is that despite all the yammering about skilled vs unskilled labor, the ability to withstand manual labor in the summer sun all day long is very much an acquired skill, one which a lot of legal workers don't have, and no about of screaming at unemployment recipients will magically imbue it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Sure there is. The US is a crime-infested shithole. What happens when the "guest" gets their ID stolen? Until we clean up the streets guest IDs should be kept secure in a hotel safe if posible.
if they don't have them on their person, they can be looked up in moments by authorities.
No they won't. They aren't going to look up your birth records in moments, and they won't attach much value to them even if they did. Birth records are nearly worthless as formal ID.
Drivers licenses -- sure they could maybe be looked up quite quickly, but approximately 10% of people don't have them at all, many will be from out of state, and things aren't nearly that sophisticated.
Passports -- 2/3rds of American's do not have them. And Odds are good that if you are one of the 10% that doesn't have a drivers license you also don't have a passport.
Moreover, nothing will happen "in moments" period. You'll be on your way to a party, they'll ask, you'll have no ID on you, and your evening is ruined.
Cheap food is a benefit. You may not like it, you may see other problems, that's not MY problem. Undocumented workers do provide a benefit.
A benefit on the backs of people being abused.
You're a wonderful person, I want to know you.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
The problem is that those people are letting their justifiable worry and anger be used to manipulate them into actions that make the situation worse, not better. Just over the border in Mexico you have a drug war that's making thousands of casualties, including a lot of innocents as collateral damage. With situations like that, and many other countries in Central and South America with economic conditions or socio-political corruption that are almost as bad, you could give police in Arizona the right to summarily execute any suspected illegals resisting arrest and avoid investigating in-custody deaths and you still would have illegal immigrants arriving in drove because the conditions would still be better than what some of them have to face at home.
By tightening the noose around illegals, you are just making their mistreatment by employers (starting with violations of worker safety laws) that much easier because the illegals won't report abuse for fear of being deported. If you want to stop illegal immigration you have to stop the supply of illegal jobs, first by making it easier to identify legal employees (which should be much easier in a modern technological civilization with the capability of encoding digital informaton on "Enhanced Driver's Licences") and then by applying significant fines (and even jail time for chronic offenders) to the employers such that employing legal immigrants becomes cheaper.
And yes, that will increase the cost of doing business but it will reduce illegal immigration whereas, as explained above, the current policy won't. So maybe you want to just require it for unskilled (or semi-skilled manual) labour since that's where most of the illegal immigrants are hired. The question is are you willing to pay the price to fix the problem, or do you just want a scapegoat to beat on to feel better (while actually hurting your own position)? Because right now the latter is what is happening.
If somebody steals 20 dollars from you and gives you back 10, you didn't benefit from the transaction, even though you received 10 dollars.
I'm not claiming that this is the exact same situation, but the point is that you have to evaluate the overall net effect, not just the "cheap food" part. It's possible that the net effect is not a gain.
I'll try to expand on my parent comment with another parallel that may resonate better with the more technical orientation of the typical slahdot reader. A few decades ago, my sister recounted to me how an engineering success needed to be both technically feasible, politically acceptable, and economically feasible (nowadays, environmentally sustainable often would be another requirement, although you could make an argument that it's just a special case or subset of politically acceptable). I think you've got a parallel in public policy and legislation where, to be successful, they have to be both politically and economically feasible.
The problem with both the War on Drugs and the War on Illegal Immigration is that the current approaches are economically infeasible. The popular approach for each increase economic incentives in direct opposition to the stated goals of the policies. With the War on Drugs, prohibition increases scarcity, and as a result increases the unit price and the potential profit from drug trafficking, while discouraging addicts from seeking treatment. Similarly the War on illegal immigration increases the potential profit for unscrupulous employers willing to exploit and abuse illegal workers, thus improving the value proposition over legal workers, while decreasing illegal workers' ability to expose abuse and mistreatment. Both policies are resounding popular/political successes by addressing significant problems with ideologically popular approaches, but are abysmal failures because their economic effect is in direct opposition to the stated goals.>/p>
Only by sufficient education of the public to make an economically successful policy also politically palatable can you solve the problem. It's taken over 6 decades for the USA to slowly come around to the conclusion that drug prohibition approaches aren't working. How much time and loss of liberty do you think will be necessary before an economicall effective policy on illegal immigration will be acceptable and adopted?
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Meh, I'm currently a resident alien in the United States and I carry my green card with me all the time... can't be too safe with all those anti-immigration dudes around, and also cause I don't look caucasian.
;->
In all the papers that I've signed when entering or apply for a visa the states, it ALWAYS states that I MUST CARRY AT ALL TIMES, PROOF that I am legally in the US. That means, the entry Visa or Visa papers, and my passport when I was a non-resident alien... and now that I'm a resident-alien, just my green card.
So if the temporary workers with H-1B Visas actually read the papers they signed, THEY WOULD KNOW that they HAD TO CARRY THEIR VISA WITH THEM at ALL TIMES to comply with the law, ANYWHERE in the USA. A Driver's license is not necessarily good enough, nor is a SSN Card.
When I was working in Arizona on my Visa, my driver's licence was only issued for as long as my visa lasted, which was how it should be; However, some co-workers on the same type of visa, got one of those "expires when you're 65 years old" driver licenses, so it is in no way proof that one is in the country legally. Also my SSN card has no expiry date, it just has "VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH INS AUTHORIZATION" printed on it.
Also note that I did not carry my Passport and visa around with me when I was working with my Visa in Arizona... so I was living on the edge...
Sheriff Joe could have had me thrown in Jail and then deported to Mexico, eventhough I'm not from there.
So, it's state governments that are achieving record-level deportations?
Ahem...
"The Obama Administration drastically inflated statistics to show that it has deported a record-high number of illegal immigrants with criminal records, according to federal data obtained by a nonprofit university group dedicated to researching the government.
The new documents reveal the figure is actually at an all-time low and rapidly decreasing, leaving the Obama Administration with egg on its face just weeks after bragging about removing an unprecedented number of criminal aliens. In mid-October, ObamaÃ(TM)s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director jubilantly announced that nearly 55% of the record 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 were convicted of felonies or crimes.
The real figure is less than 15%, according to federal records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research center that provides detailed information about the operation of hundreds of government agencies. The number of deported criminal aliens has been declining steadily throughout the past year, the TRAC analysis found, even though fiscal year 2010 had an already low level of 16.5%.
In the first quarter of the fiscal year (October - December 2010) 15.8 percent of deported illegal immigrants were charged with engaging in criminal activity, 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January - March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April - June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July - September 2011). The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent, according to records obtained from the government through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
TRAC analyzed case-by-case records covering all proceedings filed in the nationÃ(TM)s immigration courts, which operate under the Justice DepartmentÃ(TM)s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The total number of deportation proceedings for aliens with criminal records dropped from 40,500 in fiscal year 2010 to 33,763 in fiscal year 2011. The number of individuals removed for national security or terrorism decreased from 42 to 30 during the same period.
This certainly contradicts the administrationÃ(TM)s claims that itÃ(TM)s focusing on removing criminals while it grants backdoor amnesty to otherwise Ãoelaw-abidingà foreigners living in the U.S. illegally. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) even issued new guidelines ordering immigration agents to prioritize deporting convicted criminals and those who pose public safety and national security threats."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/12/obama-admin-skews-deportation-figures/
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you're not a US citizen, you must carry your immigration documents at all times. That's been the law long before Arizona passed its law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1304
You know...there's plenty of people out there needing work...AND, I have no problem with having people that are on welfare and the like, being required to do some manual labor such as food harvesting to subsidize the money they're being given by the rest of the working taxpayers.
So what you really do want is not more expensive labor and workers being paid more but people on welfare being forced to work for their benefits (instead of employing illegals with same rate or *gasp* employing those who are in welfare for going rate which includes paying what is minimally required and if the employer is a human person - a sum that can actually legally support them). I can't really say which one is worse...
The people employing these illegal immigrants don't give a flying fuck that you'd be happy to pay more for your food. What they'd do is charge you more, keep the same illegal workers, and pocket the difference.
The farmers won't employ locals because if you're legally there you get paid minimum wage. If you're not legally there, then they can't complain when you don't pay them.
And one of the complaints against using slave labour from prisons to do manual labour is that it makes the company using them more profitable, but there aren't enough prisoners for everyone to use them, therefore a legal imbalance produced by the government.
Same thing with slave labour of the unemployed, except in this case, the farmer doesn't want to employ them either.
It isn't that the unemployed won't work for the farmers, but that the farmers (or, indeed, any other industry employing illegal aliens) don't want to employ them.
The problem is that despite all the yammering about skilled vs unskilled labor, the ability to withstand manual labor in the summer sun all day long is very much an acquired skill, one which a lot of legal workers don't have, and no about of screaming at unemployment recipients will magically imbue it.
There is a certain amount of truth to that. My grandmother had a plot that grew beans, pumpkin, watermelon, and okra; all of which had to be hand picked. Even with a free ride from town, and paying $10/hr (which the late 1970's, and early 1980's was pretty good money) it was hard to get people to show up for that work for an entire harvest. Not many people wanted to spend a 10-12 hour day, in 100F heat, 90% humidity, under the Missouri sun. However, we didn't have any illegals and somehow the stuff still got harvested.
Somehow the US construction industry still functioned too. People still showed up to be roofers (the worst, most miserable, and hot job I have ever done in my life was built up roofing!), driveway tampers, and HVAC repairmen. I'm not saying they don't churn through people in the beginning; they always have, and they always will. We don't need illegals for any of this.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
Before the white man showed up there were no borders, and therefore no immigration. The Native American was oppressed by coercive power -- the very essence of government -- not immigration. Coercive power was cause of all injustice (as common sense would tell us), and immigration was merely a side effect.
It should be noted that in most states, if you are stopped for a traffic violation and cannot produce proper identification, you will be arrested and the police will run a background check to prove you are a legal resident of the USA. And if you can't prove residency, deportation proceedings may follow. That's why the most important part of SB 1070 was upheld--most states are already doing the same thing.
Maybe it's time to set up an updated version of the "Bracero" program that allows Mexicans to work legally in the USA like what Germany did for workers from Turkey and subsequently Eastern Europe. That way, the Mexicans who come to work on farms come here _legally_, and it ends up benefiting the economies of two countries.
Boy, you in a heap of trouble.
I'm also reminded of the students that went to Alabama, and Mississippi.
for individuals - it's perfectly o.k. for banks to industrialize the process...
(fixed that for you)
We also gain higher taxes to pay for it. They all apply for food stamps and qualify for it because of a lack of employment history. They also apply for free medical for themselves and their children. They also apply for housing assistance and get it. In some states they also apply for assistance for their electricity/'water. Some states have plans that if you qualify for food stamps, you qualify for a free cell phone too.
So who pays for all of that? The working American tax payer in that state.
If you required proof of citizenship before qualifying for all of these benefits, you would never have an immigration problem.
As a born-in-this-country citizen of the U.S., what law am I allowed to break? If I went to another country, what law would I be allowed to break?
In Texas, at least for recent budgets, Education and Healthcare each make up about 1/3 of the state budget. Keep in mind that the Texas state budget is pretty big, one of the top in the nation. It is estimated that about have of each Education and Healthcare goes towards providing those services to illegal immigrants. A full third of a large pool of money provided by the state taxpayers goes towards illegals, and somehow they still manage to balance the budget.
This reminds of the British Laws in South Africa during the Apartheid era when colored people had to carry some paper work along with them, just in case they were stopped by the police.
This is a disgrace to the constitution and the ideals of the founding father of the United States of America.
Please enlightened us about these studies since you are so well versed in them. Provide links. Because your statement is really an oxymoron. Paying laborers minimum wage(plus payroll taxes, administrative costs, etc) vs paying illegal workers lower than minimum wages causes a cost differential that has to be covered somewhere. Nothing is free. So either the farmer/corporation, distribution, grocery stores are taking less margin or they would pass the increase cost to the consumer.
[Force US companies to]... pay what the market will bear.
Um, I think that's what they are doing.
If the labor market bears $3.00/hour, that's what employers will pay. Expecting them to pay more than that is not realistic. If some company springs up paying $15.00/hour because it's the "right thing to do", but has to compete with every other company paying $3.00, they will quickly find themselves out of business.
But, if none of these companies are able to find workers unless they offer $15.00, then that's the new definition of what the market will bear.
That, sir, is a topic worthy of its own Slashdot topic.
Simple solution.
1) Issue state/federal issued ID free of charge to every American citizen. Renewable, free of charge, every ten years, containing photo ID and biometrics This registers you to vote, gets you a DL, shows proof of eligibility to work in the US. The most important provision is the latter - eligibility to work.
Any employer in the United States who does not check eligibility for employment via valid state/federal ID is guilty of a felony, subject to fines and imprisonment, and not the Hiring Manager but CEO, owner, or Board of Directors.
2) Fix the immigration system in the US. Set up a functional goest worker program for temporary migrant workers. Clear the backlogs for legal immigrants. I emigrated to the US from a country with current allocation numbers and it still took 2 years, $10,000 in legal fees, the intervention of a Congress person and US Senator's office for two professionals with existing job offers and more degrees between us than is decent.
1) will not work because Americans will freak out about abrogation of their civil liberties because conspiracy theories hold more sway than actual concern about illegal immigration. Also, large corporate interests in agriculture, meat processing, and the service industry would see profits negatively impacted by restricting their use of undocumented workers. Undocumented workers do not join unions, agitate for higher pay, file workman's compensation claims, or complain about unsafe working conditions. If they do, ICE raids the premises and carts them off.
2) will not work because Congress at the moment can't find its ass with both hands.
Hand harvesting of fruit and vegetable crops accounts for 50% of total production costs. So, please spare me this notion that it doesn't really effect what we pay in the grocery store. Some of us eat stuff other than wheat and corn.
http://www.cis.org/FarmMechanization-ImmigrationAlternative
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
"Most staple foods in the US are mechanically harvested"
Bullshit.
Go to Yuma, Arizona. You can watch the illegals harvesting in fields, the porta-potties placed next to the field, the bus dropping them off, and the thorough enforcement of hand washing before touching the product.
That OJ you buy, you romantically idolize as coming from Florida, news flash - much more of the oranges are grown in Yuma than you think...and guess who's manually harvesting them.
Organizations of all sizes exploit the illegal labor pool. It is *not* just big business. Family operations cannot hire Americans and remain competitive with their neighbors who hire illegals.
I know it gives you +2 Liberal Cliche to bitch about big business. But it's not the truth here.
From what I understand the standing part of the Supreme Courts ruling is that a police officer can request proof of citizenship if they have reasonable suspicion they someone isn't legal, and it has to be in the course of otherwise typical law enforcement such as a traffic stop or such, profiling isn't allowed. My question is can someone give me an example of what could cause such reasonable suspicion, excluding of course the unlawful profiling of skin color, language, dress, etc. I'm not being snarky, I can't think of anything.
because no other country respects & admires immigrants. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/respect-from-friends-matters-more-than-money-for-happiness-in-life.html
Casteism
I can tell this much... The majority of the state did NOT support this bill. I just left AZ barely a year ago after having lived there for 8 years so I have a bit of knowledge on this. The crime in the Phoenix Metro isn't mostly illegals, it's mostly US CITIZENS doing the dumb shit. The so-called burden is waaaay overblown. Again, the citizens are using far more of the resources than illegals... But it's the fact that the illegals CAN use some social services that pisses people off so they over inflate the numbers to get people on board with their cause.
The majority of the illegals just want to work to support their families back home. They don't want to draw too much attention to themselves and really try to stay out of sight so as to not get caught and deported. Don't get me wrong, there are some (few) that come here with the sole intent of drug and gun running, but they're usually from Central America (i.e. MS-13 gang members) since the MX cartels don't want to make too much noise north of the border (they can kill with impunity at home, but doing so here in the States is bad for business).
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
The real result of this decision will be that sure - the local/state police will be able to ask for papers. THAT'S ALL THEY CAN DO. They cannot arrest someone for being here illegally. That was very clear in the courts decision. The local/state police will have to contact ICE and get them to confirm the validity of the person's status for an arrest. ICE has already stated that they do not have the budget/manpower to respond to thousands of requests. The arrest determination (barring any other crime) must be made by a FEDERAL agent.
So, picture this, a local motor officer that has stopped someone on "reasonable suspicion". He's standing in 115 degree heat waiting for a response from immigration officials. How long do you think he's going to waste time waiting for someone at the federal level to get back to him or come pick up the perp? Zero. I think this is going to be a non-enforcement issue for anything but people that have already been detained for a crime.
"There is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies."
And might I add:
1.300.000 homeless kids in a country that states "no child left behind"
50.000.000 without medical insurance
The worst medical care ever
Nearly 1/3 of the population living of USDA food stamps
The list goes on...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As an immigration attorney, the misinformation in this /. post is driving me bonkers. At the same time, this is not legal advice, go listen to your own damn attorney not me. In fact, you do not know if I am really an attorney, because I am posting as anonymous coward. Enjoy.
Please read the damn case. Any immigration attorney telling their H-1B clients to carry their papers at all times has clearly not read the ruling. SCOTUS left the "papers now" provision in to see how the State proposes enforcing it. At the same time, SCOTUS told them how they could not enforce it. SCOTUS went so far as to give unprecedented examples on how the law may be enforced and how it cannot be enforced. Rather, not unprecedented for Kennedy, but unprecedented for the court as a whole to sign on to. Page 22 of the opinion (page 26 of the PDF), all you need to know is there, READ IT. Here is a link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
If you are stopped for an on-arrestable offense and the officer has a reasonable belief, not based on race or nationality, the officer can ask you if you are legally in the United States. The officer can also ask you for a copy of your documents proving that you are here legally. But, the officer can ONLY do these things IF it WILL NOT ADD ANY TIME TO THE LENGTH OF YOUR DETAINMENT BY THE OFFICER! And, if you are not OTHERWISE ARRESTABLE the officer cannot harass you, hold you, or detain you, if you are proven to be illegally in the U.S. The result of this is that if you are temporarily stopped by an officer, but not arrested, you can and should tell the officer that you refuse to answer the question as you believe that is a matter of federal law and not state law. Everyone, Citizen, H-1B, Illegal, Visitor, you name it should do this. "I am sorry officer, but under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution you cannot compel me to answer that question." And if the officer tries to arrest you for it or come up with "interference" charges because you refuse to answer the question you should say, "I am sorry officer, but you cannot detain me further to answer that question. If you are not going to arrest me, you must now let me go." And go on your merry way.
On the other hand. If you are arrested and taken into custody, the officer can call ICE and check out your status. BUT, the officer cannot prolong your detention because of it. Therefore, if you are arrested and they would normally release you, even if they have no response from ICE, they must release you.
THE LAW IS TOOTHLESS. It is UNENFORCEABLE. Refuse to answer the question and do so politely. Do not talk more than is necessary.
TREAT THIS AS YOU TREAT EVERY TIME YOU ARE STOPPED BY A POLICE OFFICER - whether for driving while black, latino, or shits and giggles - DO NOT SAY ANYTHING. NEVER TALK TO A POLICE OFFICER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. DO NOT SHOW DOCUMENTS UNLESS YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO. A STATE POLICE OFFICER CANNOT REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW YOUR IMMIGRATION PAPERS. IF YOU REFUSE, THE OFFICER CANNOT DO ANYTHING. ONLY AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER CAN REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW THE PAPERS.
DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=related
Under the Fourth Amendment there must be probable cause that a crime has been committed, before the officer can require you to show your ID. Showing your immigration papers has nothing to do with showing your ID, unless they are the only ID you have on your person. Kindly tell the officer No and refuse to show your immigration papers.
To quote Justice Jackson, Watts v. Indiana 338 US 49, 59 (1949): "[A]ny lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Showing your papers or telling the officer your immigration status is a statement to the police.
: Pissed Off Attorney (POA)
Here is the link that you want. You're very welcome.
While you're at it, you might want to also consult a dictionary on the meaning of the words "relatively minor," since you apparently did not understand them.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Blah blah blah Democrat Party blah blah blah blah blah Democrat Party blah blah blah blah Democrat Party blah blah blah
Seriously, what do you expect to accomplish by using "Democrat" as an adjective, except to make yourself look like a douchebag?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
The first step to genocide in Nazi Germany: ID papers that differentiate mostly heterogeneous people based on "race." The first step in genocide in Rwanda: ID papers that differentiate mostly heterogenous people based on "race." The first step in Arizona...
Of course that is an extreme comparison and there is no indication of genocide in Arizona. However, the question remains: Why follow in such despicable footsteps?
Xenophobia doesn't help us. Shame on those cowards who brought this into law and allowed it to stand. When will they ever learn?
Stupidity is its own reward.
The wage paid to workers in meat packing plants is about 1/2 of it was in the 1980s in non-inflation adjusted dollars because of illegal immigrants working in that industry. It does have an effect things outside of just harvesting crops.
Hand harvesting of fruit and vegetable crops accounts for 50% of total production costs.
You should have also pointed out why, according to your link, it accounts for a number as high as 50%:
Some of us eat stuff other than wheat and corn.
Okay, now I am certainly convinced you didn't read your own article and simply searched for a statistic....Table 3 lists about 50 other food items that widely use mechanized or labor-aid harvesting systems (and I did not see wheat on that list).
Thanks causality for stating how most of us here in Arizona feel. The Media portrays us all as racist bigots where all we want is to stop the invasion. Thousands of people daily flooding over our borders. I understand their goal to better the lives of themselves and their families however especially in these tough economic times we do not need more uneducated people. The low level jobs are the only ones some people can find, even if they're educated. Having to compete with illegals for these positions is wrong. It appears that frequently employers will choose the illegal over the citizen because they can save money. Lower wages and because they are paid under the table, no Social Security or Medicare payments. We should welcome educated immigrants but we don't need any more uneducated people.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
The issue I see with this post is this sentence here: The court struck down several parts of Arizona's law but nonetheless left in place a core provision allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people in the state at specific times. The court did not "leave in place" the provision, they ruled they could not rule on the provision until it was implemented. They also ruled that when implemented it could then be challenged. Further, they said that how the provision is implemented would impact the court's ruling on it's constitutionality. They further warned that if the implementation prolonged (and didn't say how long prolonged is...) the detention of an individual that that would be grounds to strike down this provision. In my opinion it is good to get all the facts before discussing things and this is an important fact.
What about tourists, either visiting or passing through. They may not have an Arizona license.
Suppose they arrest someone who cannot immediately prove they are legal. Who pays?
I carry my subway pass which has my picture. That is sufficient for me as identification.
What if you forget your wallet with id at home?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
You know...there's plenty of people out there needing work
And some of them will get work providing goods and services for illegal migrants. Send the illegal migrants home and there's fewer workers, but also fewer jobs. It's not immediately obvious whether this would help the unemployed or hurt them.
Last time I saw studies on this the conclusion was that the two effects cancelled out so that migration was neither particularly good or bad for unemployment. But that was a long time ago, in Australia, and included legal migration. So if someone else has more applicable studies they can quote, I'd find that interesting.
Wow, you're so proud of yourself. Too bad you don't pay attention.
I was replying to a guy who was saying that illegals have little to no effect on food prices. My reply was a refutation of that. You can't have it both ways. Either they have an effect on food prices or they don't. He says they don't, I say they do, and then you seem to think it matters what the political explanation is. As if, somehow, that destroys my argument. Perhaps, when you're done patting yourself on the back, you can explain that to me. You might also want to look into why there are anti-mechanization laws. It's to keep machines from taking away jobs from human beings. Not that it really matters because the laws just even the playing field by taking away tax breaks that shouldn't exist in the first place. Any company that has a real hard-on to go mechanized is perfectly free to do so just don't expect the fucking tax payers to pay for it.
And FYI...your final statement does nothing to refute my evidence either but I'd love to hear how I'm wrong. Thanks for playing, dipshit.
p.s. I'm not a liberal.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
H1-B workers already are here under fraudulent pretenses, perhaps this could make it that much less palatable to have them over US citizens.
I applaud Arizona for doing what they do in enforcing immigration law to the benefit of citizens. Perhaps with all the enforcement, citizens could find jobs without the fraud perpetuated at all skill levels by business.
The ideal situation is to get rid of all guest worker programs. You want a job, get citizenship.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Arizona (amongst other states) is doing the job that nearly every other state won't do. That is, the state is enforcing immigration law in ways that may not let you overlook your fraud.
First of all, you've taken in H1-b holders, most likely by fraud. Second, your thought that you're above being subject to US immigration laws is arrogant in itself. Finally, nothing prevents someone outing you as in need of disclosing your status; any HR-type retaliation on your part would make it that much worse.
I don't know what country you come from, but the only thing fit for you is to have the business and assets handed over to a loyal US citizen, and to kick you out of the US.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
All males between 18 to 26 are still required to carry their draft cards. Exceptions: Military (they take your draft card and give you one of theirs), police and other US goverment employees.
Food does become cheaper. The cost savings simply isn't passed along to the consumer.
Exploiting labor doesn't help the worker or the consumer, just the producer. That said, I support legalizing NAFTA refugees. It would do no harm to my life, it's the right thing to do, and this country still has plenty of room to grow. Hopefully ~300 million in our very large country isn't the peak we're going to stop at for immigration. There's plenty of room left.
Hell, I prefer the new immigrants. It's sad how the US turns their kids into thugs and cretins though. Unless I was living in complete squalor, I'd probably stay in Latin America if I were them and have a nice family, a rich deep 500+ year culture and history, and a decent life for many.