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."
You know, they could be Russian mafia or that guy from Wikileaks.
Somehow, I doubt it.
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?
The only problems with immigrants are due to our own stupid laws that attract the wrong kind of immigrants and the problems they bring. The war on drugs brings the drug gangs, the war on poverty brings the destitute that aren't here to work but be a parasite, and the war on terror brings the ever elusive mid-eastern terrorist posing as a mexican.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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.
They are willing to work for very low wages, which pulls wages down for everyone. Companies are then forced to pay those lower wages to compete against the other companies that already pay low wages, thus pulling wages down for the entire working class.
So, make it trivially easy for them to be in the country legally, and thus entitled to the same workplace requirements as everyone else - minimum wage, etc.
That way they can't get tossed out of the country and they can't be exploited by dodgy companies who expect them to put up with ridiculously low wages if they don't want to be grassed up. This then means that they're no longer cheaper to hire than locals, so you may as well hire locals instead of giving the job to immigrants.
Simple enough.
So, you can prove you're a citizen by carrying no papers? :-)
That's what's always impressed me about these laws -- in theory, citizens need not carry papers, but if you don't, how does that "discussion" with the cop usually go? Of course *I* don't have to worry about this, I'm a fat old white guy. It's obviously discriminatory, it's intended to be discriminatory, and it's understood to be discriminatory. If *I* (and my kids) had to carry papers around all the time or risk arrest, I'd be furious. But I'm supposed to be okay with the law, because I'm white, so "we all know" that won't happen to me, it's only a problem for "other people". Bleah. This law has to go.
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.
already come to the one correct conclusion,
And what is that "one correct conclusion", oh great enlightened master? Let me guess, it aligns well with you political idealogy, and is generally agreeable to the body of your preexisting views and biases?
Please enlighten me. I am an Arizonan, I have read up extensively on immigration issues, I spend lots of time debating and pondering them. Until, of course, I realized that both sides of the issue are full crackpots and blustering idiot ideologues.
There isn't an easy answer. There never will be. The facts which we can base an answer on are all murky and subjective. The human issues are more so. Immigration is an issue that can only be solved through unhappy compromises, and trying to balance the human elements on both sides of the equation. It is truly a textbook ethical dilemma.
Also, that report is a farce, at least for the purposes of this discussion. It says nothing about the vast majority of immigrants (illegal or non) who aren't incarcerated.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Except that how do you prove you're NOT a foreigner in the US? Not quite as homogenous here as Japan.... and if I wanted laws like Japan, I'd fucking move to Japan.
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
And what is that "one correct conclusion", oh great enlightened master? Let me guess, it aligns well with you political idealogy, and is generally agreeable to the body of your preexisting views and biases?
That the laws on the books, concerning immigration and anything else, should either be enforced or repealed. Is that biased enough for you?
Of course, by assuming that I must be biased against someone or something, you are confirming my point. Some kind of accusation of bias of some kind is like a hammer to so many, and by God everything suddenly looks just like a nail. Maybe if you just keep trying hard enough it will finally work?
It's like you were doing this: "Hmm. Don't like what that guy said - check. Have to portray him as biased, bigoted, or just plain unpleasant because heaven forbid two adults have a conversation about a national issue without making it personal - check. Muddy the water with "human issues" and "both sides of the equation" when concepts like "rule of law" are so damned simple - check."
Tell you what. If you truly want to be as unbiased and fair as possible, I have a proposal. Let's follow Mexico's lead and do it the way they do it! Let's harmonize our immigration laws to match theirs, the same way that copyright laws are harmonized among various nations. If you support illegal immigration, you wouldn't like that one damned bit. But it would be so unbiased!
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I hate to break the news to ya, but it ain't just poo little Paco coming to work that's crossing the border,
On behalf of us conservative, middle-class, white Americans [1]: kiss my ass. "Poor little Paco" is some dude who wants a better living for his family. You don't get to blithely throw that baby out with the bathwater. Dismissing concerns about "those poor little brown people" is a giant "screw you" to everyone who's ever emigrated to America.
we are talking dope dealers,
...who wouldn't be an issue if we dropped this stupid War On Drugs,
human traffickers,
...who are heavily involved with the same drug warlords our insane policies have made rich,
some really serious scum are crossing that huge leaking sieve of a border as well.
...but fortunately they constitute a tiny portion of border violators. Your little link listed, what, 10? 20? people killed by illegal immigrants. They'd call that a busy week in Chicago (no, really: unlike you, I actually looked up the numbers).
So we have a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have. And then we have a few thousand who want to get rich off the drug laws we've almost custom-tailored to those ends. Ruling out the crime of illegal immigration itself, I'd wager that the crime rate among those immigrants is no more than equal that of natives in similar economic classes. I'd make a side wager that it would be less, as tight-knit communities self-police to keep the limelight off themselves, and because an illegal immigrant making $X is likely to feel much less poor than a native making the same amount.
So in short, you ought to be ashamed for writing off "poor little Paco", as though his desire to live better is no big deal. There are a lot more of him than there are of the scary drug kidnapper straw men you've used to justify your racist assholishness. You, personally, are the reason that the Republicans don't completely own the Latino vote. Their conservative culture would be a near-perfect match for the Republican platform if you could get over your squeamishness and quit driving them away.
[1] I'm still a fiscal conservative, but I couldn't abide by the social hyperconservatism of the current Republican party. I'm not gay and the occasional mai tai is the hardest drug I get near so it's not like I was feeling personally oppressed. It's just that I stopped feeling the need to tell other people how to live. You, too, can get over the "Rush says it so it must be right!" mindset and start enjoying the world around you. It's not nearly as scary as rightwing talk radio would lead you to believe.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The problem comes when a citizen who is NOT carrying id is hassled by the police because he is the wrong skin color, speaks with an accent, or doesn't - or chooses not to - speak clear English.
At this point you have an American Citizen whose civil rights are being violated based on a "protected" issue such as skin color, national or presumed national origin, race, etc.
This leave the police very little choice:
Either ask for papers from people independent of reasons that boil down to "He looks Mexican" or don't ask for papers at all.
If cops in your town are NOT engaged in pulling people over for "driving while Hispanic" and they demand papers from EVERYONE they pull over or, in the absence of papers, demand that the person they pull over sign an affidavit stating their citizenship and/or visa status, then they'll be immune from accusations of illegal discrimination. Lying on an affidavit is perjury.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ooh you made a typo there:
Just like Germany in 2012. There fixed that for you.
Oh but you were making a Nazi refernce to sound deep! Well guess what: They also drank beer and taught math in Germany in 1938 too! Therefore, we should outlaw beer and math or else it's Hitler all over again!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
It isn't that...I mean AZ isn't overrun by conservatives...but they ARE being overrun by illegals, and the toll it is taking on crime, overburdened schools, hospitals and other state/city services is immense.
From the polls I've seen, this kind of law, holds widespread support by the majority of the whole state....as it does in many border states that are having to deal with this...something other states can't comprehend since they're not wearing the same shoes.
It IS a major problem, and the federal govt. is not enforcing the laws on the books. If you could stop the flood of people coming in, and then revamp the immigration system...well, it would help.
I don't think the majority of people have a problem with legal immigration, but it has to be monitored and metered. The unbrideled flow of illegal people in the country is taking its toll on the system, and it isn't fair to the many thousands of people from all over the world, trying to wait in line and come here to become US citizens properly, with all the rewards and obligations that entails, including important requirements such as proficiency in English...something important to integrating into the larger American culture, rather than isolating into small communities cut off from the larger culture and population.
On the high level, presidental level, sure, it is all political...but if you had to live and deal with the situation that border states with Mexico are having to deal with...you'll find it cuts largely across both political ideals with regard to support for securing the borders and doing something about cutting the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants flooding those states.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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
I've literally never, in my entire life, heard any self-described "liberal" say this. Never. You're setting up a false dichotomy so you can make it look the problem is being caused by both sides.
It isn't.
This is entirely a right-wing issue, and the flames of racism are being fanned entirely by so-called "conservatives".
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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.
They broke federal law by illegally entering our country.
A man looks at a line on the map and thinks, "on this side, my children go to poor schools until 3rd grade and then start a lifetime of manual labor. They'll have no more than I. On that side of the invisible line, they go to good schools and maybe work hard to become a doctor." Then he steps over the line. Yeah, that's just a hair's breadth away from slanging 'caine with a gang.
The fact that you think this is how humans reason about morality says a lot more about you than it does our new visitors.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
> What about Obama's Immigration Directive ?
So what exactly do you think a child who is being brought into the US illegally by his/her parents should do in their situation? Run away? Snitch on their own parents? What if they're too young at the time to even be aware of the illegality of their crossing, or it's repercussions? Hell, some of those kids don't even know they're here illegally until the government launches into a deportation.
And then what? They're supposed to go back to a country where they have no ties, may not remember, and may not even speak the language? Leave the only home they've ever known because of something their *parents* did when they were children?
You people are just sick. Whatever one might think the policy should be on adults who cross the border illegally; to oppose the Dream Act, or its replication in Obama's recent directive, isn't just morally repugnant. It's inhuman and sadistic.
Imagine all the people...