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.
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'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."
I thought that Federal Law required non-citizen aliens to carry documentation.
That's what MIB is for.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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?
Also, a 2012 report shows Arizona companies have applied for 4,387 work visas. The average salary for these positions is $75,473. The most recent U.S. Census data (compiled through 2007) shows the average salary in Arizona is $47,750. So something tells me the people who might actually have these visas are not the same people who are getting pulled over in beat-up white Ford pickup trucks.
Breakfast served all day!
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
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
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.
Maybe they should require all foreigners to wear a yellow paper star on the outside of their clothing.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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!"
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.
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.
Why do you post AC?
"If you don't live in a border state you really can't grasp how bad it is."
No, they just don't give a fuck, at all. Open border ideals are delightful when you live far away from the consequences.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
..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.
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
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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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.........
So if you don't have any papers on you, then you're automatically a citizen? Isn't that like trying to prove a negative?
No, one reason for the backlash is effectively laws requiring foreigners to carry papers means that citizens must also carry papers.
It's tough to single out a small group of people for your police state, unless you do racial profiling, which is illegal.
As a citizen, I should not be required to provide proof of identity without just cause. Obviously there are narrowly defined exceptions. If I'm driving a car, proving that I have the necessary training and license to do so is appropriate, and courts have confirmed this particular instances. But in most states the police require a reason to pull over a car and ask for a driver's license, an example of this would be to issue an infraction.
Generally, I am not required to present identification just because I'm in a public place. Unless some very narrow situation arises, such as my physical description matching a recent crime report. Generally people should feel free to walk around and live their lives without being harassed by the police, even if their skin happens to be brown.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
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.
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?"
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.
In most places, the police can stop you and ask you for your identification, and detain(read put you in handcuffs, and keep you at the police station), until they can verify your identity without charging you with a crime.
If you work a job, you have to fill out paperwork stating you are legally allowed to do so.(being legally allowed to work in the state/country is part of just about all job applications)
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 ----
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.
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.
Well, Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine are technically also still border states, but by the time Stephen Harper is done maybe that won't be the case anymore. (And besides, I'll admit that I'm missing your point on purpose.)
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I'm an Arizona citizen and your summation matches how I see reality here.
Growing up industries like plumbing and other construction trades were a viable option for un-educated people but not anymore. Personally I feel that big corporations (and even not so big companies) use illegal immigrants just like pre-civil war farmers used slaves. I wish we could solve the real problem driving it: corruption in Mexico.
"Open border ideals are delightful when you live far away from the consequences."
As Ronald Reagan said, just vote with your feet. Move to Kansas. Besides just think of the benefits. Kansas has directed its schools to teach creationism rather than evolution, so not only can you be far removed from the problems associated with living too close to the US border, you can be saved from reality as well.
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!
define most places.
and true, proof of identity is normal for job applications is normal. although it's not an agent of the government that is requiring the proof. the liability is generally on the employer. if they had a choice they would probably not bother checking.
I'm not saying there is any sort of constitutional right (well maybe the Fourth). But your average person has some expectations that they will not be stopped by the police without reasonable cause. Which I think explains why these sorts of identification requirements have so much backlash from people who might otherwise not give a crap about foreigner workers (or illegal aliens).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
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
Not a big Jesse Jackson fan either, but the situations just aren't comparable. There are probably an order of magnitude (or more) Hispanic illegal immigrants than black illegal immigrants.
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
Well, whether you have heard it "literally", the fact is that the current non-enforcement of immigration laws amounts to that policy.
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 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.
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.
Illegal immigration is not causing higher crime. Arizona's crime rates are down since immigration increased - in line with the rest of the country:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/nation/la-na-arizona-crime-20100503
There is some ugly stuff going on, but saying illegal immigration has increased the the crime rate is simply false.
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?
I have no idea where to even start addressing the points you're babbling on about....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Actually, in AZ, ever since these laws came on the books and started being enforced...and illegals have been leaving the state (also due to recession related employment shortages)....crime has decreased in AZ.
Immigration is down a bit the past few years due to laws and recession...and illegals have been leaving states, and crime has been going down.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
[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.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the businesses that use them. No other solution (including a 100' wall) is going to stop immigration as long as they have jobs if they get here.
This means you have to go after small business owners and run them through court with fines that exceed any benefits of using illegal immigrants. That is something the Republican party will never do and it's something that even the states will never do because small business owners are generally the politicians in office. So they paper over the issue with these "papers please" legislation and calls for a bigger fence or more border control agents. It's all a bunch of horse pucky to distract people from the real issue.
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?
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.
Uhm. POTUS Obama and Sec of Homeland Security, just said that.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
"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.
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.
Care to link to some evidence for your claims? Or explain how, if true, that squares with the fact that crime did not increase when immigration increased?
I understand that your worldview requires that immigrants be a crime problem. It's just that the facts indicate otherwise.
No, they absolutely didn't. You're either ignorant or lying.
"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?"
Largely Republican enforcement. Or are you calling Republicans liberal?
Yes, I know what they say about it isn't necessarily the same, and that at the state and local level there are different sentiments, but at the federal level, the main amnesty was under Reagan, right?
Learn to love Alaska
Current non-enforcement is a Democratic president unilaterally and deliberately ignoring immigration law.
Reagan went to Congress and proposed a deal of amnesty for those already in the country in exchange for stronger mechanisms for immigration enforcement. That deal went through, but the immigration enforcement provisions were subsequently gutted by Congress again.
Both Republicans and Democrats bear responsibility for the messy state of immigration in different ways. Republicans generally just can't make up their mind between restrictive nativism and nationalism and libertarian free market ideologies when it comes to immigration. But the political sins of the Democrats is that they generally advocate treating people who are here illegally like legal residents, out of some misguided notion of "civil rights".
How was the non-enforcement under Bush or Bush? The same as Obama? I don't know why the Republicans hate Obama so much. He's doing everything the Republicans have. Or is that why he's so hated. It takes a Black liberal to be a good Republican?
Learn to love Alaska
I don't see much difference between Bush and Obama: both presidents have been duds and in pretty much the same ways.
Obama, 4 more years of hype!.
Learn to love Alaska
Care to link to some evidence for your claims? Or explain how, if true, that squares with the fact that crime did not increase when immigration increased?
I understand that your worldview requires that immigrants be a crime problem. It's just that the facts indicate otherwise.
well, if one refers to immigrants as illegals then OF COURSE the crime rate goes up if there's illegals, since they're performing a crime by simply being there. now if they work they're performing double or triple crime!.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.