Skip to main content

What a day!  First Nebraska passed an abortion ban which is a challenge to our constitution rights and now Arizona has decided to follow that up with a law that would require police officers to arrest people they suspect of being illegal immigrants.

The LA Times reports:

The bill mandates that police determine people's immigration status if there is a 'reasonable suspicion' they are undocumented.

My question is what exactly constitutes "reasonable suspision" that someone is an illegal immigrant?  The car they are driving, the job they hold, socio-economic status?  Or probably more accurately the color of their skin.  

Previously, police who wanted to inquire about immigration status could only do it after stopping people for possibly violating other laws.

You don't even have to be breaking a law for the police officer to request proof of citizenship!

Seriously, this law violates many Federal laws that regulate discrimination.  The only way to make this law non-discriminatory is to require everyone that comes into contact with law enforcement officer's to provide proof of citizenship.  How would we all like to be subject to that.  Get pulled over by the cops and now you would not only have to provide drivers license and registration but a copy of your birth certificate as well.  Do you know where your birt certificate is?  How do you feel about having to carry it with you and prove you are a citizen if stopped.  This is where we are headed if we allow these types of reactionary laws take root.

This is not a diary excusing illegal immigration.  That could be controlled by stricter employer penalties and enforcing laws we already have on the books.  This diary is a rant to point out the idiocy and blatant racism that seems to be so pervasive.

This is not okay.  It is crossing a civil liberties line.  I wonder what the reaction of the Tea-Baggers will be?

Originally posted to gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:27 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  maybe AZ can secede (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gtghawaii, farlefty

    PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

    by RumsfeldResign on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:33:35 PM PDT

  •  We arizona democrats need to use this to get (8+ / 0-)

    latin american Arizonans to the polls and turn this state blue.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:38:28 PM PDT

  •  It won't be the color of their skin (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gtghawaii

    but the accent of their voice that'll be "reasonable suspicion". Just wait until they turn this into a national security fake saying they'll catch Al Qaeda members with this because they "talk funny". Hmm, maybe we could make bad spelling a reason to be detained and searched?

    Wal*Mart isn't the root of all evil but you can buy the plastic, cadmium-tainted, Chinese knock-off of it there for $4.27

    by ontheleftcoast on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:40:03 PM PDT

  •  Papers Please! (8+ / 0-)

    Next there will be checkpoints and you know how the story unfolds from there...

    --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

    by chipoliwog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:40:31 PM PDT

    •  There are already checkpoints, (6+ / 0-)

      all over southern Arixona. Some are fairly permanent, others move frequently are (wo)manned by Border patrol agents, and while they frequently have a drug sniffing dog, other times they do not.
      Being distinctly caucasian, the only inconvenience is having to stop so the BP agent can look in the car and ask politely "Country of citizenship?" All they really want to do is hear you talk.
      Non-American English will probably get you pulled over into "secondary", where they search the vehicle and examine documents.
      Many of the residents of my county, and the only one between us and the border, speak with distinct Spanish accents. But if their American English is good enough, as it almost always is, no problem.
      Non-English speakers have a higher hurdle to overcome, but since you state that you're not espousing unlawful immigration, I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.

      I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

      by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:10:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes but are you required to PROVE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OHdog

        Your citizenship every time.  Are you stopped outside of those checkpoints not even in a car, having done nothing wrong and again asked to prove you are American?  If not it's racial profiling which IS racist and violates many federal laws.

        I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

        by gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:20:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Short answer, No. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos, Empty Vessel

          It turns out that most times I pass through those checkpoints I'm returning from Mexico, thus carrying my passport, and could easily prove my citizenship.
          But I've never been asked to produce any documents. The BP agents are courteous, yet vigilant for example, for "nervous behavior" which might cause them to ask that you open your trunk. It adds two or three minutes to an hour's drive.
          Just a fact of life in Baja Arizona.

          I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

          by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:29:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Those checkpoints (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos, DaNang65

          are on the interstates, close to places like El Centro, CA (where the earthquakes were last week), El Paso and Laredo TX.

          So, no, those checkpoints aren't checking people that are on foot if that's what you're getting at.

          I'm not a fan of those checkpoints, but mostly because they slow me down from time to time, not because I'm asked if I'm a citizen or if I'm alone in the truck.

          Whether they violate privacy laws or federal laws is a question better asked of the likes of Sotomayor et. al.

          Like I said, the more elegant solution would be to have it stated on the driver's license whether or not you are a citizen.

      •  Non-english speakers=unlawful immigration? (5+ / 0-)

        How do you figure that? They could well be Cubans and hardly speak a word of english and be 100% legally here. Or Puerto Rican speaking funny english and be 100% american citizen.

        Why sould the gendarme be able to stop and question people at will anyways? Don't we have a 4th amendment right any more?

        •  Whether or not the checkpoints (3+ / 0-)

          violate privacy is, again, better answered by SCOTUS.

          But DaNang65 is right. The BP is courteous, and they've even joked with me a couple of times.

          Once, when coming from El Paso, I was hauling an entire trailer full of those Airwick air fresheners, and I told the BP guard that when asked. He jokingly asked me if it was to cover up the smell of marijuana.

          I laughed, clutched my heart, and told him not to do that to me! He laughed too, and sent me on my way.

        •  Perhaps our understanding of the 4th Amendment is (4+ / 0-)

          different. I  have labored under the impression that it prohibitted "unreasonable searches and seizures".
          Passing through these BP checkpoints has never struck me as "unreasonable", nor particularly a serach and seizure. But, of course, I've never set the drug sniffing dog off, but if I had I'd probably call that a "reasonable" search, and the discovery of any contraband a "reasonable" seizure.

          I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

          by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:36:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  4th amendment doesn't apply (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kevskos
            at the border.  It's the "border exception."
            •  The checkpoints in question are generally (0+ / 0-)

              twenty five to forty miles from the border, occasionally more.

              I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

              by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:00:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Cheney extended the border zone (0+ / 0-)

                to 100 miles inside the actual border... which means, actually that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to a terrifying percentage of the population.

                I haven't heard that the Obama Administration has rescinded his ruling. Doesn't mean they haven't.

                Government is not instituted for the good of the governor, but of the governed; and power is not an advantage, but a burden. -Algernon Sidney

                by James Robinson on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 07:00:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  So how about stopping a brown skinned man on (0+ / 0-)

            the street. Is that 'reasonable' to you now?

            •  FSM, grant me patience. (0+ / 0-)

              Where I live probably 75% of the folks fit into the "brown skinned" category, maybe more. The police, as often "brown skinned" as not, do not racially profile anybody.
              Instead they rely on their years of experience patrolling a "brown skinned" neighborhood, and their personal knowledge of the residents thereof, to make their stop and question interrogations.
              To my knowledge the Tucson Police Department has no credible record of racial profiling in many, many years.
              Likewise, the Border Patrol agents are as likely as not to be "brown skinned", natively bilingual.
              I have no idea where you live, or where you're getting your ideas from, but here, an hour from the border, it's not a problem.

              I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

              by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 07:00:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's right- I am sure Sheriff Arpaio (0+ / 0-)

                is as fair as the day is long.

                •  As sure as you are that Sheriff Arpaio (0+ / 0-)

                  is Sheriff of Pima County? Some of your general points are valid, but your brush paints with far too broad strokes.
                  For your general information, Clarence Dupnik, who has been Sheriff of Pima County for almost thirty years, has declared it the official policy of PCSD not to inquire into detainees immigration status
                  Maricopa County is the most populous in AZ, and a center  of right wing, if not outright tea bag, attitudes, but is as far from representative of all Arizona as the Bronx is from all of New York state. And before you go taking off on that statement, I was born and raised in the Bronx, a mile and a quarter from Sonia Sotomayor's project, two miles from Colin Powell's neighborhood. In the time frame just about exactly between the two.

                  I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

                  by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 10:29:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You give cops a blank check to racial profile (0+ / 0-)

                    What do you think will happen? I have no doubt that your current sheriff is a good guy. There are plenty of good guy cops. But the problem is giving them a blank check to racially discriminate. Can you guarantee me no arizona cop will use it to exercise his own prejudice?

                    •  I'm here to allow more time for you to provide (0+ / 0-)

                      evidence that I support profiling. Perhaps if you read through my comments more dispassionately, you'll notice that my constant theme is that the police - local, county, state, and federal here in Baja Arizona couldn't possibly engage in racial profiling. Most of the people they encounter in Baja Arizona are brown skinned and/or Hispanic surnamed. That includes the geographically immense (if thinly populated) Tohono O'Otham reservation whose San Xavier District runs right up to the Tucson city limits.
                      That Sheriff Joe is an asshole, we couldn't agree more. That Maricopa County is a hotbed of extreme right to tea bag idiots is well established.
                      But you paint Arizona with far too broad a brush, it seems driven by some bee under your bonnet, but is grossly unfair to the entire people of this state.

                      I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

                      by DaNang65 on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 02:39:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  I let myself get distracted by your 4th Amendment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassandra Waites, Empty Vessel

          issue. My full answer would have included that non-English speakers are given the opportunity to show their documents to prove their right to be here.
          Furthermore, many Mexicans come to Tucson to shop, Sonoran license plates are second only to Arizona plates in these parts. Through a variety of mechanisms , mostly unknown to me, "border crosser" cards and the like are fairly easy to obtain.
          The application of this new Arizona statute in the northern regions of the state may well be racially motivated, but these parts were "purchased" from Mexico, at the point of a gun, by the Gadsden Purchase.
          People here often say "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us".

          I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

          by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:58:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why should anyone have to show any papers? (0+ / 0-)

            That is my question. This is a police state mentality.

            •  Welcome (0+ / 0-)

              to the reality based community. You do understand, don't you, that under fairly longstanding SCOTUS ruling, and the statutes of many, if not all, states, you must present identification to a police oficer on request. Refusal to do so is a crime or civil offense in those jurisdictions.
              If that's what you're basing your "police state mentality" comments on, you're a couple of decades late.
              It ain't all the fairy tales they tell you in school.

              I had a brother at Khe Sanh, fightin' off them Viet Cong, they're still there, but he's all gone. The Boss

              by DaNang65 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:48:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  We have a lot of legal citizens (0+ / 0-)

    of all colors and creeds  that have been  out of work for a long time now.   This will be the  biggest challenge to Dems and Obama in future elections.   I would not be surprised to see more laws like this and declining support at the federal level for amnesty type solutions.     It is not about racism, it is about what is legal and what is fair.

    •  Again this is not an amnesty diary (4+ / 0-)

      It is about the violation of peoples civil liberties and yes even illegal immigrants have "civil rights".  We do not have two classes of humans in the United States.  At least not yet........

      I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

      by gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:48:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Try being an illegal immigrant in Germany (0+ / 0-)

        The Germans do not have a sense of humor about it, and they are (arguably) the Grand F***ing Masters of All Things Oppressive.

        Is there an element of racism of it in Germany? Probably. But when the Berlin wall fell it was all about the jobs.

        I hate to sound like Lou Dobbs here, but the problem of illegal immigrants won't go away until the USA really strong-arms other countries into changing their ways. And as long as there are cheap shoes/TVs/whatever to be sold that ain't gonna happen.

        •  The problem of illegal immigration (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          debedb, Alec82, James Robinson

          will not go away until we "Americans" either stop knowingly hiring them so we can pay poverty wages or until we adopt a saner immigration policy that allows for migrant workers.  

          Comparing the US and Germany immigration enforcement is apples to oranges......generally the hispanic immigrants do work that Americans don't want to do.  They are not stealing anyones job.

          I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

          by gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:14:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I assure you, illegal immigrants don't just (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FuddGate

            pick lettuce in the fields for crappy wages. They also work in a lot of warehouses, loading and unloading trucks and doing a lot of other work that, yes, Americans would be happy to do.

            I see it every. single. day. These people are being exploited in the name of bigger profit. The fallout is lower wages all around and a smaller tax base when income taxes aren't paid.

            Just to be clear: are you stating that there are no agricultural jobs in Germany, or that those agricultural jobs that do exist are any easier there?

            If comparing the USA and Germany is apples to oranges then that can be the only logical conclusion, given that the premise is that illegals only take jobs that US citizens won't do.

            •  No they also (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phil S 33, Alec82

              Clean our houses, mow our grass, babysit our children, make our food and yes work in wharehouse and construction jobs doing blue collar work.  Having been in the recruiting business for 15 years in California I have a fairly broad knowledge and experience with the problem.  You are right they are being exploited for the low wages employers can pay them.  Instead of going after the employers though Americans would rather villainize the immigrant workers that are providing the supply to our demand than admit that "we" are the problem by not holding employers accountable and insisting on livable wages and yes having immigration laws that allow migrant workers.  

              What I'm saying that our immigration problems are unique to the United States and I can't see how Germany's rules correlate to our problem.  

              As a side note, there are quite a few unemployed Americans that are not willing to do the work an immigrant does.  I knew a woman who was on welfare for 5 years and bemoaned the fact she just couldn't find a job.  She had no skills to speak of.  One day she was on a rant about those awful illegal immigrants.  She went on and on......until finally I said fine, why don't we deport them all and you will finally have a job.  XYZ farms will have openings.  She was OFFENDED by the mere suggestion.  She was not willing to pick any strawberries or do anything she felt was "beneath" her.  I'm sorry but as an "American" you are not better than the immigrant in the field picking strawberries.  You just have had more opportunities.  

              The unwillingness of Americans to do manual labor is shown by the shortage of high schoolers that would consider a non-skilled or skilled trade job.

              I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

              by gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:00:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  "Their" ways? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gtghawaii

          There are only immigrants here because we want cheap labor.  You'll notice that there was a massive decline in the undocumented population in California following the recession.

          Anyway, we can't deport millions of people.  We just need to legalize their status and provide a path to citizenship; neither here nor there, because this proposed law is obnoxious for a variety of reasons.

          Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

          by Alec82 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:43:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Couldn't agree more...nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alec82

            I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

            by gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:20:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Who Is 'We'? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Brooke In Seattle, FuddGate

            There are only immigrants here because we want cheap labor

            I don't want cheaper labor. This is just as fallacious a statement as 'they mow our lawns, they take care of our kids', etc. Nobody mows my lawn, nobody takes care of my kids, and illegal immigrants are not limited to mowing lawns and taking care of kids.

            My neighbor is an illegal immigrant and he does tile work and construction -- just the kind of jobs "that Americans won't do" -- yeah?

            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

            by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:28:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The fact is, though... (0+ / 0-)

              ...that you could solve illegal immigration tomorrow by passing a law, then throwing people found to have hired illegal immigrants in prison for a long time. You wouldn't need to even bother deporting anyone; when you find someone you just ask where they work and go arrest that person.

              If dishwashing jobs in Canada paid $50/hour you'd see lots of Americans, in fact the same Americans bitterly complaining about illegal immigration, jumping the border. You can't stop that kind of thing any more than you can stop the tide.

              Building a wall with Mexico, fences, guards, all idiotic and costly ideas. Just throw people in prison who hire illegal immigrants and give that bureau a decent budget and the 'problem' will solve itself.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 08:06:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We Cannot Simply 'Go After The Employers' (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk

                The law, in a practical sense, has made it impossible to do so, and this has been the case since the 1986 IRCA. Please see this diary as to why.

                Also, there is no practical will to 'go after the employers'.

                The Democratic Party doesn't want to do so because it would dissolve their new voter base no less effectively than deportation, and it subverts their access to money and power, which is driving much of why we have the massive illegal immigration problem that we have today.

                The Republican Party doesn't want to 'go after the employer' because it destroys big businesses access to cheaper labor and, as with the Democratic Party, it would subvert their access to money and power.

                <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 08:26:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...with everything you wrote. My point is just that all this ridiculous caterwauling by both parties is obnoxious. If we really wanted to solve the 'problem', it is one of the easier problems to solve, requiring tweaks to the law, little new technology, and only a modest investment.

                  I am agnostic as to whether our economy net benefits or net loses because of illegal immigration.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 08:37:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's An Easy Problem (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sparhawk

                    it is one of the easier problems to solve, requiring tweaks to the law, little new technology, and only a modest investment

                    In a practical sense, it is not an easy problem in a political sense. What is required is to either remove the 'knowingly' clause from 8 USC 1324 (which is neither fair nor politically feasible), or institute a 'national id card' which is, practically speaking, not forgeable.

                    Creating the 'tamper proof id' of the 1986 IRCA is fairly easy from a technological standpoint, but politically speaking one has to get it by the privacy advocates on both the left and right of the political spectrum, and one has to get it past LULAC, NCLR, ACLU, and the rest of those organizations who have been opposing worksite and interior enforcement of immigration law since 1986.

                    Lastly, one would have to get it by the political, and money and power, elements (Council on Foreign Relations, Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) that will fight it tooth and nail to that extent that I don't think it will ever become a reality (if  it were going to happen, I suspect it would have happened by now).

                    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                    by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 08:50:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Who Is 'They' (0+ / 0-)

            We just need to legalize their status and provide a path to citizenship;

            The ones here today ... or the next 12 million who will follow them tomorrow?

            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

            by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:29:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Explain to me how (0+ / 0-)

        checking an individual's  legal status  violates their civil rights?    Would you be more comfortable  checking an individual's  legal status as a  requirement of employment?   Don't care what color the individual is, what sex, what religion,  what political party.    Just want them to be legal before they get a job my native born neighbor should have.

        •  It Doesn't Matter (0+ / 0-)

          Would you be more comfortable  checking an individual's  legal status as a  requirement of employment?

          Whether they are comfortable with it or not, it's the law and it already happens.

          <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

          by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:24:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Legal status checks for employment (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ahianne, Kevskos, James Robinson

            are fine. But walking down the street and being asked to prove citizenship because of racial profiling when no law has been broken is a violation of civil rights. The US does not require anyone to carry proof of citizenship.

            •  Strictly Speaking No (0+ / 0-)

              The US does not require anyone to carry proof of citizenship.

              But try telling that to the next cop who says to you 'can I see some identification please' -- yes you may have a case in court -- but it has been my experience that every time I have argued with a cop I have ended up in jail.

              Beyond this point, it is required that green card and visa holders in the U.S. carry that paperwork with them at all times.

              And lastly, let's face facts, Arizona is being, for lack of a better term, overrun. You may not like the term 'overrun', but that is in fact what is occurring in Arizona.

              <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

              by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:54:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you support a National ID card (0+ / 0-)

                if one that is secure could be designed?

                •  A VERY Good Question (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mariachi mama

                  In my heart of hearts ... no ... but as you know I have studied the issue of immigration and illegal immigration in particular for a long time now. I am convinced that the only way that the U.S. can, practically speaking, end illegal immigration is thru what many might call a 'national id card'.

                  I do believe that we can design a biometrically encoded social security card that could be required to be shown at employment time (we require any number of id's now).

                  There are any number of reasons why I don't think this biometrically encoded id will come to pass however -- and I think that the Schumer Graham legislation is just a rehash of IRCA -- what will occur is that those in the country illegally will be made legal, there will be some tweaks to legal immigration which skew legal immigration even more towards citizens of Mexico than it is now, and the rest will go by the wayside.

                  One only has to look at the constituency to do 'comprehensive immigration reform', what they want out of it, and what will happen once they have gotten what they want.

                  What people like Frank Sharry and Janet Murgia publicly call 'comprehensive immigration reform' they privately call 'US/Mexico'.

                  <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                  by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:57:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think the only way to (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    superscalar

                    crack down on employers is to have some sort of national ID, which I know raises a lot of concerns, and frankly I would just love to see some OC housewives hauled off to prison for their hiring of household help.

                    I wish we could have a rational discussion about immigration reform without all the name calling (I've been guilty but realize it's not productive) and cliche.

                  •  Also I think (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    superscalar

                    that the drug war have to be included in the equation. I am really disappointed that Obama is continuing on the same failed path of the Bush administration in funding the militarization of Mexico.

                  •  Oh I have so many thoughts (0+ / 0-)

                    on immigration and every single discussion devolves into arguements about words and geography which drives me fucking nuts and doesn't address the economic, political and cultural issues.

        •  We already check legal status (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos

          In employment!  It's called the I9 form all employee's are required to fill out.  If your employer does not require it then they are violating federal immigration law.

          I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

          by gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:28:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It should be stated on the license (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, Pozzo, FuddGate

    whether or not you are a citizen. When the door was opened to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses then that is one of the designations that should have been added to the card.

    It indicates whether I have to wear corrective lenses. If my PRIVILEGE of driving is extended to those who are not citizens then it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me to add that bit of information.

    When I first became licensed I had to prove my citizenship, in spite of blond hair, white skin, and lack of a foreign accent. In California no less. 22 years ago.

    I'm not for arresting people because of immigration status, mind you. But the knowledge is already public and should be open and accessible.

    Furthermore, those caught with forged papers should face a fine. Not a big one: 250, maybe 300 dollars. And then it should be collected as aggressively as a parking ticket or speeding ticket. Squeal on the guy that sold them to you and you can get it reduced, or even dropped.

    And those caught employing illegal immigrants should face a fine as well. Not a huge one: maybe 700 or even 1000 dollars. And then it should be collected aggressively as well.

    Don't pay it? Boot on your car. Taken out of your tax refund, or even garnished from your wages.

    And they can keep receiving these fines as well. I can get more than one speeding ticket in a day, right? Getting a speeding ticket isn't license to do 90 MPH down the interstate for the next 24 hours, is it? Then they can get these fines on a daily basis too.

    I guarantee that once the wallet takes a hit then people will re-think their behavior.

    •  This is not about driving cars (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phil S 33, Cassandra Waites

      Previously, police who wanted to inquire about immigration status could only do it after stopping people for possibly violating other laws.

      Meaning they can stop you at any time for no reason at all and demand proof of citizenship.

      I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

      by gtghawaii on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:03:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I really loathe the idea of cops (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Robinson
      having discretion to detain people on the hunch that the detained person is an illegal.  Your idea, though, isn't bad.  People come here because of the economic benefits, so the obvious answer is to raise the costs of being here illegally.  
      Good idea.
    •  great (0+ / 0-)

      It should be stated on the license whether or not you are a citizen.

      You do realize there's a zillion legal statuses of being in the country but not being a citizen?

      •  Easily answered. (0+ / 0-)
        A license could state those statuses.
        •  really (0+ / 0-)

          DMV will do such a great job keeping track of current statuses. And every cop will have an idea of what Visa XYZ324 is.

          •  A zillion statuses, but only a binary (0+ / 0-)

            status, really. Legal, or illegal. Who cares it's on a student visa VS. a green card or whatever.

            •  uhm no (5+ / 0-)

              Visas can expire. Then if the status is just binary, it's pointless - I can let my visa expire but DL still states "legal". If DL gives an expiration date, but I have legally gotten an extension or gotten another visa, it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare. DMV couldn't keep my license straight between two states, if they can screw data up, they will.

              •  There are already people who get (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne, debedb, mariachi mama

                turned away at bars because their licenses state "UNDER 21" in big red letters, even if the "Until ___" under it is a date long past.

                Getting hauled off to try to prove you're legally in the US before someone tries to deport you is a lot worse than that.

                In some states now, a driver's license can be valid for 10 years. The shortest I've seen was for 4 years, longer than a lot of visas.

                Just how involved would all those license renewals solely for visa information changes end up being?

                Would the licenses be for the length of the visa, and the registration price modified to match? If not, would the visa change renewals be discounted somehow, to reflect that the non-administrative costs of having a license had already been paid for most of the period that the renewed license would be valid?

                If the length and price were modified, would citizens who know they'll be moving before the normal license period is over have access those options, or only the more traditional validity lengths?

                And even if all that gets worked out, there's no way to make a license auto-update to show that a visa has been revoked, so it STILL wouldn't be usable as complete proof of holding a legal visa.

                There are more potential issues with licenses listing immigration status than drinking ages, and there are already enough misinterpretation cases with the drinking ages. Why take the time and money to apply a system with proven flaws to proving and disproving legal status in the US?

                Hoping and praying that the empty chairs and empty tables in Iran when all is said and done are as few as possible.

                by Cassandra Waites on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:02:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You have a point (0+ / 0-)

                The expiration date on those statuses may not necessarily match the expiration on the license.

                On the other hand, if the DL says "legal" then what's the worst that could happen?

            •  Something like 40% of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              debedb, Cassandra Waites

              those in the country illegaly at one time had some sort of visa.

            •  I think it also may be unconstitutional (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              burrow owl, Kevskos, Cassandra Waites

              as legal status is determined by the federal government, not a state agency.

          •  If they fuck up, that's why god (0+ / 0-)
            made traffic courts.
    •  Won't work putting it on the license (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, gtghawaii, Cassandra Waites

      because there are many statusses between being a citizen and being illegal. Immigrants/visa holders can change from one status to another, status can be implicitly extended under certain circumstances and implicitly revoked under others. It would be very hard to keep that up-to-date. And a large percentage of illegals actually had legal status at one point in time, so information being out of date would be a serious enforcement issue.

      When I first became licensed I had to prove my citizenship, in spite of blond hair, white skin, and lack of a foreign accent.

      Entitlement much? Or do you think that it is only "those other people" that should prove their citizenship?

      The FOX is a common carrier of rabies, a virus that leaves its victims foaming at the mouth and causes paranoia and hallucinations.

      by Calouste on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:03:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And besides, that license is the first government (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne

        issued ID most people get, especially with regards to photo ID.

        Of course the state is going to check that you are who you say you are. And if you transfer that license to another state when moving, chances are they do the same check.

        And the first state to license someone? Generally is also interested in proof of birthdate, so that the state knows whether or not the under-18 license sequence applies to the new driver.

        It's not just 'proving citizenship'. It's also giving them enough data to be sure you are who you say you are, live where you say you live, and don't have license revocations or suspensions still in effect in that state or any other.

        Hoping and praying that the empty chairs and empty tables in Iran when all is said and done are as few as possible.

        by Cassandra Waites on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:09:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're missing the point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Robinson

        No, I'm not entitled. And neither is anyone else. My point is that if I had to follow the rules, same as everyone else.

        Funny story, though: a fellow driver (US citizen) was accused of being a Canadian at the border.

        His reply? "No way, eh! What's this all aboot?!"

        Got him a little extra scrutiny for his trouble.

  •  One of the other problem (6+ / 0-)

    besides the violation of civil rights is that it forces the immigrant community deeper into the shadows and guarantees that they will not report crimes or cooperate with the police. This is not a good result.

    I'm sure there will be legal challenges and I hope it costs AZ a whole bunch of money.

    •  The problem with the police (4+ / 0-)

      is that, in general, they can't really be trusted.

      I know I made a comparison with Germany above, but just as I wouldn't want to be the law-breaker in Germany, neither would I want to be the one abusing his position of authority in Germany either.

      Again, the Germans don't have a sense of humor about breaking the rules.

      And Sheriff Joe and his henchmen can't be trusted to enforce the law in a fair and just manner. And neither can most of the police departments in America.

      Joe Friday is a fictional character, but oddly doesn't receive the same hero-worship as the other fictional character, Galt.

  •  A cop will question you (0+ / 0-)

    if he has a reasonable suspicion that you are in violation of any law. That is their job. This law just tells them to treat illegal presence in the United States the same way they treat other law violations. There is nothing draconian, unconstitutional, or even unusual about it.

  •  A future of broken tail light deportations. Sigh. (4+ / 0-)
  •  This story is a big one; and this needs to be on (3+ / 0-)

    the rec list.  

    The law is a terrible civil rights violation----irregardless of whether the immigrants are documented or not----they should have some basic rights.

    If not, then let the teabag militia take care of them----is that what we want??

  •  Not constitutional. End of story. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gtghawaii
  •  I guess all those white people better (0+ / 0-)

    stay off of Native American lands then.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site