Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

Aldeth, the police have a very valuable tool the local bouncer at the bar does not -- the ability to verify the driver's license (even the picture). I've also seen a police officer spot a fake ID that had already passed muster with a bartender, the police get a little more training in those things.

 

Perhaps, but we don't arrest people until after they commit a crime.

...and under (pre-)existing law, a police officer in Arizona would already have been within his rights to act in this situation.

They would also be in violation of city zoning laws or the municipal maximum occupancy code. Police officers already had authority to act in a situation like this, too, since they'd already be writing them up for breaking the first statute.

Because of the constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure. The constitutional right to privacy. Legal immigrants and dark-skinned citizens who primarily speak Spanish should not be required to carry anything that the rest of us aren't required to carry and not having ID with you is not a crime.

 

...then perhaps we should inact a law requiring valid ID.

 

I remember American jokes about those silly Germans and their obsession with papers ... "Your papers! Schnell, schnell!" Now coming to a city near you ... I am so relieved. That is to say, papers aren't all that silly.

 

I still remember those not so silly jokes about the Russians. My, my, choose your enemies well....

 

Drew, good points on a tough subject. Can you tell me how you stop illegal immigration? And tell me how you get rid of those who are here illegally? If you can 't ID them, how do you get rid of them?(These are serious questions, not snippy remarks btw...)

 

In a way, they already have. My state is among a few others in which you must show certain documentation when renewing your driver's license or state ID card - they then scan those documents in to see if you're also registered elsewhere (which you shouldn't be) which also helps with the identity theft issues, and then once all that is said and done and you have your picture taken, you then wait 7-10 business days for your card to be mailed to you from a centralized government processing plant. I personally have no problem with it as I was required to carry my 'papers' including passport with me when I was living in Germany, for proof of identity, as well as security, due to the fact that I was an American, living in a foreign country, while tempers flared in the middle east during Desert Shield/Desert Storm and many of those living across the street from me were refugees from said war who were very much of a same mind as Saddam Hussein. This way, if we had to leave suddenly if those people decided to take their frustrations out on us, we were free to split without having to worry about not having our proper paperwork on hand.

I made mention earlier, so I agree whole-heartedly, that due to our lax handling of illegal immigrants, we are seeing a high rise of drug related violence because the Mexican drug cartels, the worst ones of the lot, are moving their way northward into our cities and states. Why shouldn't we take matters into our own hands (especially the governments of the border states) and do what we can on the state level to fix the problem that our federal government has not seen fit to do? Why should we live in fear just because the federal government finds immigration to be too hot of a topic to actually address so instead they just sit on their laurels and do nothing?

Do you realize that there are quite a few who do this on purpose? These people know that if they give birth to a child on American soil while they are here illegally, their child is then considered an American citizen so their chances of being deported then become slim to none and they are then even more in line for free education, food stamps, government subsidized housing, and so on. This is not OK to me.

 

@CD

So why not, instead of cracking down on illegal immigration (which is a near impossible task), crack down on the government regulations that allow such things?

@Shell, don't worry, the Pakis aren't half as bad as the Saxons.

@CD, Ragusa
ID cards are mandatory in the Netherlands. It is considered a criminal offence to not carry one. The police only checks if they have good reason to do so, the only times I have needed to show them was when I received some tickets (no working lights on the bike & no valid train ticket) and when I flew to London. If you get stopped and you can't show an ID, they'll take you to the nearest police station and might detain you...

 

CD,
in Germany you are required to have ID. You don't need to have it with you, but you have to present it to the authorities if they demand so (for identification that is). Having it with you can save you a lot of time.

When I leave home, I carry with me my ID card ever since I got one when I got 16. So far I needed it ... at the airport, when I bought my mobile phone, when I enrolled in Uni, when I got my library card, in iirc one police stop, and years back a couple times when trying to get into a club etc. pp. Last time someone demanded it, was when I flew to Munich last year.

Except for the convenience to be able to travel with it throughout the Schengen zone, we use the ID card much like Americans use their social security card or drivers license, except that ID cards are far harder to forge. The stuff about Big Brother watching you once you introduce an ID card is hysterical nonsense.

 

These are valid IDs only to a point. There are some Americans who have neither, and SS cards don't have a photo and are generally not used to open a credit account or for proof of age (like to buy beer). A DL is a much better ID, since it has a photo. We have an elderly lady who is a neighbor and who has never had one. Nor does she collect Social Security, even though she is well past the age to collect, since she has never had an account. A passport is a valid government ID though for almost anything. The state of Texas will also issue an ID card, which looks like a DL, but which is only a government ID card with a picture.

 

I expect this will be the key problem. The issue would be whether states are allowed to create additional penalies for breaking federal law. I can honestly see arguements going both ways.

I think this is a non-issue because the state isn't trying to enforce federal law, but rather creating their own law based on a federal law. Again, though, I'm not sure about it.

Dag nabit. Thanks for the correction.

I think your political calculus is a bit off here, but perhaps not too much. Both parties have substantial groups going both ways on immigration. Among the Democrats, the social liberals support immigration, partly because they tend to get the minority votes, but also as a part of their policy. On the other hand, the fiscal liberals (labor unions and the like) oppose immigration on the basis that it takes jobs away from them. On the Republican side, the social conservatives oppose immigration, for 'social purity' reasons in most cases, while the fiscal conservatives support it (a cheap labor base). Recently, it seems the social elements of both parties have had more power, but I'm starting to wonder how long that will last.

Anyway, I think the real purpose it served was less partisan show-boating and more forcing an issue that the people of Arizona are concerned about into the national debate.

I think there's a fair bit of paranoia in there (or just German culture contrasting with American culture). I don't doubt that there are xenophobes in the US that want to kick out all the 'impure' immigrants (legal and illegal), but I (kind of) doubt any of them had anything to do with that bill.

And those are two things I hope come out of this issue. Also, as long as it's not on your right hand or forehead, it's not the Mark of the Beast. A card is safe.

 

There is a portion of the US population that is what Ragusa describes (although not very large, but nonethelsss, very vocal and active). To label that as "paranoia" would be inaccurate to say the least. There is that segment that feels that way, just as there are in other countries, but at least other countries are honest enough to admit that it is reflected to some extent in their politics. We all know that THAT could never happen here. The US is the "exception" to such problems as "xenophobes" in our politics.

 

Ok...I hate to say this, but I think Arizona's new law is an excellent idea...but as is typical for the government, it was very poorly executed.

The Pros:
Well...I can't really list any since I'll instantly be labled as a racist.

The Cons:
1 - The prisons are already packed to the max. Where are all these illegal’s going to be put?
2 - Who's going to pay for it?
3 - What's keeping them from coming right back a week later?
4 - Won't someone please think about the children?!?!?

I'm not against immigration at all. I *am* against illegal immigration. I've always been a fan of making the border an unwelcoming and deadly place to try to cross illegally. Walls and fences obviously don't work...so perhaps a 1 mile wide minefield with automated .50cal machine gun turrets will. I'm not afraid of a fence...but I'm terrified of an empty stretch of land that has minefield warning signs posted.

It seems to be working on the border between North and South Korea.


On the topic of IDs...Utah issues a state ID card for $18. I got one when we first moved to UT when I was 15 (back then it was only $13). If you can't afford $18...you've got issues. I carry my DL with me at all times...and I would have no problem if I were required to have it on me at all times and in all placed. BFD - it's a small plastic card....not a lead weight. Hell, I wouldn't mind if I had to carry my passport everywhere I went either. I had to do it when we were in Costa Rica, and I wasn't unconvinced by it at all.

 

...and you would support fining people for accidentally leaving their ID at home? Or holding and interrogating Latinos that lose their ID for hours the way way Sherrif Arpaio did in Arizona?

 

... if that harassment is what it takes to uphold the law! Just a point: If one puts his mind to it it is easy to find a benign pretext.

The law requires police to question anyone they “reasonably suspect” of being an undocumented immigrant. In the practical application all hispanic looking people who happen to have been stopped and questioned will have been 'reasonably considered suspect' (they look like Mexicans, don't they?). It will see them subjected to basically arbitrary checks, which is apparently what Arpaio does already.

The other aspect is that hispanic witnesses to or victims of crimes will not come forward with the police, and will go into hiding, because under AZ law the police would be required to enforce immigration laws against them - i.e. as far as investigation of crimes is concerned the new law makes the job harder for a police force with already limited resources (a factor when, as it was asserted, AZ faces a crime epidemic).

Interesting article:

So, in addition to likely being unconstitutional (i.e. illegal), the AZ law probably is of questionable utility as well. My impression remains that this is all about the political gesture and not about substance.

 

@Kitrax

The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is one of the most evil organizations in the world. It is no less than a massive holocaust that we all choose to ignore. Read the book "Eyes of the Tailless Animals" if you want to get an idea of what's going on there. To draw an analogy between the US-Mexican border and the Korean border is absurd. From the NK perspective: the border is not there to prevent people from getting in, it is there to prevent people from getting out.

Here is the deal what irks me up as an European about the US immigration policy: If you're not a native American, you're either an illegal immigrant or a descendant of an one. It is quite funny since if the natives had a better illegal-immigration policy (shoot them on sight! build a wall! they are taking our jobs/land/bisons!) your country wouldn't even exist.

I strongly suspect that the crime levels on both the sides of the US-Mexican border would diminish massively, along with the power of the drug cartels and the number of drug addicts in the US if you would just legalize cocaine and increase awareness on the issue.

 

No, legalizing cocaine isn't a solution. It has plenty of appeal already, the forbidden-ness isn't the attracting point, and it causes real harm. That may work for marajuana, but not for cocaine.

 

Of course they do it on purpose. They usually even take the risk of going to a US hospital so they get a birth certificate by the time they leave. They could still be deported, and that would pretty much force any child(ren) they have to go with them, but the children would be able to legally return to the US once they reach adulthood. So of course it's deliberate. A US birth certificate is a "get into America free" card. You are, of course, correct in that it becomes much more difficult to deport someone once they have kids here, because you'd in effect be deporting a US citizen (the child) along with them.

Oh, I don't think we'd actually be putting them in US prisons. Typically, the punishment is deportation. So we'd be putting them on the other side of the US-Mexico border. Granted, if they already got here illegally once, they could probably do it again.

A third possibility is that you are a descendent of a legal immigrant, as I suspect most people of European ancestry are (including myself). But your point is well-noted. Every person who isn't a native American (and native Americans currently make up less than 1% of the US population) you or your ancestors immigrated here. (Well, I guess that's not 100% true either - African Americans cannot say their ancestors "immigrated" here in any reasonable sense of the word.)

In an ironic twist, it can be argued that Mexicans are native Americans, as they are descendants of people that have lived there for millenia. They just wound up on the wrong side of where they drew the line in 1845.

 

Fabulous, then it is likely only unconstitutional.

Snark aside, I have doubt that the language will help encourage illegal aliens to cooperate with the police - after all it is up to the police to decide whether an illegal alien will be needed or not, and illegals will probably be hesitant to take any chances, after getting into the US at great expense and with considerable effort. I presume few like the thrill of gambling over deportation. So, no, I don't think it is a canard.

Yes, considering the influx of Mexicans. Arizona is dealing with a real problem and is right to demand that Washington acts and helps provide a solution. But that new law isn't it.

IMO this is primarily about politics (i.e. the mid term elections in November) not so much about law enforcement.