Continued from Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill.
Hmmm…so if they can’t be deported, what can you do with them? My guess is most have families of complicated legal standing. How do you do this in anything that approaches fair(?) and consistent?
Stop whinging and playing the victim TC. You’re not the only one who’s served.
Let’s say it obliquely demonstrates how strategies fail you can’t differentiate what you’re trying to differentiate. If you can’t easily tell who is illegal and who is not, how do you effectively enforce a law? Most time the guy at the pointy end is going to make his own criterion. Sometimes this will work. Some time you get the results illustrated above.
This is strange, but I find myself agreeing with some of the points made by Fred Smith, because ultimately every country/state should have sovereignty to defend its borders. I suppose, the outstanding point and the emotionally charged controversy, is the method of enforcement - how to enforce this law without abridging people’s rights (especially some brown-looking people). Hey, Chinese migrants were legal too, yet they were the only immigrants to have to pay a hefty “head tax” because they were undesirable, but nobody ever talks about that.
Another irony, often ignored, is that in Arizona, native americans are stopped on the road 3x more than their white counterparts in the state.
If this is a rehash, well, I skimmed over the 23 pages of post in Part I.
-
Prosecute employer offenders:
I’d like to see state governments (that are in bed with certain corporations that build “plants in their states to provide jobs”) come clean and enforce labour laws and prosecute major businesses that employ illegal immigrants. Tyson, for example, is a well-known offender that gets away with it. Conversely, people who buy products from Tyson, certain fruit growers, etc. are hypocritical to blame the illegal immigrant. And it’s not just Arizona. We’re talking Iowa, Idaho even. -
Change the drug war strategy:
It’s a joke. Everyone who wants drugs in America can get it, and we’re not talking about demonization of black crackheads. We’re talking about everyone from the white highschool kid to the upperclass banker/doctor/politician, what-have-you. -
Why isn’t the Federal Government doing more? The last time I checked, the federal government and not the states are supposed to defend the country. Fine, right now, Obama wants to fight the bank/health reform first. But hey, what happened to Bush I, II, Clinton, never heard them do anything.
(Although I remember Bush II suggesting legalizing those who were already in the US, working, living, for x time, but was soundly rejected. good for him for suggesting - might as well bring them into the fold from a de facto existence to a de jure existence in the US, but perhaps politically impossible).
- As for the method, it’s not desirable
[quote=“Elegua”]Hmmm…so if they can’t be deported, what can you do with them? My guess is most have families of complicated legal standing. How do you do this in anything that approaches fair(?) and consistent?
Stop whinging and playing the victim TC. You’re not the only one who’s served.
Let’s say it obliquely demonstrates how strategies fail you can’t differentiate what you’re trying to differentiate. If you can’t easily tell who is illegal and who is not, how do you effectively enforce a law? Most time the guy at the pointy end is going to make his own criterion. Sometimes this will work. Some time you get the results illustrated above.[/quote]
By the law’s text Arizona would turn them over to the Feds, who presumably would take appropriate measures, be it removal procedings or whatever. My main question is whether this is going to put people in a situation where they have to prove legal status on the spot or risk arrest (based on my reading of the law that seemed a possibility, though in practice it may or may not be the case). If you’re a U.S. citizen that’s surprisingly difficult to do, as a driver’s license or SSN isn’t necessarily enough to prove you’re a citizen, since many illegals have managed to obtain them.
Yes, the Federal government is supposed to defend the country. But are illegal immigrants something that we need to “defend” against?
Yes, the Federal government is supposed to defend the country. But are illegal immigrants something that we need to “defend” against?[/quote]
Average illegal immigrants? Probably not. But against illegals who come as participants in drug wars in the border regions? Probably so.
They won’t be arrested based of lack of proof of legal status. They’ll be detained for that but only after they have been ticketed/arrested for something else.
In AZ a Drivers License is considered proof of legal residency under the new law. An SSN doesn’t prove legal residency because it isn’t a picture ID. When you apply for a DL you have to provide proof of citizenship or legal residency from a list of acceptable documents on their DMV website (PDF). That doesn’t mean that illegals can’t get them because if there’s a buck to be made, there will be a counterfeiter. However, if you hand over a fake ID to a police officer, and they catch you, they’ll charge you with false reporting to law enforcement agencies. Then they’ll probably charge the individual, if they catch you, with “Taking identity of another person or entity; knowingly accepting identity of another person; classification”. Then they’ll hand the individual over to the feds for deportation proceedings.
[quote=“Jack Burton”]
3. Why isn’t the Federal Government doing more? The last time I checked, the federal government and not the states are supposed to defend the country. [/quote]
It is, but it isn’t. The Federal government is supposed to protect the States from armed invasion (Article IV Section 4). States are not supposed to keep troops during times of peace unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay(Article I Section 10). The Constitution deals with the Armed Forces and state militias, which later became the National Guard. The States also have a right to have a State Defensive Force that are seperate from the Armed Forces and can’t be federalized. (TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 1 > § 109). Arizona currently doesn’t have one. That doesn’t prevent them from passing a law to create a State Defense Force to protect their southern border.
It’s not like Arizona is the first place to try and usurp federal jurisdiction over immigration. San Francisco and Los Angeles declared themselves “sanctuary cities” and wouldn’t comply with federal immigration rules. Now New York is being especially bold with Governor Patterson setting up a pardoning panel for immigrants who have been found guilty of crimes and are subject to deportation proceedings.
Yes, the Federal government is supposed to defend the country. But are illegal immigrants something that we need to “defend” against?[/quote]
Average illegal immigrants? Probably not. But against illegals who come as participants in drug wars in the border regions? Probably so.[/quote]
Then the fight shouldn’t be against illegal immigrants, but drug smugglers. Among whom are legal US citizens, undoubtedly.
The easiest way to defeat the drug smugglers, by the way, is to legalize drugs.
Preaching to the choir
[quote=“Chris”]Yes, the Federal government is supposed to defend the country. But are illegal immigrants something that we need to “defend” against?[/quote]Ok, how about I break into your house and start living there. As long as I do the dishes occasionally why should you call the police?
A nation is built on laws. If we choose to deliberately break some laws, then the others start meaning less and less. If I wanted to live in Latin America, I’d f%^%ing move there.
[quote=“Chris”]The easiest way to defeat the drug smugglers, by the way, is to legalize drugs[/quote]Holland has tried this and they have FUBAR’d it really well.
They won’t be arrested based of lack of proof of legal status. They’ll be detained for that but only after they have been ticketed/arrested for something else.
In AZ a Drivers License is considered proof of legal residency under the new law. An SSN doesn’t prove legal residency because it isn’t a picture ID. When you apply for a DL you have to provide proof of citizenship or legal residency from a list of acceptable documents on their DMV website (PDF). That doesn’t mean that illegals can’t get them because if there’s a buck to be made, there will be a counterfeiter. However, if you hand over a fake ID to a police officer, and they catch you, they’ll charge you with false reporting to law enforcement agencies. Then they’ll probably charge the individual, if they catch you, with “Taking identity of another person or entity; knowingly accepting identity of another person; classification”. Then they’ll hand the individual over to the feds for deportation proceedings.
[quote=“Jack Burton”]
3. Why isn’t the Federal Government doing more? The last time I checked, the federal government and not the states are supposed to defend the country. [/quote]
It is, but it isn’t. The Federal government is supposed to protect the States from armed invasion (Article IV Section 4). States are not supposed to keep troops during times of peace unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay(Article I Section 10). The Constitution deals with the Armed Forces and state militias, which later became the National Guard. The States also have a right to have a State Defensive Force that are separate from the Armed Forces and can’t be federalized. (TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 1 > § 109). Arizona currently doesn’t have one. That doesn’t prevent them from passing a law to create a State Defense Force to protect their southern border.
It’s not like Arizona is the first place to try and usurp federal jurisdiction over immigration. San Francisco and Los Angeles declared themselves “sanctuary cities” and wouldn’t comply with federal immigration rules. Now New York is being especially bold with Governor Patterson setting up a pardoning panel for immigrants who have been found guilty of crimes and are subject to deportation proceedings.[/quote]
Yes, I would agree that the Founders didn’t address waves of illegal immigrants sweeping into the 13 colonies (question: if waves of “Indians” had decided to come back and settle in Virginia, is that a federal problem?)
Nevertheless, Congress has already taken upon itself the powers to control customs/borders, etc. in the new entity post-911 merged. So the federal government does have authority/jurisdiction. That said, I do agree also that the States through historically militia and now National Guard share jurisdiction too. As I recall, Arizona did ask for the National Guard and was refused.
In short, I do realize that, as you put it, “it is and it isn’t” but I was generalizing a bit, because the “militia” under the Constitution is pretty much dead.
To Redandy, I am not equating nor stigmatizing illegal immigrants with “invaders”, “drug dealers”. I am merely stating the fact that this is a national border problem between Mexico and United States, ie between 2 countries, which would, IMO, put this properly into the direct duty of the federal government. That it is not a conventional invasion of the Mexican State, but rather of civilians doesn’t change the issue of the federal border. But, given the very serious problem of the drug trade, this would also implicate the role of the Feds (which Congress has authorized).
Finally, historically, where the States have failed, the federal government (rightly or wrongly. right, in that they are fixing stuff. wrong, in that they will enlarge federal powers at the expense of states/people) has stepped in.
You sure about that? My understanding is that after any lawful contact, which doesn’t necessarily mean being ticketed or arrested for something else but something as simple as a casual conversation (nothing illegal about that, right?), the officer can then, upon reasonable suspicion (which still hasn’t been clearly defined) can ask for papers. Please show me where it says they have to have stopped you for something else first.
EDIT: Wow, right now as I write, they were reporting on CNN that they’ve proposed a change to the AZ law to require the suspect be stopped for something else first.
Still not sure it’s enough to prevent race from being used as a criteria. I suggest my Cuban-American friend there always wear his best shoes. 
[quote=“CraigTPE”]
You sure about that? My understanding is that after any lawful contact, which doesn’t necessarily mean being ticketed or arrested for something else but something as simple as a casual conversation (nothing illegal about that, right?), the officer can then, upon reasonable suspicion (which still hasn’t been clearly defined) can ask for papers. Please show me where it says they have to have stopped you for something else first.
EDIT: Wow, right now as I write, they were reporting on CNN that they’ve proposed a change to the AZ law to require the suspect be stopped for something else first.
Still not sure it’s enough to prevent race from being used as a criteria. I suggest my Cuban-American friend there always wear his best shoes. [/quote]
The AZ legislature proposed a change to the law to reduce ambiguity but if I’m not mistaken, they passed the change like two weeks ago. I guess Governor Brewer didn’t sign the changes until Friday. Here are the changes including the statutory section that forbids the use of race as a criterion.
A neutral law can be used in a discriminatory manner but that doesn’t make the law discriminatory.
As far as reasonable suspicion not being clearly defined, you’re wrong. Here’s a list from the Congressional Research Service about what constitutes reasonable suspicion. There are court cases that deal with what is (or isn’t) reasonable suspicion for police officers.
[quote]Articulating precisely what “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act. As such, the standards are not really, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, and probable cause to search as existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable
prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. We have cautioned that these two legal principles are not “finely-tuned standards” comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed. The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. at 695-96 (citations omitted).[/quote]
One case that deals specifically with reasonableness and immigration is United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), which held that roving Border Patrol agents couldn’t just pull over anyone who looks Mexican near the border. There has to be " specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country". Here are some of the reasonable factors according to the court:
[quote]
Any number of factors may be taken into account in deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a car in the border area. Officers may consider the characteristics of the area in which they encounter a vehicle. Its proximity to the border, the usual patterns of traffic on the particular road, and previous experience with alien traffic are all relevant. They also may consider information about recent illegal border crossings in the area. The driver’s behavior may be relevant, as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers can support a reasonable suspicion. Aspects of the vehicle itself may justify suspicion. For instance, officers say that certain station wagons, with large compartments for fold-down seats or spare tires, are frequently used for transporting concealed aliens. The vehicle may appear to be heavily loaded, it may have an extraordinary number of passengers, or the officers may observe persons trying to hide. The Government also points out that trained officers can recognize the characteristic appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the mode of dress and haircut. In all situations the officer is entitled to assess the facts in light of his experience in detecting illegal entry and smuggling. [/quote]
A year later the SCOTUS found that no reasonable suspicion was needed to ask limited questions about citizenship at fixed border patrol locations. There is no 4th amendment violation to questioning someone about their legal status at fixed locations. If it’s a roving ICE agent, then it has to be within 100 miles of the border. There is speculation that AZ may try and argue that the federal government’s inaction has made the situation so bad as to render their entire state equivalent to the 100 mile border area for Immigration enforcement purposes.
Here’s a youtube clip from Governor Brewer’s reelection campaign. It has some frightening statistics. President Obama, No One in Arizona is Laughing
Where does your reasonable suspicion definition indicate what might lead someone to suspect someone of being in the country illegally? Where does the new law say anything about it being limited to pulling over cars?
i didnt think there had to be an explicit definition just as there isn’t one for Terry stops (stopping cars) or against suspects thought to be in criminal activity. It would be up to the judgment of the officer at the time under the circumstances. And also remember, near the borders, one’s rights actually diminish in favour of government powers to control/protect borders. That’s why in San Diego - towards the borders, so the argument goes, there can be much more car stops, etc. (ok, I don’t have the cases to back this up, might have to look later).
OK, so let’s have the Feds buy up a 10 foot wide strip of land across the entire border, and pass a law that that land is off limits to all. Then anyone in that strip is obviously crossing illegally and should be questioned.
Ironlady:
I will assume that you are being facetious. The US has no control over its southern border at present. How do you suppose the 15 million illegals got there in the first place?
Fred, you’re back. How are the Kombai? What’s it truly like to be a dim dim in the ethnological sense of the word?
I say Ironlady is on to something. We should build a DMZ/MacNamara line cum Berlin Wall on our border with Mexico. It will keep the Spring Break college students from destroying the ancient Mexican culture.
Barring that, increased enforcement of hiring of illegal labor and the creation of a legal and simple means of importing labor we would have our problem solved in no time flat. Including the 15MM already here - allow them “amnesty” by allowing the to apply for work visas.
Then all we need is to solve the issue of all those Canadians coming over for health care.
Here’s an interesting blog post from a writer I usually don’t agree with.
[quote=“Megan McArdle: What’s Sauce for the Goose . . .”]
A couple of days ago, when I wrote about Arizona’s new immigration law, I got a lot of pushback for my belief that majorities should avoid racial profiling, and other tactics that place targeted inconveniences on minority populations. That’s why I argued that if we were going to check the immigration status of anyone during a routine traffic stop, we should check the immigration status of everyone, no matter how unlikely to turn up violators. [b]A law that is too burdensome to pass if it affects the majority probably shouldn’t be passed if it’s only targeted towards a smaller group . . . precisely because the majority apparently believes that the burden is too large in relation to the problem it solves.
Conservatives weren’t buying it. Which is weird, because conservatives make this argument all the time, except that it’s about taxes. [/b]
I have no trouble at all persuading my conservative readers that it’s a real problem when the majority of the population experiences zero marginal cost when they think about voting for a new spending program . . . that we’re likely, in that scenario, to get a lot of excessively burdensome spending problems that don’t really merit the tax dollars that are spent on them. (And yes, conversely, liberals grasp the civil liberties problem immediately, but are curiously immune to it when it involves property rights.)
Non-cash costs to liberty are real costs, even if they happen to someone else–but if they happen to someone else, some smaller sub-population, we’re likely to impose far too many such burdens.
The original American insight was that we should be very, very cautious about “spending” our liberty on security–even if that liberty belongs to someone else. Both economic security and physical security are very valuable, and worth giving up some liberty for . . . but economic liberty and physical liberty are also incredibly precious, and should be treated as the irreplaceable treasures that they are.[/quote]How would supporters of these bill feel about regular demands to produce identification? I suspect, that if the demand came from the federal gov’t under the Obama administration, there’d be howls of tyranny and calls for revolution.
If you REALLY wanted to close the border, Gwynne Dyer, who writes on military affairs, has the solution in Climate Wars (podcast).
What regular demands? You mean like when I get on an airplane having to produce photo identification? When I write a check? When I use my credit card? When I’m driving and get pulled over for doing 55 in a 45? When I check into a hotel room? When I apply for a job (plus Social Security card)? When I was out at the bars Saturday night? When I was filling out my rental application? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of regular demands to produce identification in every day life. Here’s a more comprehensive list. To that list you can add "trying to buy a policy through an exchange, or seek a subsidy, or receive any of the other supposed benefits" of Obamacare because you must show proof that you are a US citizen or legal immigrant to participate.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
If you REALLY wanted to close the border, Gwynne Dyer, who writes on military affairs, has the solution in Climate Wars (podcast).
Interesting idea but Gwynne is way off about the costs. He forgot to factor in the environmental impact reports, the legal fees for it being tied up in court for years when the National Resource Defense Council sues, the cost of eminent domaining the land from private citizens and then the cost to the project go away when it goes through the breeding ground of the endangered red assed gnat. With all the EIR’s and lawsuits, you’re looking at probably 3 to 5 times the original cost, maybe more. It would take a decade or more before ground is broken because of all the lawsuits.