AZ immigration law

Pages

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281...

As many expected, Gov Brewer signed the legislation that will make illegal immigration a crime in AZ. I guess this means I'll have to carry my passport with me everytime I travel through AZ.

This law is obviously unconstitutional.

Why are they waisting time and resources in Arizona on this?

goman wrote:

This law is obviously unconstitutional.

Why are they waisting time and resources in Arizona on this?

They're scared of illegal people. They come across the boarder and take our lucrative lettuce picking jobs thus creating the current recession. Plus they all deal the dope and carry disease... And someone on an email list that my cousin's on says they've eaten all the dogs in the boarder towns!

Either that or they're small minded bigots and this makes them feel special.

goman wrote:

This law is obviously unconstitutional.

Why are they waisting time and resources in Arizona on this?

Votes.

goman wrote:

This law is obviously unconstitutional.

Why are they waisting time and resources in Arizona on this?

It distracts them from the fact that they're living in Arizona, but likely not Flagstaff or Sequoia.

NathanialG wrote:
goman wrote:

This law is obviously unconstitutional.

Why are they waisting time and resources in Arizona on this?

Votes.

Yeah, this. Rationality gets you kicked out of office, histrionics get you re-elected.

Would this help stem the tide of illegal immigration? Sure. Would it result in institutionalized racism? Hell, yeah. It will last about five minutes before it's stomped down, and will be turned into campaign slogans for the next election.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Would this help stem the tide of illegal immigration? Sure.

It might have helped when the economy was booming, but not now. Illegal immigration is way down because there's no reason to cross the boarder when there's no jobs to be had.

Votes: that was my first thought too. Midterm elections are this year.

From the article: "Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling." I hope she has a lot of patience, as whatever racism exists will be expressed as "reasonable suspicion" in order to "check papers" ...what a mess.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Would it result in institutionalized racism? Hell, yeah.

It's likely that Latinos will be specifically targeted, at least initially. I think, though, that the overall long-term effect is much worse.

The Article wrote:

It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

It's important to understand that there are no effective limits on this law. All a police officer has to say is that he suspected that the person was an illegal immigrant, or that a business was using undocumented workers. He can then stop them and ask for their papers. If they do not have them, they can be arrested.

Think about what that means. For everyone.

Yeah. I can totally see this ending well.

The sad fact is that AZ has really no other way of stopping illegal immigration or at least addressing it. The fear of losing the Hispanic vote will keep the border in the state it is for a loooong time.

All Arizonans would much rather have the Feds step up and do their duty instead of needing to create this law. Clinton didn't do anything, Bush didn't do anything, and Obama hasn't done anything (except cut the # of Border Patrol agents in the southwest). Our governor requested Fed help 13 months ago....and has gotten NOTHING.

Arizona is the main highway for all human trafficing and drug traffic into the U.S. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the U.S., all due to Mexican on Mexican kidnappings.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?...

In fact, kidnappings and other crimes connected to the Mexican drug cartels are quickly spreading across the border, from Texas to California. The majority of the victims are either illegal aliens or connected to the drug trade.

An ABC News' investigation uncovered horrific cases of chopped-off hands, legs and heads when a victim's family doesn't pay up fast enough.

"They're ruthless, so now they're ripping each other off, but doing it in our city," Anderson said.

We recently had a rancher killed on his own property by a suspected illegal.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...

And let's not pretend that Mexico itself is stable at this time.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04...

Things are getting worse and won't get better anytime soon. The funny thing is this law is pretty much a copy of the Federal one...no one thought that one was dangerous. Ultimately, I think this is just a way to try and get the Feds to make a move. But, MD is right, they're so afraid of losing latino votes they just let it get worse.

TAZ89 wrote:

The funny thing is this law is pretty much a copy of the Federal one...no one thought that one was dangerous.

Granting that it's the same for the sake of argument, it probably didn't bother people because the Federal government rarely sends its agents out on patrol inside our borders (or outside our state parks). Federal agents are rarely just out and about--when they're out of the office, they've got a specific mission on their agenda. State police do a lot more patrolling.

I wonder what would be the smarter choice to fight the Mexican drug cartel -- legalize their products or turn Arizona into that regime from Indiana Jones?

"Papers, please."

Can someone explain to me how a low enforcement officer can have "a reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants." Being an illegal or undocumented immigrant is not like being drunk or high.

Arizona, like much of the southwest has a huge Mexican American population. The recent census is not in yet. But it was a full third of the Arizona population 10 years ago. How does this law affect them?

That said, half of this law makes sense. It criminalizes hiring illegal aliens, transporting them.

Personally, I think stiffer penalties on the exploitation of illegal aliens would have been enough of a step. Because the rest of this seems to slap the constitution and most international law, and NAFTA in the face.

Really what needs to happen is washington needs to get its collective head out of it's white, xenophobic ass, and make it easier and SAFER for willing migrants to enter into the US on work visas, student visas, and gain citizenship in a more expedited fashion. The idea that a graduate from a US school can be deported is INSANE. The idea that a law abiding, willing, able worker has to brave razor wire is INSANE.

Our attitude towards Latinos is just horrendous. It had no place in the US in the 19th century when we were bashing the Irish, Asians, and Eastern Europeans, Less in the early 20th against Italians and Germans seeking asylum from the civil wars in those countries.

Or at least have the god damn decency to get into uniform with your red armband or white hood, so we can identify you.

I am waiting to see how the state of Arizona decides to define "reason to believe they are here illegally". Is Jonman's Brit accent enough? Are my slanty eyes? Or does the minimum basic standard include brown skin?

Or at least have the god damn decency to get into uniform with your red armband or white hood, so we can identify you.

Yep, theirs no real problems associated with illegal immigration and all people opposed to it are racists.
The law doesn't allow cops to approach random people, it's designed that while under arrest or being detained, if theirs a question of residency, it can be found, and if their here illegally, deported. Reasons to suspect that a person is here illegally include a lack of social security number and things of that variety. This forum seems to clamor for solid rule of law, yet it totally shys away from illegal immigration. Just because someone has good intentions doesn't mean they can sh*t on the law, right?

I would be curious to know what "problems" exist that are not racially motivated or based. Maybe I need to make this even more blunt. No one in congress or in northern states seem to give a flying f*ck about Canadians crossing the borders, loosely and freely. And aside from college kids looking to get drunk and rowdy, Canada seems rather cool about that as well.

I would be curious to know what "problems" exist that are not racially motivated or based. Maybe I need to make this even more blunt. No one in congress or in northern states seem to give a flying f*ck about Canadians crossing the borders, loosely and freely. And aside from college kids looking to get drunk and rowdy, Canada seems rather cool about that as well.

Aside from drug smuggling (it's not just pot), the exchange of weapons, the human tragedy associated with coyotes, the movement of fugitives. Canada isn't hovering just above the third world mark. It's police aren't corrupt assholes, and it's major export to the US is pot and heroin, so yea, we don't really worry about the Canadians.

Paleocon wrote:

I am waiting to see how the state of Arizona decides to define "reason to believe they are here illegally". Is Jonman's Brit accent enough? Are my slanty eyes? Or does the minimum basic standard include brown skin?

IMAGE(http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/78/MPW-39328)

MaverickDago wrote:

Aside from drug smuggling (it's not just pot), the exchange of weapons, the human tragedy associated with coyotes, the movement of fugitives. Canada isn't hovering just above the third world mark. It's police aren't corrupt assholes, and it's major export to the US is pot and heroin, so yea, we don't really worry about the Canadians.

Of course, the federal government isn't willing to take responsibility for the policies that actually cause these problems. Our immigration system is an impenetrable maze, especially for temporary workers. This leads to people offering cheaper and more effective services to get across the border. Once here, the workers are forced into an abusive underground economy because we won't let them in legally. And of course, it's the immigrants' fault for wanting a better life than the one we helped choose for them with our failed War on Drugs, which empowers the cartels with vast profits from drug trading and the necessary associated weapons trading. So we help create the conditions in Mexico and other countries south of our border that drive immigrants north, and then complain about it?

The solution to this problem is, and has been, very straightforward. Let people in legally unless we can prove they are dangerous. Let them work legally, and put a stop to the abuses created by our policy of deportation. End the War on Drugs, which will gut the Cartel profits and reverse the downhill trend in the countries the immigrants are coming from. Stop screwing around with "free trade" agreements that are nothing of the sort, and implement actual free trade. Move on to deal with other problems.

Aetius wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

Aside from drug smuggling (it's not just pot), the exchange of weapons, the human tragedy associated with coyotes, the movement of fugitives. Canada isn't hovering just above the third world mark. It's police aren't corrupt assholes, and it's major export to the US is pot and heroin, so yea, we don't really worry about the Canadians.

Of course, the federal government isn't willing to take responsibility for the policies that actually cause these problems. Our immigration system is an impenetrable maze, especially for temporary workers. This leads to people offering cheaper and more effective services to get across the border. Once here, the workers are forced into an abusive underground economy because we won't let them in legally. And of course, it's the immigrants' fault for wanting a better life than the one we helped choose for them with our failed War on Drugs, which empowers the cartels with vast profits from drug trading and the necessary associated weapons trading. So we help create the conditions in Mexico and other countries south of our border that drive immigrants north, and then complain about it?

The solution to this problem is, and has been, very straightforward. Let people in legally unless we can prove they are dangerous. Let them work legally, and put a stop to the abuses created by our policy of deportation. End the War on Drugs, which will gut the Cartel profits and reverse the downhill trend in the countries the immigrants are coming from. Stop screwing around with "free trade" agreements that are nothing of the sort, and implement actual free trade. Move on to deal with other problems.

Don't always agree with you Aetius but this is about as perfect a reflection of my view on this as can be. Could not have expressed it better so I'm going to be lazy and just nod sagely ...

Aetius wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

Aside from drug smuggling (it's not just pot), the exchange of weapons, the human tragedy associated with coyotes, the movement of fugitives. Canada isn't hovering just above the third world mark. It's police aren't corrupt assholes, and it's major export to the US is pot and heroin, so yea, we don't really worry about the Canadians.

Of course, the federal government isn't willing to take responsibility for the policies that actually cause these problems. Our immigration system is an impenetrable maze, especially for temporary workers. This leads to people offering cheaper and more effective services to get across the border. Once here, the workers are forced into an abusive underground economy because we won't let them in legally. And of course, it's the immigrants' fault for wanting a better life than the one we helped choose for them with our failed War on Drugs, which empowers the cartels with vast profits from drug trading and the necessary associated weapons trading. So we help create the conditions in Mexico and other countries south of our border that drive immigrants north, and then complain about it?

The solution to this problem is, and has been, very straightforward. Let people in legally unless we can prove they are dangerous. Let them work legally, and put a stop to the abuses created by our policy of deportation. End the War on Drugs, which will gut the Cartel profits and reverse the downhill trend in the countries the immigrants are coming from. Stop screwing around with "free trade" agreements that are nothing of the sort, and implement actual free trade. Move on to deal with other problems.

I completely agree.

TAZ89 wrote:

All Arizonans would much rather have the Feds step up and do their duty instead of needing to create this law. Clinton didn't do anything, Bush didn't do anything, and Obama hasn't done anything (except cut the # of Border Patrol agents in the southwest). Our governor requested Fed help 13 months ago....and has gotten NOTHING.

Arizona is the main highway for all human trafficing and drug traffic into the U.S. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the U.S., all due to Mexican on Mexican kidnappings.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?...

In fact, kidnappings and other crimes connected to the Mexican drug cartels are quickly spreading across the border, from Texas to California. The majority of the victims are either illegal aliens or connected to the drug trade.

An ABC News' investigation uncovered horrific cases of chopped-off hands, legs and heads when a victim's family doesn't pay up fast enough.

"They're ruthless, so now they're ripping each other off, but doing it in our city," Anderson said.

We recently had a rancher killed on his own property by a suspected illegal.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...

And let's not pretend that Mexico itself is stable at this time.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04...

Things are getting worse and won't get better anytime soon. The funny thing is this law is pretty much a copy of the Federal one...no one thought that one was dangerous. Ultimately, I think this is just a way to try and get the Feds to make a move. But, MD is right, they're so afraid of losing latino votes they just let it get worse.

What does it mean that someone was killed by a suspected illegal? I have heard that term used in relation to this case somewhere else. The article mentions that they have no idea at all about the killer. The rancher sounded well liked, but seemed to be a fairly wealthy, important guy in the region. Limiting the search to suspected illegals sounds like a good way to catch the wrong person.

Aetius wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

Aside from drug smuggling (it's not just pot), the exchange of weapons, the human tragedy associated with coyotes, the movement of fugitives. Canada isn't hovering just above the third world mark. It's police aren't corrupt assholes, and it's major export to the US is pot and heroin, so yea, we don't really worry about the Canadians.

Of course, the federal government isn't willing to take responsibility for the policies that actually cause these problems. Our immigration system is an impenetrable maze, especially for temporary workers. This leads to people offering cheaper and more effective services to get across the border. Once here, the workers are forced into an abusive underground economy because we won't let them in legally. And of course, it's the immigrants' fault for wanting a better life than the one we helped choose for them with our failed War on Drugs, which empowers the cartels with vast profits from drug trading and the necessary associated weapons trading. So we help create the conditions in Mexico and other countries south of our border that drive immigrants north, and then complain about it?

The solution to this problem is, and has been, very straightforward. Let people in legally unless we can prove they are dangerous. Let them work legally, and put a stop to the abuses created by our policy of deportation. End the War on Drugs, which will gut the Cartel profits and reverse the downhill trend in the countries the immigrants are coming from. Stop screwing around with "free trade" agreements that are nothing of the sort, and implement actual free trade. Move on to deal with other problems.

Pulled deeper into that dark, dank den known as Libertarianism, I too am forced to agree.

MaverickDago wrote:

Aside from drug smuggling (it's not just pot), the exchange of weapons, the human tragedy associated with coyotes, the movement of fugitives.

I can't imagine the law is designed to protect illegal aliens from being exploited by coyotes or by drug running concerns. Giving AZ police the ability to search and deport will just drive the smuggling further underground than it already is and make any witness less likely to talk to police. And the average Mexican gardener, farm worker, or house cleaner isn't involved with the drug trade. That's not why they go into AZ.

I'm not even sure it's motivated by concerns over jobs in AZ. I mean, if I'm a low wage white guy working as a gardener in Phoenix, I certainly would be pissed about illegal immigration. But how many supporters of the bill are actually in economic competition with illegal immigrants? (not rhetorical question- I don't know the answer).

Funkenpants wrote:

I'm not even sure it's motivated by concerns over jobs in AZ. I mean, if I'm a low wage white guy working as a gardener in Phoenix, I certainly would be pissed about illegal immigration. But how many supporters of the bill are actually in economic competition with illegal immigrants? (not rhetorical question- I don't know the answer).

Somebody has to pay for the collapse of AZ's housing boom-based economy. Since they can't easily profile bankers and Wall Street brokers, they'll just go after the cheap labor that was exploited to build all those toxic assets.

It's really just a sad reaction of people's fear about the condition of the economy layered on their fear that American 'culture' is being swamped by a flood of Mexicans ('culture' defined as being white and speaking English).

Dirt wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281/ns/politics/

As many expected, Gov Brewer signed the legislation that will make illegal immigration a crime in AZ. I guess this means I'll have to carry my passport with me everytime I travel through AZ.

Good for AZ. The feds won't do anything, so they are. Imagine that, making illegal immigration well, illegal.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dirt wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281/ns/politics/

As many expected, Gov Brewer signed the legislation that will make illegal immigration a crime in AZ. I guess this means I'll have to carry my passport with me everytime I travel through AZ.

Good for AZ. The feds won't do anything, so they are. Imagine that, making illegal immigration well, illegal.

Why do you assume the state authorities will do much to enforce the law? Laws like these make very good electoral politics, but when it comes time to pay for all the infrastructure needed for enforcement and the costs of higher use of legal labor are felt in the local labor market, the people in power tend to retreat to the status quo, simply because it's cheaper for them to do so.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dirt wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281/ns/politics/

As many expected, Gov Brewer signed the legislation that will make illegal immigration a crime in AZ. I guess this means I'll have to carry my passport with me everytime I travel through AZ.

Good for AZ. The feds won't do anything, so they are. Imagine that, making illegal immigration well, illegal.

This didn't make it illegal, it made it so that no level of Arizona government can choose to use discretion in enforcing the law.

Maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing: that is, however, a different question from whether immigration is legal. This law is like those revolving around marijuana in California: basically, the Federal government can't compel the state government to devote resources to enforcing Federal law. So in California, they decline to devote resources to enforcing the Federal law on marijuana; in Arizona, they've decided to not let any level of government use any discretion on enforcing Federal law, and have created a statewide rule for law enforcement, the "reasonable suspicion" language.

The Arizona case is no more about some simple idea of making sure the law gets enforced than the California laws are a decision on how to most efficiently spend law enforcement resources: both of them have an agenda at work. Whether that agenda is good or bad, that's another question. Let's, however, be clear about what exactly is going on with this law and how it works.

Funkenpants wrote:

Why do you assume the state authorities will do much to enforce the law?

Because state police power is handed out to municipalities and such, which can set their own agenda--the state police can't come in, I imagine, and start telling some county sheriff or city police chief how he or she should run his or her police force. So local police have discretion. This law seems (in part) to be aimed at taking away that discretion, at ending the practice of 'sanctuary' cities where local police have chosen to look the other way at illegal immigration.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Because state police power is handed out to municipalities and such, which can set their own agenda--the state police can't come in, I imagine, and start telling some county sheriff or city police chief how he or she should run his or her police force. So local police have discretion. This law seems (in part) to be aimed at taking away that discretion, at ending the practice of 'sanctuary' cities where local police have chosen to look the other way at illegal immigration.

It goes beyond that. Say you're a local police chief who has decided to get tough on immigration. You round up 200 hundred illegals. What do you do with them? You're now responsible for housing and feeding them. Any children go into local child services, which probably has a tight budget. You can't just drive them to the border and dump them in Mexico, because you don't have jurisdiction at the border and you can't cross the border. And when you finally get the feds to take them (and they probably don't want them) and put them across the border, chances are the feds hand you some kind of bill for the cost of transportation and/or federal incarceration.

Look at it this way: There's a reason the federal government has its current enforcement policies on immigration. The amount of money and time it takes to deal with getting low-wage workers out of the country is just not worth the costs associated with it. We're already running a huge deficit. So if we increase the money we spend on enforcement, we're going to have to cut something else. What would we cut?

Pages