Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)

Well, actually he isn't correct.  He thinks there aren't that many lazy Americans, and that instead they're being denied work in favor of the illegals.

Everyone is discussing this in ideological terms, when in reality immigration laws should be based around long-term policy aims, not gut reactions. The fact is that historically amnestys  have tended to produce increased immigration, and if a government's aim is to lower imigration (or at least keep it at sustainable levels), then implementing an amnesty would probably be a bad decision.


Furthermore, immigration is not simply a debate about citizenship and jobs, fairness etc, but about having a sustainable population. The population of the United States is one of the few in the western world that is rising substantially. It has risen by 30 million in the last ten years, and is projected to rise by at least another 30 million in the next ten years. This is good in some respects, but bad in others - without consistently strong economic growth (not impossible or even unlikely, but certainly more challenging than it has been in the past), this will be difficult socially.


More importantly, this growth is not happening at the same rate everywhere - the southern and western states are seeing the biggest increases, and this is also where most U.S. immigration occurs. This puts huge pressure on infrastructure (hospitals, housing, roads etc), something which is not helped by large numbers of illegal immigrants who earn but don't pay taxes. Now, granting an amnesty would bring many of them into the fold, but if it just results in even more immigration, then you really aren't solving anything.


The Arizona law sounds to me like a pretty poor piece of legislation, but if immigration and population levels really are an issue for Arizona, then ultimately they have to try and do something about it.

To demand that they still live as illegal, second-class citizens is the height of American douche-baggery.

Who is demanding anything like that?

Well, most of us would like the illegal immigration problem to be solved, but the food industry makes a huge profit off of this source of cheap labor.  There are fewer and fewer family farms, and they have to compete with the big corporate farms.  It is in the corporate farms best interest to use cheap labor. 

This is interesting.  It turns out that a few years ago, a couple of police chiefs from my state, New Hampshire, actually arrested some illegal immigrants and charged them with "trespass".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902035.html

This is an older article, but eventually our Supreme Court ruled that the arrests were unconstitutional.

Illegal immigration will never be solved. To many people profit from it.

/thread

Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?

Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?

So you know the law, then?

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 28, 2010, 06:36:27 AM

Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?

So you know the law, then?

I have at least read it, and I see problems with it on both sides.  Like most legislation these days, it seems poorly crafted, though I do like some of the provisions.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on July 28, 2010, 07:13:53 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 28, 2010, 06:36:27 AM

Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?

So you know the law, then?

I have at least read it, and I see problems with it on both sides.  Like most legislation these days, it seems poorly crafted, though I do like some of the provisions.

That is a fairly stock response

Well, If you want specifics, here you go.

Portions of the bill I agree with, and why:
A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
Basically, no agency shall adopt a policy of sanctuary in direct contravention of Federal law.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Its the "For any lawfull contact" part that seems to confuse all the demagogues.

19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
So at least they put this in to clarify it.

I do have a problem with these sections, for obvious reasons:

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.

All of those passages are poorly crafted and either give to much power to law enforcement, or provide loopholes for them to act inappropriately.  As I said, it is a truly poorly written bill, and the law of unintended consequences will be its downfall.

My opinion of the law has changed somewhat since it first came about.  I don't have a problem with police officers checking the legal status of persons they come in contact with through the normal course of doing their jobs.  If they pull someone over for speeding, or arrest someone for some crime, and then find out the person is an illegal, I don't have a problem with them detaining the person and then handing them over to the Feds. Obviously the Feds need local assistance.

I agree with EireEngineer, though. The bill needs work.

The key question, of course, is how "reasonable suspicion" will be defined by the courts.

The key question, of course, is how "reasonable suspicion" will be defined by the courts.

That is one of the things  I would have liked to have seen elucidated in the bill.

Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html

I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

Besides..... if you're not illegal.... you have almost nothing to worry about beyond what is already going down - racially charged wise. Its not like the bill automatically makes all the cops that used to be fair racist and the ones that were racist, even bigger racists.

Forgive me if I feel that laws should be followed and consequences should be dolled out if they are broken.

I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet?

Anyone dumb enough to do that, is dumb enough to support this law.

Quote from: Death-T on July 29, 2010, 06:20:41 AM

I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet?

There might not be a law to carry ID, but it is such common practice to have it on you that it is a de facto statute.  We require more identification to make a debit card purchase than to work.

We require more identification to make a debit card purchase than to work.

...

Quote from: Death-T on July 29, 2010, 06:20:41 AM

I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet?

People used to always carry their social security card in their wallet. This was before identity theft became such a problem.

I don't have a problem with requiring visitors to the US to carry proper identification.  If you travel in another country they expect you to have your passport or work permit, don't they?

Quote from: Death-T on July 29, 2010, 06:20:41 AM

I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet?

No. I'm merely stating in the modern world you almost always have some sort of ID on you. Whether you need to get some bank business done, get your military ID renewed, or just drive - you need ID. Hell, I needed an school-issued ID for high school just so I could walk on campus.

Besides..... where the hell did I say there was a law requiring ID at all times? You need to read more carefully.

Documentation is different than ID.

Documentation is different than ID.

And? Does not ID count towards checking whether or not your are illegal?

A drivers license is not valid proof of citizenship.

A drivers license is not valid proof of citizenship.

Ah..  you're right. Damn, need to research more.

Anyway, I really don't have a single problem bill. Hope it stands.

A drivers license is not valid proof of citizenship.

Is it valid proof of being at least a legal resident?  Driver's licenses aren't handed out to anyone who just walks in off the street.

They should make it so that legal visitors/workers only need to carry something similar to a driver's license, like an identification card.  

As I sit here, watching Fox News, they keep railing against the idea of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is there any viable argument against amnesty for all currently illegal immigrants?

As I sit here, watching Fox News, they keep railing against the idea of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is there any viable argument against amnesty for all currently illegal immigrants?

Yes, Franklin, there are.  Morally, it's unfair to the thousands of legal immigrants who went through the system, as well as the hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants who are declined a visa each year, due to the government's strict requirements on who gets to immigrate here.  You would essentially be allowing anyone from Mexico to simply sidestep those requirements, when everyone else has to follow them.  Also, and more importantly, amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration.  If a behavior is rewarded, then it will be repeated.

Morally, it's unfair to the thousands of legal immigrants who went through the system, as well as the hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants who are declined a visa each year, due to the INS's strict requirements on who gets to immigrate here.  You would essentially be allowing anyone from Mexico to simply sidestep those requirements, when everyone else has to follow them.

See, I don't buy this line of logic. It essentially translates to "We should keep past policies that have been shown, numerous times, to be ineffective, just so no one gets their feelings hurt". Would you prefer we return to the flawed quota system which lasted from the 1920's to the 1960's?. Also, I am not saying that just Mexicans should get amnesty, I am supporting it for all immigrants. This policy is an even handed approach, much like modern proponents of harsh immigration policies claim of their policies.

Also, and more importantly, amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration.  If a behavior is rewarded, then it will be repeated.

To begin, that's not even true. In a surprisingly similarity to another thread, when drug use in Portugal was decriminalized, the amount of drugs used went down. Legalizing something does not always mean an increase in it.

Second, what's wrong with an increase in immigrants? If they are made citizens, the government will protect their right to a minimum wage. There will no longer be incentive to hire them over any other worker. And, if these families suddenly experience a rise in income, they will spend more money. More consumer spending creates further jobs, which allows more employment, which allows more consumer spending, which bolsters the economy.