Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[waht]

What's up with all this immigration law? It seems there is a raging battle across the country between people who stick with the law (those who are labeled as racists), and those that favor breaking the law and demand return to the former status quo.

 

[Kerrie]

As I understand it, it gives police the authority to request proof of lawful residency in this country. Illegals of course don't have this, so there is a higher probability of them getting deported to their home country.

Eleven years ago, I lived in Phoenix, so I am paying close attention to this new law. Many are concerned that it will prompt racial profiling, there are many many legal Hispanic citizens in Phoenix, and a police officer can question American citizens based on their "appearance". They don't have to commit a crime in order to be questioned (please correct me if I am wrong, this is how I am understanding it).

Immigration reform is definitely something that needs to be addressed. We also have to remember however that there are many established generations of Americans, and we cannot forget that our country was founded upon others migrating and starting a new life here for themselves and their families.

 

[mheslep]

Text of the law. Only 19 pages.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

 

[mheslep]

As I understand it, it gives police the authority to request proof of lawful residency in this country. Illegals of course don't have this, so there is a higher probability of them getting deported to their home country. ...

As I understand it, the Az police will only have that authority (requesting proof) when detaining someone for a reason valid under existing law, i.e. traffic stop, drunk and disorderly, etc. Thus they do not have the authority to randomly ask people for ID under this law, nor would I expect that to pass constitutional barriers.

 

[russ_watters]

I know the law doesn't allow this, but hypothetically, why would it be a bad thing to randomly ask people for proof of citizenship/resident alien status? And why would that not pass constitutional muster? As I understand it, resident aliens are already required by law to carry their ID with them and show it upon request.

 

[mheslep]

I know the law doesn't allow this, but hypothetically, why would it be a bad thing to randomly ask people for proof of citizenship/resident alien status? And why would that not pass constitutional muster? ...

I believe for the same reason the police can't randomly enter homes looking for criminal activity. They'd certainly find a lot of it they did, but the 4th amendment does not allow them.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

 

[russ_watters]

I believe for the same reason the police can't randomly enter homes looking for criminal activity. They'd certainly find a lot of it they did, but the 4th amendment does not allow them.

We're not talking about private property, we're talking about cars on the street. Right now, police can put up sobriety checkpoints and test drivers for sobriety without probable cause. Why could a citizenship status check not be a component of this?

 

[mheslep]

We're not talking about private property, we're talking about cars on the street. Right now, police can put up sobriety checkpoints and test drivers for sobriety without probable cause. Why could a citizenship status check not be a component of this?

I agree it probably could be, since as above this law allows a check during a stop/detainment for any of the existing reasons.

However I don't believe vehicle stops are very relevant to illegal immigration, as the driver already needs a driver's license which means he/she already produced sufficient paper work to get it. No new law is required to catch an illegal driving with no license. Illegals are, I expect, going to be out on foot, or riding the bus.

 

[Supercritical]

If folks are concerned about racial profiling, maybe they should do something about the rampant racism in Mexico that drives darker-skinned Mexicans across the border. It's not a coincidence - not all Mexicans are brown-skinned.

 

[Kerrie]

We're not talking about private property, we're talking about cars on the street. Right now, police can put up sobriety checkpoints and test drivers for sobriety without probable cause. Why could a citizenship status check not be a component of this?

I don't think citizen checks *in general* are as lethal to the general population as drunken drivers, hence the reason for sobriety checkpoints. Typically, an illegal wants to stay here and will abide by the law as carefully as they can to ensure they will remain in America, after all, who wouldn't want to leave?

While I don't agree personally with the actual law, I do hope Arizona's radicalism will instigate immigration reform. Just think, if a large chunk of illegals were paying taxes on the money they are making, that would be a huge influx of revenue for the USA.

 

[Evo]

I've always argued in favor of illegal aliens that work hard. but I've changed my mind.

Their country needs to step up and take care of their own people. The fact that the President of Mexico is against US laws to deter illegal immigration speaks loads. Mexico doesn't want to take care of their own people and they encourage these unwanted to go to the US so they can become our problem.

No.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Edit: I also agree with Kerrie, there would have to be taxation. Unfortunately illegal aliens are paid "under the table" no taxes.

 

[russ_watters]

However I don't believe vehicle stops are very relevant to illegal immigration...

The only relevance is it is a good pretext for an identity check. You could also attach it to other situations where an identity check is needed, such as requiring anyone entering a bar to show a US photo ID. Frankly, I think identity checks should be required in a host of other situations, as it encourages people to behave more responsibly. For example, if you attach a name to a seat on a ticket to a sporting event, it makes it easier to hand out drunk and disorderly citations.

...as the driver already needs a driver's license which means he/she already produced sufficient paper work to get it. No new law is required to catch an illegal driving with no license. Illegals are, I expect, going to be out on foot, or riding the bus.

Generally, it isn't the driver who'se the issue, it is the passengers, but I see no reason why the passengers couldn't be checked too. Among other issues, one of the reasons to suspect illegals is overpacked cars, and an overpacked car seems on its own to be a reason to give everyone in the car a ticket due to the safety issue.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

However I don't believe vehicle stops are very relevant to illegal immigration, as the driver already needs a driver's license which means he/she already produced sufficient paper work to get it.

I don't believe a drivers license is proof of citizenship.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think citizen checks *in general* are as lethal to the general population as drunken drivers, hence the reason for sobriety checkpoints.

What does lethality have to do with anything? Should we stop going after shoplifters and tax evaders because they aren't killing anyone?

Typically, an illegal wants to stay here and will abide by the law as carefully as they can to ensure they will remain in America...

Agreed, though I'm not sure I see what the relevance of that statement is either.

Just think, if a large chunk of illegals were paying taxes on the money they are making, that would be a huge influx of revenue for the USA.

That's a common refrain, but it is just plain wrong. Illegals are a completely pure drain on the tax system because even if they get converted to "legal" and registered, the vast majority will not pay federal income taxes. Why? Because new immigrants don't make much money and currently if you are in about the bottom half of incomes in the US, you don't pay federal income taxes.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't believe a drivers license is proof of citizenship.

Good point: it isn't. 11 states currently issue drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants:

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/drivers_licenses.html

And Obama, in the past anyway, was in favor of this:

"Barack Obama has not backed down" on driver's licenses for undocumented people, said Federico Peña, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Denver mayor now supporting Obama. "I think when the Latino community hears Barack's position on such an important and controversial issue, they'll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-01-...enses-illegal-immigrants-immigration-overhaul

 

[mgb_phys]

I know the law doesn't allow this, but hypothetically, why would it be a bad thing to randomly ask people for proof of citizenship/resident alien status?

I think because it would lead to racial profiling.
Obviously anyone who looked meso-american/hispanic is likely to be native to the area, and anyone african american is probably legal.
But what about all the white guys? Would they have to prove that they were born there? And their parents and grandparents were also born there.
It would be terribly unfair if the police were rounding up everyone white who speaks english.

 

[Evo]

I think because it would lead to racial profiling.
Obviously anyone who looked meso-american/hispanic is likely to be native to the area, and anyone african american is probably legal.
But what about all the white guys? Would they have to prove that they were born there? And their parents and grandparents were also born there.
It would be terribly unfair if the police were rounding up everyone white who speaks english.

That doesn't address the question that was asked

why would it be a bad thing to randomly ask people for proof of citizenship/resident alien status?

If they are legal, no problem.

As was stated, they have random drunk driving stops that pull over all people on the road regardless of how they are driving.

 

[mgb_phys]

As was stated, they have random drunk driving stops that pull over all people on the road regardless of how they are driving.

Randomly asking people for citizenship would be OK.
Stopping only people in say turbans and asking them and only them for id might be less of a good idea.

It's the same with dui checks, stopping everyone is reasonable.
Random stops tend to target people in old battered cars, whether this is subconscious bias by the police (poor people are criminals), or fishing (poor people more likely to have outstanding warrants) or tactical (BMW driver likely to have a lawyer that will argue in court).

 

[Evo]

Randomly asking people for citizenship would be OK.
Stopping only people in say turbans and asking them and only them for id might be less of a good idea.

It's the same with dui checks, stopping everyone is reasonable.
Random stops tend to target people in old battered cars, whether this is subconscious bias by the police (poor people are criminals), or fishing (poor people more likely to have outstanding warrants) or tactical (BMW driver likely to have a lawyer that will argue in court).

When they have random DUI checks, all cars are pulled over. I was driving a new BMW. My friend was driving a Porsche. Everyone is pulled over.

 

[waht]

Mel Gibson got DUI couple of years ago in LA, and he was driving a Lexus. Basically, cops are trained to spot a DUI vehicle on the road.

 

[mgb_phys]

When they have random DUI checks, all cars are pulled over. I was driving a new BMW. My friend was driving a Porsche. Everyone is pulled over.

That's because those were ruled legal, they aren't really random - except in a statistical sampling sense.

The rule used to be that you could pull anyone over with 'reasonable cause' - the reasonable cause was generally the reasonable chance of you also finding a joint in the car.

 

[mgb_phys]

Mel Gibson got DUI couple of years ago in LA, and he was driving a Lexus.

In LA though, they probably thought we was a homeless guy!

 

[chemisttree]

http://www.madd.org/chapter/4800_9522_7612" This is due mainly to the efforts of rights activists. In San Antonio this practice was made an example of as unfair racial profiling because the police only chose certain locations (where alcohol related accidents were prevalent) that resulted in an unequal rate of arrest for minorities. I'm certain the same thing will happen in AZ but I don't know if the AZ Supreme Court is as 'compliant' as it seems to be in TX.

Welcome to http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html" , y'all.

 

[waht]

If a significant segment of a population statistically commit more crimes, why wouldn't it be reasonable to proportionally adjust random sampling of those people?

 

[Evo]

That's because those were ruled legal, they aren't really random - except in a statistical sampling sense.

The rule used to be that you could pull anyone over with 'reasonable cause' - the reasonable cause was generally the reasonable chance of you also finding a joint in the car.

You don't understand. The police here close entire roads and pull *ALL* cars over. No exceptions. They block and question ALL CARS ON THE ROAD.

 

[MotoH]

I don't see a problem with stopping people and asking for proof of citizenship. I am not sure what that proof would be, possibly social security numbers?


But my question is: Is it racial profiling when the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican along the Arizona border? Wouldn't it be foolish, and a waste of money to stop a white man/woman or a black man/woman? When hunting rabbits, you don't chase squirrels.

 

[Kerrie]

What does lethality have to do with anything? Should we stop going after shoplifters and tax evaders because they aren't killing anyone? Agreed, though I'm not sure I see what the relevance of that statement is either. That's a common refrain, but it is just plain wrong. Illegals are a completely pure drain on the tax system because even if they get converted to "legal" and registered, the vast majority will not pay federal income taxes. Why? Because new immigrants don't make much money and currently if you are in about the bottom half of incomes in the US, you don't pay federal income taxes.

A check on citizenship doesn't prevent an immediate accident that may harm another such as a sobriety check. We don't stop everyone walking out of Target or Walmart ensuring they haven't stolen an item because they "look" like they might shoplift. This is essentially what this new law does-a check on someone who "looks" like they may not have been born here. Have you ever been to Phoenix Arizona? There is a huge amount of Hispanics who are legal, who came here for a better life because, as Evo states, their home country doesn't do for them as America would. America was founded upon immigrants wanting a better life-probably your ancestors seeking a better life, unless you are 100% Native American.

EVERYONE (legals anyway) pays into the tax system-Medicare taxes and FICA at 7.65%. Even if they get every dime back on their refund, the employer matches the FICA/HI taxes, so by them being legal, they do contribute. Depending upon the state, citizens can pay an even higher state income tax such as here in Oregon where we pay nearly 9%, the "poor" don't get that nice tax break either like they do on federal income tax. Your comment that the poor don't contribute is quite biased and suggests they are a drain on the tax system. There is no doubt that a new immigrant will contribute more in taxes than an illegal. We could also spend the tax dollars YOU pay and deport them, another option.

 

[mgb_phys]

You don't understand. The police here close entire roads and pull *ALL* cars over. No exceptions. They block and question ALL CARS ON THE ROAD.

Yes that's what I said - those have been ruled to be legal.
Those where the police chose to pull over certain cars are generally not legal.

Depends really which you are calling 'random'. Statistically the 'stop everyone in a given place at a given time' would be random, but in layman terms picking out individual cars is the random one.

 

[mgb_phys]

But my question is: Is it racial profiling when the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican along the Arizona border?

So everybody that isn't blonde and blue eyed has to carry a passport everywhere in case of "Papiere, Bitte" ?
And any cop that is down on their quota or just doesn't like $GROUP$ can simply round a few up at the end of their shift.
If you are a citizen but went out jogging or just to the store without your passport do you just get to spend 48hours in jail or is there a fine?

Fortunately in a country with no history of racism in the police force this shouldn't be a problem.

 

[russ_watters]

I think because it would lead to racial profiling.

It was inevitable that it would come to this, but what is wrong with racial profiling? Gender profiling is already fine. Racial profiling if the perp is white is already fine. Why is racial profiling only bad if the perp is black or hispanic?

But what about all the white guys? Would they have to prove that they were born there?

Sure, why not?

It would be terribly unfair if the police were rounding up everyone white who speaks english.

I'm not following: the police aren't going to be "rouding up" anyone - white or otherwise. What do you mean?

To get a jump on where this is inevitably going: people are squeamish about racial profiling. They think that just seeing someone hispanic or black in a car and stopping them for no particular reason other than their race is wrong. Clearly, it is. But like it or not, race (and gender) is an important factor in a criminal profile. And as long as it is clear that race cannot be the only factor - when there are other important factors besides race involved in the profile, there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.

 

[cronxeh]

I was hoping somebody who gets paid from my taxes to make decisions would summon the testicular fortitude to put National Guard troops on the border with orders to shoot to kill all trespassers. How is that for profiling? I'm not big on commas, either.

I don't understand these people. Do you see anyone in the airport just walking casually through with AK-47s without getting screened? Are you going to say you will put up with having to remove your shoes while some drug dealers can just walk into the country?

 

[russ_watters]

Randomly asking people for citizenship would be OK.
Stopping only people in say turbans and asking them and only them for id might be less of a good idea.

It's the same with dui checks, stopping everyone is reasonable.
Random stops tend to target people in old battered cars, whether this is subconscious bias by the police (poor people are criminals), or fishing (poor people more likely to have outstanding warrants) or tactical (BMW driver likely to have a lawyer that will argue in court).

Great, so we agree!

The real problem here is people are squeamish so they create strawmen to argue against. Pretty much every argument I've ever seen against such laws is based on the same strawman. Obviously, police can't stop only people wearing turbans (who aren't doing anything wrong), but that is not what is being suggested. So please: focus only on what is actually being suggested and don't expand it to encompass your own personal fear if the law doesn't include that fear.

 

[rootX]

I don't see what's wrong with this law if it helps solve the illegal immigration problem considering that they wouldn't continue passing such laws ...

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.madd.org/chapter/4800_9522_7612" This is due mainly to the efforts of rights activists. In San Antonio this practice was made an example of as unfair racial profiling because the police only chose certain locations (where alcohol related accidents were prevalent) that resulted in an unequal rate of arrest for minorities. I'm certain the same thing will happen in AZ but I don't know if the AZ Supreme Court is as 'compliant' as it seems to be in TX.

Welcome to http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html" , y'all.

That's not what your link says:

Sobriety checkpoints have been held to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (496 U.S. 444, Michigan Dept. of Public Safety v. Sitz (1990)). In Texas, sobriety checkpoints are currently illegal because in 1994 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, sobriety checkpoints cannot be used unless there are approved statewide procedures for conducting sobriety checkpoints. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not say that it disagreed with the idea of sobriety checkpoints, but instead, that it believes that statewide guidelines must be in place before they are held in communities.

In essence, it says that sobriety checkpoints are illegal because they haven't written laws to properly set up how to do them. It doesn't mean the concept is unConstitutional (it was specifically ruled to be Constitutional), it just means they have chosen not to do them.

So I don't see how this has any relevance to the conversation.

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm not following: the police aren't going to be "rouding up" anyone - white or otherwise. What do you mean?

The news report said the law would give police powers to detain anyone they SUSPECTED of being an illegal immigrant.
That translates into arresting anyone that isn't obviously native-american who isn't carrying a passport.

Anyone white in America must be an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants and since white people are in a majority if there is no profiling then those are the ones you should be targeting.
But somehow I suspect police aren't going to be raiding Porsche dealerships to pounce on people with a German accent.

And as long as it is clear that race cannot be the only factor

If you are only looking for people you suspect of being foreign what other factor could there be?