News 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?

 

[MotoH]

Do you have a suggested plan mgb? I would be interested in hearing it.

 

[russ_watters]

A check on citizenship doesn't prevent an immediate accident that may harm another such as a sobriety check.

It sounds like you are saying that the entirety of traffic police's efforts should be focused on preventing traffic deaths and that any effort of theirs at all taken away from that should be discouraged. I disagree. I think traffic cops should be looking for any and all crimes that fall within their jurisdiction and I think that that is probably what they are charged to do. That commonly includes thefts, drug offenses, prostitution, etc. Besides which, the amount of effort required to check IDs for people already pulled over for a traffic stop is insignificant. I see no good reason not to do it.

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.

You're saying you've never been shopping at a store near Christmas that checked the receipt of everyone leaving the store? I have. I think it is a good idea if shoplifting is an issue.

This is essentially what this new law does-a check on someone who "looks" like they may not have been born here.

That's why it is best to avoid the racial profiling issue entirely and check everyone. Again, if we remove the racial component entirely, would you then favor the idea? This is why I say the racial profiling issue is just a strawman. People refuse to let go of it even if a procedure is created that can easily eliminate the issue.

Have you ever been to Phoenix Arizona?

Yes.

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.

Except for the oxymoron in the last line (immigrant /= native american), I agree completely. But again, this is completely irrelevant.

EVERYONE (legals anyway) pays into the tax system-Medicare taxes and FICA at 7.65%.

Medicare and FICA are moneys that come back to you so they are separate from the normal federal budget. They are not part of the day-to-day functioning of the government. All of the *normal* functions of government (everything from the space program to the financial balout and stimulus to roads to defense) are paid for by federal income taxes. And again, slightly less than the bottom half of the country pays no federal income taxes (or receives money instead of paying it).

Furthermore:

Even if they get every dime back on their refund...

That doesn't make sense. Your refund doesn't have much to do with whether you pay a net tax. It is just about whether you've paid much more or less during the year than you should have...you know about witholding, right? What you pay on April 15th is not your tax, it is just the difference between the witholding and what your tax for that year is.

...the employer matches the FICA/HI taxes, so by them being legal, they do contribute.

FICA and Medicare are money paid for your own insurance, so you get it back. Obviously, if someone is here illegally, they shouldn't be getting free healthcare or a free pension, so those taxes are irrelevant to the issue. People who are in the US illegally, just by being here, get the benefit of our roads, our military, our police, etc. These things they (and everyone else in the bottom half) get for free.

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.

No, Kerrie, clearly it is you who is posting based on bias because though you put the word in quotes, I didn't use the word "poor". The reason it is it simply doesn't apply here. The poverty line is somewhere around 15% and there is an entire 'nother third of the population above the poverty line who pays no federal income tax or gets money back from the federal government. These people are not poor, but they are still a drain on society.

There is no doubt that a new immigrant will contribute more in taxes than an illegal.

Clearly. But a legal immigrant will also get more benefits than an illegal, so saying that is irrelevant. So I postulate that a legal immigrant is likely to contribute more than an illegal immigrant because the effort required to become a legal immigrant makes for higher quality immigrants.

We could also spend the tax dollars YOU pay and deport them, another option.

Definitely my preference. It couldn't possibly cost more to deport an illegal immigrant than it does to provide them free healthcare for life.

 

[russ_watters]

So everybody that isn't blonde and blue eyed has to carry a passport everywhere in case of "Papiere, Bitte" ?

Why not just eliminate the issue of race and just make everyone carry an ID?

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?

The way the law reads, you can't be stopped unless you are associated with another crime, so that's a strawman. But if you are associated with another crime, you can be put in jail until your identity is established. So it's up to you if it takes 1 hour or 48 hours.

Again, the arguments against ID checks are virtually all stramen.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Right, so what is your point about "white guys"?

Anyone white in America must be an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants...

Yes...

...and since white people are in a majority if there is no profiling then those are the ones you should be targeting.

"If there is no profiling, then those are the ones you should be targeting." Huh? Don't you mean if there is profiling then those are the ones you should be targeting? You're saying that since all whites are immigrants or decendents of immigrants, all should be racially profiled as potential illegals.

Obiously, this is silly because of the "decendents of immigrants" part. A "decendent of immigrant" is almost certainly a citizen. Statistically, a white person is more likely to be a citizen/legal than a hispanic, particularly in an area where illegal immigration is prevalent. You're trying to make a statistical argument against racial profiling working, but you're analyzing the data badly.

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

You're asking what other factor besides race could make you believe someone is "foreign" (and assuming "foreign" = illegal?). Really? I'm not sure I want to answer that! Think about it some more and try again tomorrow!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I went back to the original quotes since I thought it would be easier.

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?

The USSC has determined sobriety check points to be a legal exception to the search and seizure clause because it is based on a compelling state interest in making sure that the streets are safe from drunk drivers*. There also tend to be laws regulating the manner in which sobriety check points can be implemented, here this even includes putting an announcement in the local paper before the check point is scheduled. As already noted the protection from illegal search and seizure applies as well to your person and your documents. Randomly stopping people to "check their papers" is hardly likely to pass muster. The equal protection clause protects anyone from being singled out by law or the practical application of the law so all persons would have to be checked for legal citizenship. Good luck in proving to the court that there is a compelling state interest to randomly check all persons' citizenship status.

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.

Many illegals do have regular jobs where taxes are taken out of their income. While filings by illegals are on the rise many of them, for fear of being found out, do not file for returns and so never get any of that money back.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/
The rise in illegals filing tax returns also includes persons who are self employed because they believe it is possible that it may help them get their citizenship if they make sure that they are paying their taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

*edit: Sorry, that should be: a compelling state interest in the absence of any better remedial solution.

 

[Kerrie]

It sounds like you are saying that the entirety of traffic police's efforts should be focused on preventing traffic deaths and that any effort of theirs at all taken away from that should be discouraged.

No, I did not say that about cops, I said that about random sobriety checks.

I think traffic cops should be looking for any and all crimes that fall within their jurisdiction and I think that that is probably what they are charged to do. That commonly includes thefts, drug offenses, prostitution, etc.

Commonly it is not up to police to check everyone for citizenship.

You're saying you've never been shopping at a store near Christmas that checked the receipt of everyone leaving the store?

Most major stores, such as Target, don't check everyone's receipt upon exiting. This would surely be bad customer service because most people don't shoplift.

That's why it is best to avoid the racial profiling issue entirely and check everyone. Again, if we remove the racial component entirely, would you then favor the idea? This is why I say the racial profiling issue is just a strawman.

So, why only Arizona? Why not New Mexico, Texas, California too? No one wants to admit it, but it really comes down to race because a blond Caucasian has less of a chance of being asked to show legal citizenship then a Hispanic. Southern Arizona has a major population of Hispanics who are legal. With this new law in place, those Hispanics who are legal must face that probability of being questioned because of their skin color. While they are here legally like you and I, it is a fear they must live with because of how they look.

Medicare and FICA are moneys that come back to you so they are separate from the normal federal budget.

No, FICA/HI taxes paid today go to the those who are receiving SS payments today. The money paid by the employer on behalf of the employee and employer is logged into an account for future reference for the employee's assessment of benefits. So in essence, if an illegal is given whatever citizenship status to be documented as a taxpayer, it is safe to assume they are contributing more to society than if they were deported.

They are not part of the day-to-day functioning of the government. All of the *normal* functions of government (everything from the space program to the financial balout and stimulus to roads to defense) are paid for by federal income taxes.

All the more reason to expedite immigration reform. A larger labor force that contributes taxes to America helps all of these programs

And again, slightly less than the bottom half of the country pays no federal income taxes (or receives money instead of paying it).

By them being documented workers, their employer pays FUTA & SUTA taxes. Just because someone falls below the poverty line in terms of wages, does not mean their labor doesn't contribute in some sort of way.

Furthermore: That doesn't make sense. Your refund doesn't have much to do with whether you pay a net tax. It is just about whether you've paid much more or less during the year than you should have...you know about witholding, right? What you pay on April 15th is not your tax, it is just the difference between the witholding and what your tax for that year is.

Quite aware of this Russ, I am an accounting major. But this has nothing to do with the new law in Arizona.

FICA and Medicare are money paid for your own insurance, so you get it back. Obviously, if someone is here illegally, they shouldn't be getting free healthcare or a free pension, so those taxes are irrelevant to the issue.

All the more reason for immigration reform by the federal government and not the state micromanaging her citizens.

No, Kerrie, clearly it is you who is posting based on bias because though you put the word in quotes, I didn't use the word "poor".

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.

While you didn't use the word "poor", this statement is suggesting that because they are new immigrants they won't contribute to our society anymore than if they weren't here at all.

The poverty line is somewhere around 15% and there is an entire 'nother third of the population above the poverty line who pays no federal income tax or gets money back from the federal government. These people are not poor, but they are still a drain on society.

I agree they are a drain on our social services because their status is illegal and undocumented. Again why the federal government needs to address this as a nationwide problem. I do not agree that those under the poverty line do not contribute to society. This is suggestive to a bias you have for low wage earners. Our society needs all classes willing to do whatever job they feel is suited for them to thrive. Those low wage jobs that *new immigrants* take are serving higher wage earners, possibly such as yourself.

So I postulate that a legal immigrant is likely to contribute more than an illegal immigrant because the effort required to become a legal immigrant makes for higher quality immigrants.

While I agree, requiring the police force to check for citizenship on anyone *they suspect* as being here illegally without any other suspicion of crimes is a tremendous amount of responsibility on those officers.

Definitely my preference. It couldn't possibly cost more to deport an illegal immigrant than it does to provide them free healthcare for life.

No, it just creates a lot of fear for the majority who are in Arizona legally. I lived in Phoenix for just over a year, and many of the Hispanics I worked with, were friends and neighbors with all came to the U.S. for the simple reason of providing a better life for themselves and families. The few drug runners who have committed major crimes are the problems that this law should be targeting, not an everyday common American citizen.

 

[Kerrie]

Many illegals do have regular jobs where taxes are taken out of their income. While filings by illegals are on the rise many of them, for fear of being found out, do not file for returns and so never get any of that money back.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/
The rise in illegals filing tax returns also includes persons who are self employed because they believe it is possible that it may help them get their citizenship if they make sure that they are paying their taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

While this is great, the msnbc article is stating that:
"The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State University says there are no firm figures on how many taxpayers are in that situation."
This could end up being a disaster for the IRS if they are in fact over collecting. Perhaps all those over collected funds can help put new immigration policies in force.

 

[mgb_phys]

Right, so what is your point about "white guys"?

That was irony - everybody knows this law is for cops to target hispanics legal or illegal.

Obiously, this is silly because of the "decendents of immigrants" part. A "decendent of immigrant" is almost certainly a citizen.

Is the offspring of an illegal immigrant legal in the US?

Otherwise you have the problem of proving a chain of citizenship - since any illegal in the lineage would invalidate all the descendants.
And ironically the longer your ancestors have been in America the harder this is to prove - so all those people who claim that great^N grandfather came on the Mayflower had better find some documentation.

Whats actually going to happen is, the law will pass, then within the first few weeks the police will arrest the only hispanic judge/mayor/professor in Arizona while he is out jogging without his passport, or at the airport they will arrest some Puerto Rican soldier returning from Afghanistan in uniform who lost his wallet - and for a while replace Arizona will replace Arkansas in the John Stewart show as the stereotypical redneck state.

 

[cristo]

Is the offspring of an illegal immigrant legal in the US?

I thought US citizenship was obtained through birth-- i.e. anyone born in the country is a citizen.

I'm not entirely sure what I think of this law. I can see a major problem: what happens to a citizen who isn't carrying any documentation?

 

[edward]

The situation with illegal immigrants has gotten to be intolerable here in AZ. The law was passed out of pure frustration with the federal government.

A local rancher was killed last month. He was well known and had been on the ranch his entire life. Border patrol tracked the perpetrators back down to the border.

The drug smugglers are getting very violent. The drug runners and the people smugglers are the same group.

We do have many coming for a better life, and we have allowed it to happen, but we are now at capacity. Even with the new law we still have the revolving door. We deport them and they turn around and come back. We have detention facilities that are already overcrowded.

We also have been educating their children, but due to the economy it was necessary to terminate the jobs of 500 teachers.

The border Patrol claims 1,000 per day are still evading them. And that is just in the AZ sector.

There are check points set up on many highways that we all have to stop at. The illegals simply walk around them. The BP moves the check points around but the illegals soon learn where they are.

A big drug sting by ICE this week resulted in the arrest of over fifty people in border towns. They had automatic weapons and all kinds of scanners and radio equipment.

What people here really want is to close the border except at key locations.

 

[cronxeh]

...
What people here really want is to close the border except at key locations.

Impeach your governor. Vote out of office your Senator (that McCain guy). You need real leaders who will put the National Guard on the border patrol mission. Its a real state of emergency in Arizona, and not even a single illegal immigrant should be allowed to stay in Arizona. If the American citizens in Arizona don't act, soon Arizona will simply be Mexico's annexed territory, then Texas, then LA. Come to think of it, it already is.

Come to think of it, you people have become soft and weak. You've become complacent and scared - you don't deserve your freedom. Just give Arizona back to Mexico, it hasn't even been 100 years as a state yet, walk away let them have it.

 

[MotoH]

Impeach your governor. Vote out of office your Senator (that McCain guy). You need real leaders who will put the National Guard on the border patrol mission. Its a real state of emergency in Arizona, and not even a single illegal immigrant should be allowed to stay in Arizona. If the American citizens in Arizona don't act, soon Arizona will simply be Mexico's annexed territory, then Texas, then LA. Come to think of it, it already is.

Come to think of it, you people have become soft and weak. You've become complacent and scared - you don't deserve your freedom. Just give Arizona back to Mexico, it hasn't even been 100 years as a state yet, walk away let them have it.

I hope you are serious, because I enjoyed that.


As I said before, it makes absolutely no sense to ID a white person, when the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican. Why should cops waste their time IDing every single person, when you can be efficient and only ID those who are probably illegal immigrants. Start at the Home Depot first.

You don't see drug sting houses in nice neighborhoods. They are in run-down, crime infested places so they fit in. You aren't going to catch any drug addicts in a nice residential neighborhood, but you sure as heck will get them flocking to you in a run down area.

 

[mheslep]

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

Not citizenship, but legal resident status is required to get one.

 

[mheslep]

I thought US citizenship was obtained through birth-- i.e. anyone born in the country is a citizen.

Yes it is. Status of the parents is irrelevant.

 

[cronxeh]

Yes it is. Status of the parents is irrelevant.

That too should be changed. And we won't even have to let Mexicans build casinos this time around. If the mother of the baby is in the country illegally then the baby by definition should be deemed an illegal - not a citizen. Its ludicrous to allow a citizenship status just because the baby is born here - it is inviting the parents to make the trip, daring them to come here. Who comes up with these laws??

Our anger is misplaced yet again - we should be pitch forking the Congress that passes such stupid legislation. This brings me back to McCain - retire him already.