News Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[MotoH]

Anyone can get a fake drivers license, and from what I have seen, a lot of illegals have one.

 

[edward]

Anyone can get a fake drivers license, and from what I have seen, a lot of illegals have one.

Getting a fake liscense has become more difficult here after it was discover that a number of DMV personnel were selling them.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Again, that is not the case in all states. I provided a reference. Here's another: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15696

And again, Obama supports giving driver's licenses to illegals.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Either we're a country of laws or we aren't. If it isn't a "compelling state interest" to enforce our laws, why do we even have them?

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/

While interesting and surprising, it doesn't really change the logic of the issue: The point was that suddenly granting illegals legal status will not increase income tax revenue.

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

This is a hot topic precisely because there are no good alternatives.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Yes, I know it isn't now. That's why we're having the discussion! Saying it isn't now is not an argument for why it should be.

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.

Again, are you saying you've never experienced it? I have and I think it is a good idea during times of high theft.

So, why only Arizona? Why not New Mexico, Texas, California too?

Arizona is choosing to enforce laws that those states are choosing not to enforce. A lot has to do with trying to curry favor with hispanic votors - which is why Obama supports the absurd policy of granting drivers' licenses to illegals.

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.

Again, this is a strawman you are making up. *I* am suggesting we avoid the issue of race by challenging everyone.

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.

You're missing the point. The point isn't "contributing more to society than if they were deported", it is making a positive vs a negative contribution. As I'm sure you know, SS is a losing proposition (people get more back than they pay in), so even that is a negative contribution. So while it is true that if made legal, they'll make a positive contribution to SS, it is also true that they will also then take their benefit - and the net contribution is a negative one. That's why talking about SS is just a smokescreen. The money that goes to the day-to-day operation of the federal government takes a lot of money and virtually no converted-legal immigrants would contribute to it.

And you're still ignoring the issue of regular income tax...

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

You're not listening or are purposely ignoring the point: they will not be contributing to the federal income tax burden if made legal because their incomes are too small!

Quite aware of this Russ, I am an accounting major.

If you know all of this, Kerrie, then you must be purposely obfuscating the issue.

But this has nothing to do with the new law in Arizona.

You brought it up, Kerrie!

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

On that, we are agreed.

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.

Yes: because it is true.

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.

You're putting words in my mouth Kerrie: I didn't say they don't contribute to society, I said they don't contribute to federal income taxes. And it is true. It really feels like you're purposely talking past me here - ignoring what I'm saying. Again, you are the one who brought up the issue of illegals paying taxes. Not me, you. What you said was wrong, I corrected it and now you're obfuscating and namecalling to try to distract from the factually wrong claim you made.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

While your logic is sound, I'm willing to take the hit in showing my ID every now and then if it keeps the squeamish hippies at bay. It really isn't a big deal.

 

[Kerrie]

And you're still ignoring the issue of regular income tax... You're not listening or are purposely ignoring the point: they will not be contributing to the federal income tax burden if made legal because their incomes are too small!

This is assuming that they never move up in income in relevance to the cost of living. If someone goes from being an illegal to a legal resident in this country, there is a great probability of them obtaining an education that moves them into a higher income bracket, thus contributing to ALL taxes. Your statement implies that once they are legal they will no longer have the motivation to improve their lives. Perhaps the first couple of years their incomes might be small, yet giving them legal residency allows them to pursue an education to make a higher wage thus contributing to the tax system.

I didn't say they don't contribute to society, I said they don't contribute to federal income taxes.

You did say they were a drain on society.

It really feels like you're purposely talking past me here - ignoring what I'm saying.

I can say the same thing-you are ignoring what I am saying. Sure, we can theoretically say that the police can question everyone without regards to race. But do you realistically think this will happen? That's the issue-what will really happen, not what should happen. We are talking about Arizona here, and from my experience of living in Phoenix, racism is prominent there.

Again, you are the one who brought up the issue of illegals paying taxes. Not me, you.

I brought it up to prove my point in the benefits of immigration reform to all those who are already here in America illegally.

What you said was wrong

According to who? You? What was I wrong about? Not agreeing with your opinion?

I corrected it and now you're obfuscating and namecalling to try to distract from the factually wrong claim you made.

There was no namecalling Russ.

Did your ancestors immigrate to the USA? Mine did, and had they been deported, I may not have had this freedom of speech in this forum and be a citizen of this great country.

 

[mheslep]

Again, that is not the case in all states. I provided a reference. Here's another: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15696

Right, I should have said sufficient to get a license.

And again, Obama supports giving driver's licenses to illegals.

Which is outrageous.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

I have not heard anything about it lately but they have been working on instituting a system here in CA that will allow noncitizens to get drivers licenses. While it is obviously not specifically stated apparently part of the practical outcome, and part of the intended aim, is that illegal aliens will have the ability to get drivers licenses.

Yes it is. Status of the parents is irrelevant.

Perhaps you only meant it in this way but illegal status of the parents is irrelevant. Legal status of parents is relevant in determining citizenship. This is part of my wonder at the Birthers though I guess perhaps "natural born" only includes those born within the borders.

Who comes up with these laws?? ... we should be pitch forking the Congress that passes such stupid legislation.

Its in the first clause of the fourteenth amendment and I am sorry but the people responsible, including the voters, who ratified are dead.

Either we're a country of laws or we aren't. If it isn't a "compelling state interest" to enforce our laws, why do we even have them?

Certainly. The constitution is only the first law of the nation. Why have it if we are not willing to uphold it?

While interesting and surprising, it doesn't really change the logic of the issue: The point was that suddenly granting illegals legal status will not increase income tax revenue.

I know that that was your point. I was responding to Kerrie's assumption that illegals do not contribute. Greater awareness leads to stronger arguments.

This is a hot topic precisely because there are no good alternatives.

I am unsure that this is the case though I can not claim to be particularly aware of the circumstances in AZ. It would seem that enforcing laws that require businesses to check the citizenship status of their employees to be compliant with the IRS is a good start. Last I heard immigrant rights activists were fighting these laws tooth and nail so I must assume that there is some level of effectiveness there. Requiring citizenship status to get drivers licenses. Tighter border controls. ect ect. That other means have been hard fought or not well implemented is not an argument that there are no good alternatives. Compromising the constitutional rights of everyone (note the constitution protects anyone inside these borders) as an easy solution does not seem a proper course.

Perhaps Edward or some other person more intimately aware of the legal issues in AZ can let us know about other legislative solutions that are in force and their usefulness or complications.

 

[jtbell]

I can see a major problem: what happens to a citizen who isn't carrying any documentation?

That's my problem with this law. There are millions of Hispanic citizens in this country, many of whose families have been in this country for generations. Remember, much of the southwest U.S. was once part of Mexico! They don't have immigration papers to carry around, any more than I do.

If we're serious about being able to check people's citizenship status on the street, we need an official national photo identity card. How would Congress vote on something like that?

I noted the other day that the sheriff of Pima County, which includes Tucson, announced that he has no intention of enforcing this law, because he thinks it won't stand up in court.

 

[russ_watters]

This is assuming that they never move up in income in relevance to the cost of living. If someone goes from being an illegal to a legal resident in this country, there is a great probability of them obtaining an education that moves them into a higher income bracket, thus contributing to ALL taxes.

That's silly, Kerrie. An adult immigrant is unlikely to become educated and move up - adults just don't do that. Now their kids are likely to move up because they will be educated in the US.

Your statement implies that once they are legal they will no longer have the motivation to improve their lives.

Not at all. It's simpy an issue of the barrier being higher for an immigrant due to lack of education and language issues.

Perhaps the first couple of years their incomes might be small, yet giving them legal residency allows them to pursue an education to make a higher wage thus contributing to the tax system.

I'd be very interested to know what fraction of adult immigrants (legal or not) get extra education in the US. I'd be shocked to learn it was more than a tiny percentage. It just makes no sense that it would be common.

You did say they were a drain on society.

In the context of their lack of contribution to the federal income tax. You're trying to broaden it beyond what it is obvious that I meant.

I can say the same thing-you are ignoring what I am saying.

No, Kerrie, I'm correcting the facutally untruths that you are saying and I am responding to exactly what you mean - in no case have I demonstrated that I misunderstood what you said (otherwise I'm sure you would have corrected me!). The difference is when I say "federal income tax", your response doesn't address the issue of the federal income tax but instead shifts the goal posts to talk about things like social security and Medicare. That's an intentional effort to distract from my point instead of directly addressing it. You've done it, I haven't. When you mention social security, I respond even though it was off topic because I want to be clear on the tax contribution issue.

I'm simply pointing out that you are factually wrong about much of what you are saying and constructing logical strawmen about most of the rest. Very little of our discussion here - on either side - has been based on pure opinion.

Sure, we can theoretically say that the police can question everyone without regards to race. But do you realistically think this will happen? That's the issue-what will really happen, not what should happen. We are talking about Arizona here, and from my experience of living in Phoenix, racism is prominent there.

It is not that difficult to set up a scenario/legal framework where everyone is checked. A sobriety checkpoint is a perfect example. If everyone's being checked at a sobriety chekcpoint, then it really isn't possible for racism to play any part.

I brought it up to prove my point in the benefits of immigration reform to all those who are already here in America illegally.

According to who? You? What was I wrong about? Not agreeing with your opinion?

You made a claim of fact about taxes that is factually wrong. I corrected it. You obfuscated by going off on a tangent about other taxes.

Did your ancestors immigrate to the USA? Mine did, and had they been deported, I may not have had this freedom of speech in this forum and be a citizen of this great country.

Of course mine did. Legally. Did yours come here legally?

There was no namecalling Russ.

I object to your thinly veiled allegations of racism, kerrie. In your statements about my racial or class-based bias and in the racist stramen you are setting up.

 

[russ_watters]

That's my problem with this law. There are millions of Hispanic citizens in this country, many of whose families have been in this country for generations. Remember, much of the southwest U.S. was once part of Mexico! They don't have immigration papers to carry around, any more than I do.

If we're serious about being able to check people's citizenship status on the street, we need an official national photo identity card.

Yes, a real national ID (or standardized state ID that covers relevant identity issues like citizenship) is the answer.

 

[Shalashaska]

Yes, a real national ID (or standardized state ID that covers relevant identity issues like citizenship) is the answer.

That, and aggressively pursuing criminal charges against employers of illegal immigrants. The employers represent a highly visible and legally culpable group, whereas canvasing the country is patently absurd. Oh right, I forgot, people who make money from illegals vote, whereas illegals do not. Silly me. Immigrants who come here for jobs can be indirectly dissuaded by cracking down on employers, and THAT is simple in practice, if not politically. When we take down drug dealers, the object is to roll that back to higher level distributors... in this case we have the option of STARTING from the top.

Not that it matters; immigration is a fact of life, and will continue to be. A standardized national ID would be fantastic, but it's not the best way to approach the issue of illegal immigration.

 

[skeptic2]

Perhaps instead of laws like Arizona's, the U.S. consulates could offer a work visa that would guarantee the holder the right to earn at least minimum wage. This would encourage them to work on the books and pay taxes. This might also have the effect of not driving down wages for those competing for minimum wages.

 

[russ_watters]

That, and aggressively pursuing criminal charges against employers of illegal immigrants.

I meant to the issue of being able to tell legals from illegals, but yes, to the larger issue of illegal immigration, that's another part of the solution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps instead of laws like Arizona's, the U.S. consulates could offer a work visa that would guarantee the holder the right to earn at least minimum wage. This would encourage them to work on the books and pay taxes. This might also have the effect of not driving down wages for those competing for minimum wages.

I am fairly certain that this is already done. A significant percentage of illegals in the US actually originally came here on work visas and simply stayed after their visa expired.

 

[Shalashaska]

I meant to the issue of being able to tell legals from illegals, but yes, to the larger issue of illegal immigration, that's another part of the solution.

I know, I just think it's the FIRST solution. The ID system is important for reasons beyond immigration however, and so very doable now. I think cracking down on employers first might be a good-faith gesture to show this isn't a racial witch hunt. Hell, if a national ID had RFIDs, cops wouldn't even have to stop you, but just check tags. A little Big Brother, but it could work. Hell, traffic lights could have sensors to check, and encryption could be used to ensure fidelity.

That would be practical compared to stretching our police powers to smack around the constitution and distract from their primary role.

 

[skeptic2]

I am fairly certain that this is already done. A significant percentage of illegals in the US actually originally came here on work visas and simply stayed after their visa expired.

It's true there are H1Bs but those are initiated by the employer and do not guarantee a minimum wage. In fact many employers satisfy the requirement that they can't find any Americans to fill the position by offering the position at a salary no American would take. I discovered once that an African working in my department with an H1B and doing the same job I was, was earning about 1/4 what I was.

I don't believe there are any visas offered that allow the holder to choose his employer or that guarantee a minimum wage from an employer. The minimum wage guarantee is important because it offers incentive for the immigrant to enter legally, it keeps wages higher, it would increase revenue with withholding taxes and encourages employers to hire U.S. citizens. The last because if he is required to pay Americans and foreigners the same, why not hire the American?

 

[CRGreathouse]

A little Big Brother, but it could work.

Just a little?

 

[Char. Limit]

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

Really, was this necessary?

"blonde and blue eyed"

"Papiere, Bitte"

Don't you know that comparing anything to the Nazis has become completely meaningless, because literally EVERYTHING has been compared to them at some point?

The only thing that's stopping me from crying "Godwin's Law!" is the fact that this law does sound like something that would go over well in das Dritte Reich.

 

[skeptic2]

A significant percentage of illegals in the US actually originally came here on work visas and simply stayed after their visa expired.

The idea is that if a visa were to offer significant advantages to the holder, there would be little incentive to allow the visa to expire.

 

[Shalashaska]

Just a little?

Compared to what you can get from GoogleEarth, Spokeo, the "big 3" credit firms, and the NSA... yeah, very little.

 

[BobG]

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?

Sobriety checkpoints conducted by Michigan in 1986 were found constitutional. However, you need to read the decision, MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ to understand what that means.

The court agreed that sobriety checkpoints constituted "seizure" per the 4th Amendment, but the relevant issue was whether the seizures were reasonable. Since the "seizures" were minimal, it was valid to apply a balancing test to determine whether they were reasonable. In other words, was the inconvenience to law abiding citizens justified by the result. All sobriety checkpoints have to pass that balancing test in order to be legal.

In the Michigan checkpoints, the average stop was 25 seconds and resulted in 1.6 percent of the people stopped being arrested for DUI. In fact, of the 126 vehicles stopped, only 2 drivers were given field sobriety tests. One was found to be drunk. A third driver drove right through the checkpoint without stopping and was also arrested for DUI.

In other words, to pass the balancing test, sobriety checkpoints can only be used to determine if there's probable cause to conduct a sobriety test. Any checkpoint that administered field sobriety tests to all drivers would be found to be unconstitutional.

Using the same logic, the police could stop all vehicles to determine if there were probable cause to check their documents to see if they are in the US legally or illegaly. What signs will the police stopping them use to determine if there's probable cause? (Race won't be one of them because I guarantee that requiring American citizens of Hispanic descent to produce documentation of their citizenship is going to result in the law being struck down.)

I'd also note that the Michican-Stitz decision was as flawed by random numbers as any decision made by math averse liberal arts majors could possibly be.

Similar checkpoints to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles (Delaware vs Prouse) were struck down because there was no empirical data to suggest the checkpoints were effective. "t seems common sense that the percentage of all drivers on the road who are driving without a license is very small and that the number of licensed drivers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will be large indeed" was the best rationale the court could come up with since no numbers were presented to them.

The problem with Michigan-Stitz is that the numbers presented say nothing about the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints. In actuality, they may have no effect on drunk driving and do nothing to improve highway safety.

"Maryland had conducted a study comparing traffic statistics between a county using checkpoints and a control county. The results of the study showed that alcohol-related accidents in the checkpoint county decreased by ten percent, whereas the control county saw an eleven percent decrease; and while fatal accidents in the control county fell from sixteen to three, fatal accidents in the checkpoint county actually doubled from the prior year."

One study between two counties is meaningless. But so were the numbers used to justify the reasonableness of Michigan's sobriety checkpoints.

So, the bottom line is that any plan to stop random people on the street has to be minimally intrusive (25 seconds at most?). It has to quickly determine if there is probable cause to do a more thorough check of the person's documentation and it has to be proven to be effective enough to justify even a minimal intrusion of a person's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. (Or alternatively, Arizona will have to toss some fearsome random numbers at the court in order to intimidate them into finding the law constitutional.)

 

[Shalashaska]

<snip>
The problem with Michigan-Stitz is that the numbers presented say nothing about the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints. In actuality, they may have no effect on drunk driving and do nothing to improve highway safety.

...Which also means that is a wasted resource that could be better deployed: e.g. a negative impact overall.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's true there are H1Bs but those are initiated by the employer and do not guarantee a minimum wage. In fact many employers satisfy the requirement that they can't find any Americans to fill the position by offering the position at a salary no American would take. I discovered once that an African working in my department with an H1B and doing the same job I was, was earning about 1/4 what I was.

I don't believe there are any visas offered that allow the holder to choose his employer or that guarantee a minimum wage from an employer. The minimum wage guarantee is important because it offers incentive for the immigrant to enter legally, it keeps wages higher, it would increase revenue with withholding taxes and encourages employers to hire U.S. citizens. The last because if he is required to pay Americans and foreigners the same, why not hire the American?

Sorry, I was unaware that they did not require a minimum wage. Good point.

 

[BobG]

It's true there are H1Bs but those are initiated by the employer and do not guarantee a minimum wage. In fact many employers satisfy the requirement that they can't find any Americans to fill the position by offering the position at a salary no American would take. I discovered once that an African working in my department with an H1B and doing the same job I was, was earning about 1/4 what I was.

I don't believe there are any visas offered that allow the holder to choose his employer or that guarantee a minimum wage from an employer. The minimum wage guarantee is important because it offers incentive for the immigrant to enter legally, it keeps wages higher, it would increase revenue with withholding taxes and encourages employers to hire U.S. citizens. The last because if he is required to pay Americans and foreigners the same, why not hire the American?

Minimum wage applies to all workers (allowing for tips that push overall income above minimum wage).

Workers paid less than minimum wage are those the employer carries off the books. Not only does the employer save money by paying "unofficial" employees less, but they also escape paying their share of Social Security taxes, unemployment taxes, etc.

As to the last, why would an employer care whether he was hiring an American or a foreigner? Some might purely for ideological reasons, but there are probably just as many that would hire whoever would do the most work for the lowest wage, regardless of where they come from. The only thing an employer is going to care about is whether they can get in trouble for hiring the foreigner illegally.

Considering an employee needs a Social Security number in order for the employer to carry him on the books with some assurance that the worker is here legally, being an illegal immigrant makes it more likely for an illegal immigrant to take a job "off the books". In that sense, illegal immigrants are much more likely to take jobs any person here legally would try to avoid.

Even an illegal immigrant would find it beneficial to obtain a Social Security card since it would increase their chance of making at least minimum wage. Fake Social Security cards and numbers suffice just fine since the Social Security office virtually never checks the validity of social security numbers submitted by employers. This is a great deal for the Social Security Department, since that illegal alien can only pay - they can never submit a claim for Social Security benefits they've contributed to.

In fact, fake social security numbers are a chronic problem that sometimes comes back to haunt the person that "owns" that social security number, since credit bureaus and others use those social security numbers. The Social Security office not only doesn't check the validity themselves, but they make it practically impossible for a person to find out if anyone else is using that number.

 

[Kerrie]

That's silly, Kerrie. An adult immigrant is unlikely to become educated and move up - adults just don't do that. Now their kids are likely to move up because they will be educated in the US.

Right, so we send these children who grew up as American citizens, who speak English to a country they do not know because their parents are deported?

It's simpy an issue of the barrier being higher for an immigrant due to lack of education and language issues. I'd be very interested to know what fraction of adult immigrants (legal or not) get extra education in the US. I'd be shocked to learn it was more than a tiny percentage.

See my story below, however this is a proposed act for the youth of illegals, who most likely would care for their parents that brought them here.
""www.dreamact.info"[/URL]
Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.

The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service."

[QUOTE] The difference is when I say "federal income tax", your response doesn't address the issue of the federal income tax but instead shifts the goal posts to talk about things like social security and Medicare. [/QUOTE]

You are asserting your assumption that ALL immigrants will never pay FIT in the course of their careers, however, granting them easier access to residency and an education will eliminate this, correct? I know plenty of folks born in the USA that don't have the determination to be a successful part of society. And if Statutory Ape's link is accurate, then your assumption that illegals aren't contributing to the federal income tax pot is incorrect.

[QUOTE] Of course mine did. Legally. Did yours come here legally? [/QUOTE]
My great grandmother came from Sicily in the 20's with the masses of European immigrants. It is hard to know what the laws were at that time because she's deceased. My grandfather escaped communism from Czechoslovakia in the 1940's before immigrants from communist countries were shut out. He came with nothing, and was not legal. He did not speak a word of English, but taught himself English by listening to TV & Radio and browsing the newspapers. He only worked for himself and had a successful relocation/moving business within 10 years that enabled my mother to live in a wealthy Los Angeles suburb. He was not pushed out by others, but encouraged because he had sheer will and determination to live a better life than his own home country could provide him.

[QUOTE]I object to your thinly veiled allegations of racism, kerrie. In your statements about my racial or class-based bias and in the racist stramen you are setting up.[/QUOTE]
This is a narcissistic statement Russ, I was referring to the police officers in Phoenix who would base a search on race.

 

[skeptic2]

Workers paid less than minimum wage are those the employer carries off the books. Not only does the employer save money by paying "unofficial" employees less, but they also escape paying their share of Social Security taxes, unemployment taxes, etc.

One method I know is in use at a chicken processing plant in Tennessee is to intentionally hire illegal aliens and after HR verifies the SSN is illegal, it calls the worker in and tells him there is a court order requiring that child support payments must be deducted from that SSN, thus reducing the worker's pay to below minimum wage.

Considering an employee needs a Social Security number in order for the employer to carry him on the books with some assurance that the worker is here legally, being an illegal immigrant makes it more likely for an illegal immigrant to take a job "off the books". In that sense, illegal immigrants are much more likely to take jobs any person here legally would try to avoid.

Even an illegal immigrant would find it beneficial to obtain a Social Security card since it would increase their chance of making at least minimum wage. Fake Social Security cards and numbers suffice just fine since the Social Security office virtually never checks the validity of social security numbers submitted by employers. This is a great deal for the Social Security Department, since that illegal alien can only pay - they can never submit a claim for Social Security benefits they've contributed to.

In fact, fake social security numbers are a chronic problem that sometimes comes back to haunt the person that "owns" that social security number, since credit bureaus and others use those social security numbers. The Social Security office not only doesn't check the validity themselves, but they make it practically impossible for a person to find out if anyone else is using that number.

In the early 90's I heard from a reliable source that for about $12,000, a legal SSN could be purchased. By legal, I mean the people at the SSA who enter applicants into the system and issue cards would enter an illegal into the system and issue a bonafide card that would pass all tests. For similar sums other legal documents like birth certificates could be obtained too.

 

[Shalashaska]

One method I know is in use at a chicken processing plant in Tennessee is to intentionally hire illegal aliens and after HR verifies the SSN is illegal, they call the worker in and tell them there is a court order requiring that child support payments must be deducted from that SSN, thus reducing the worker's pay to below minimum wage.
In the early 90's I heard from a reliable source that for about $12,000, a legal SSN could be purchased. By legal, I mean the people at the SSA who enter applicants into the system and issue cards would enter an illegal into the system and issue a bonafide card that would pass all tests. For similar sums other legal documents like birth certificates could be obtained too.

Given the number of identities for "sale" online, I can't imagine anyone bothering with such a crude and traceable method. Following a trail of BNCs and proxies is a hell of a lot harder than following "the money".

 

[rootX]

(Issued August 2003) Educational Attainment by race and gender: 2000[2]
Census 2000 Brief
Percent of Adults 25 and over in group
Ranked by advanced degree HS SC BA AD
Asian alone . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.4 64.6 44.1 17.4
Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.1 52.5 26.1 10.0
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.. . . . 85.5 55.4 27.0 9.8
White alone... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.6 54.1 26.1 9.5
Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 51.1 22.8 7.8
Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . . 73.3 48.1 19.6 7.0
Black or African American alone . . . . . 72.3 42.5 14.3 4.8
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 78.3 44.6 13.8 4.1
American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . 70.9 41.7 11.5 3.9
Hispanic or Latino (of any race).. . . . . 52.4 30.3 10.4 3.8
Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . 46.8 25.0 7.3 2.3
HS = high school completed SC = some college
BA = bachelor degree AD = advanced degree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ited_States_by_race_and_other_classifications

Some immigrants outperform natives I believe while Hispanic don't look good here.

 

[Shalashaska]

(Issued August 2003) Educational Attainment by race and gender: 2000[2]
Census 2000 Brief
Percent of Adults 25 and over in group
Ranked by advanced degree HS SC BA AD
Asian alone . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.4 64.6 44.1 17.4
Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.1 52.5 26.1 10.0
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.. . . . 85.5 55.4 27.0 9.8
White alone... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.6 54.1 26.1 9.5
Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 51.1 22.8 7.8
Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . . 73.3 48.1 19.6 7.0
Black or African American alone . . . . . 72.3 42.5 14.3 4.8
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 78.3 44.6 13.8 4.1
American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . 70.9 41.7 11.5 3.9
Hispanic or Latino (of any race).. . . . . 52.4 30.3 10.4 3.8
Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . 46.8 25.0 7.3 2.3
HS = high school completed SC = some college
BA = bachelor degree AD = advanced degree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ited_States_by_race_and_other_classifications

Some immigrants outperform natives I believe while Hispanic don't look good here.

What relevance does this have? If you broke this down by purely economic standing what would you find?

 

[Char. Limit]

This is especially pointless considering the data is ten years old...

A lot can happen in ten years, you know. For example, I'm pretty sure that women are outperforming men on every college level. At least, it had better be that way considering the admission percentage by gender...

 

[BobG]

One method I know is in use at a chicken processing plant in Tennessee is to intentionally hire illegal aliens and after HR verifies the SSN is illegal, it calls the worker in and tells him there is a court order requiring that child support payments must be deducted from that SSN, thus reducing the worker's pay to below minimum wage.

That would work. Getting ripped off is part of being an illegal alien, whether it's contributing FICA taxes that they can never collect on or whether it's being unlucky enough to buy a SSN that's already carrying obligations.

Immigrants stealing U.S. Social Security numbers for jobs, not profits

 

[Matterwave]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to clarify one point. I quote from the law:

20 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).

This makes a point very clear.

You do NOT need to have broken another law to be checked out by the police. The police just need to have "reasonable suspicion". What "reasonable suspicion" means in this context is not given in the law that I found. Lawful contact here can be more than stopping someone for a traffic violation or other violation. As far as I know, it is lawful for policemen to randomly make contact with citizens at any time on public property. The only instances of unlawful contact would be for intruding into your house or other private property without a warrant or immediate danger (such as chasing another criminal).

 

[Kerrie]

Can you clarify which state, and which version of the law this refers to?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to clarify one point. I quote from the law:


This makes a point very clear.

You do NOT need to have broken another law to be checked out by the police. The police just need to have "reasonable suspicion". What "reasonable suspicion" means in this context is not given in the law that I found. Lawful contact here can be more than stopping someone for a traffic violation or other violation. As far as I know, it is lawful for policemen to randomly make contact with citizens at any time on public property. The only instances of unlawful contact would be for intruding into your house or other private property without a warrant or immediate danger (such as chasing another criminal).

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/
Its a bit old but a decent overview of relevant court decisions. The police must have "reasonable suspicion" to stop you and ask for ID. They can certainly "make contact" with you so long as they do not force you to give them any information. It could even be argued that if the officer so much as made you feel as if you were being compelled to give information then your rights were violated.

 

[skeptic2]

That would work. Getting ripped off is part of being an illegal alien, whether it's contributing FICA taxes that they can never collect on or whether it's being unlucky enough to buy a SSN that's already carrying obligations.

The SSNs were not carrying obligations. The employer knew the SSNs were false and used that knowledge to reduce the pay of those employees. The ploy used by the employer that there were child support payments attached to the SSN was completely false.

 

[Matterwave]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/
Its a bit old but a decent overview of relevant court decisions. The police must have "reasonable suspicion" to stop you and ask for ID. They can certainly "make contact" with you so long as they do not force you to give them any information. It could even be argued that if the officer so much as made you feel as if you were being compelled to give information then your rights were violated.

Yes I know that "reasonable suspicion" is necessary; the wording is in the law itself. The first 3 sentences of my post was addressing this issue. "Reasonable suspicion" as applied to this particular law, however, can be hard to judge at times. Does looking Mexican or non-Caucasian give "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant? Does not speaking English? Does hanging out by the home depot looking for work arouse "reasonable suspicion"?

"Reasonable suspicion" can be used right. For example, if you see a man walking down the street with a bloody machete, a block away from a murder by machete, then obviously it's smart to detain this man under "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". However, when we try to apply "reasonable suspicion" to this law, the morality of it becomes hazy and may lead to racial profiling.

This is a separate issue from the issue I was trying to address in my post though.

My point in my post has less to do with the reasonable suspicion (on whether or not you are an illegal immigrant) than to do with the fact that the police are allowed to ask you for ID GIVEN that reasonable suspicion (that you are an illegal immigrant), whatever that may mean, is present. They DO NOT need to have you ALREADY detained for some other previous crime or misdemeanor. The part I quoted, I think, makes this point very clear when they say "For ANY lawful contact...".

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes I know that "reasonable suspicion" is necessary; the wording is in the law itself. The first 3 sentences of my post was addressing this issue. "Reasonable suspicion" as applied to this particular law, however, can be hard to judge at times. Does looking Mexican or non-Caucasian give "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant? Does not speaking English? Does hanging out by the home depot looking for work arouse "reasonable suspicion"?

None of those would be sufficient. Reasonable suspicion is a specific legal standard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.

Stronger than reasonable suspicion would be probable cause (the standard required for arrest), preponderance of evidence (the usual standard for prevailing in civil proceedings), clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for criminal cases).

As to what would actually happen, I have no idea. But the law as written does not allow any of your examples.

"Reasonable suspicion" can be used right. For example, if you see a man walking down the street with a bloody machete, a block away from a murder by machete, then obviously it's smart to detain this man under "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause".

That would easily be probable cause: the man could be arrested.

 

[mheslep]

None of those would be sufficient. Reasonable suspicion is a specific legal standard...

I'm curious about about that. Reasonable suspicion, like Miranda notification, is required under due process to convict, not to detain or arrest. As was just pointed out for some of these terrorists incidents, the cops don't have to Mirandize unless they want assurance of conviction later. So absent RS, what's to stop the cops from simply detaining, identifying as illegal, and deporting? I suppose either federal civil rights legislation, or civil law suits? I vaguely recall the latter was specifically included in the Az law, maybe for this reason.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't know if this is racist or not, but I do know if I looked to be hispanic, I would not want to be in Arizona now. Well, I have been there before, and I didn't want to be there at the time either; dry and hot place, but nice canyons.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I'm curious about about that. Reasonable suspicion, like Miranda notification, is required under due process to convict, not to detain or arrest. As was just pointed out for some of these terrorists incidents, the cops don't have to Mirandize unless they want assurance of conviction later. So absent RS, what's to stop the cops from simply detaining, identifying as illegal, and deporting? I suppose either federal civil rights legislation, or civil law suits? I vaguely recall the latter was specifically included in the Az law, maybe for this reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

They cannot make you show ID or talk under Reasonable Suspicion, so how is it useful unless there is something to be arrested on? If the person is not legally in the USA then they have no recourse, but if they are, and the police officer oversteps then I think that is a lawsuit there.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm curious about about that. Reasonable suspicion, like Miranda notification, is required under due process to convict, not to detain or arrest.

Huh?

Reasonable suspicion is required, I believe, to detain; it's apparently required by the law under discussion here. More than reasonable suspicion is required to arrest -- in particular, that requires probable cause. Conviction generally requires a yet higher standard, usually either clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. The Miranda notifications aren't required for detention, arrest, or conviction (see, e.g., Florida v. Powell; c.f. Dickerson v. United States).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Huh?

Reasonable suspicion is required, I believe, to detain; it's apparently required by the law under discussion here. More than reasonable suspicion is required to arrest -- in particular, that requires probable cause. Conviction generally requires a yet higher standard, usually either clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. The Miranda notifications aren't required for detention, arrest, or conviction.

A police officer can arrest for nothing at all, and detain on reasonable suspicion, or take action on probable cause. It is in the law, but it seems to be against other laws and jurisprudence. Reasonable Suspicion isn't enough to search someone's car, or demand identification, so how can it be used to determine legal status? Upon refusal, the officer can then arrest you of course, but as you point out this sets more into motion.

How is Miranda not required for conviction?

Let me clear something, they can arrest you for nothing, but you'll be out in a heart's beat, and it opens wrongful arrest charges. In practice this seems rare. Detention in this case is only in the context of detaining for investigation, and upon conclusion it is arrest, or freedom, or a choice to have a "friendly talk".

 

[mheslep]

Huh?

Reasonable suspicion is required, I believe, to detain; it's apparently required by the law under discussion here. More than reasonable suspicion is required to arrest -- in particular, that requires probable cause. Conviction generally requires a yet higher standard, usually either clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. The Miranda notifications aren't required for detention, arrest, or conviction.

Back at ya. I didn't say Reasonable Suspicion was sufficient to convict. I say that if a search or detaining action is done which results in an arrest, the demonstration of RS on behalf of the cops is then required to introduce any evidence obtained in keeping with the Due Process clause of the the 5th. Miranda is applied similarly.

Now, absent an interest in convictions or fear of a subsequent law suit (for harassment?), what legal, physical restraint do you assert is on the cops to use RS in a search or detaining action? There is no 'failure to use Reasonable Suspicion' criminal law that would allow a 2nd cop to arrest the 1st.

 

[mheslep]

I don't know if this is racist or not, but I do know if I looked to be hispanic, I would not want to be in Arizona now. Well, I have been there before, and I didn't want to be there at the time either; dry and hot place, but nice canyons.

Try this. Tuscon City Council, speaker last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShkpO9Rf1bo

 

[CRGreathouse]

Let me clear something, they can arrest you for nothing, but you'll be out in a heart's beat, and it opens wrongful arrest charges.

I said only what was required by law, not what would happen. Of course people (including police officers) violate the law.

How is Miranda not required for conviction?

How would it be?

Miranda v Arizona gave specific guidance to police officers. If the guidance is followed, they're indemnified against certain claims. If not, there's no such legal safe harbor. For example, if a suspect is arrested and confesses without being read her Miranda rights, the confession may be inadmissible. But that need not bar conviction. Etc. (See my citation above for more wrangling. Certainly I wouldn't recommend skipping giving a Miranda warning!)

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Try this. Tuscon City Council, speaker last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShkpO9Rf1bo

So, you are stopped for having a brake-light out, yes? What is the reasonable suspicion from there? Someone who does not speak English could be visiting, and if they do not have to provide ID on this RS, then how do you make this determination? If I have reasonable suspicion that you are preparing to commit a burglary, and I detain you, search your car and find gloves, bolt cutters, and a knife, that is Reasonable Suspicion to detain, but not probable cause. You will be arrested, but if you do not talk, it is a hard case to make, I think.

If you have a brake-light out, and you consent to search your car, and nothing is found?... then what? There is no right to demand identification if a crime is not committed, and how else do you know if this person is illegal? As the nice lady said, it is nowhere in the law that people of a specific color are to be stopped, but it seems very obvious.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I said only what was required by law, not what would happen. Of course people (including police officers) violate the law.
How would it be?

Miranda v Arizona gave specific guidance to police officers. If the guidance is followed, they're indemnified against certain claims. If not, there's no such legal safe harbor. For example, if a suspect is arrested and confesses without being read her Miranda rights, the confession may be inadmissible. But that need not bar conviction. Etc. (See my citation above for more wrangling. Certainly I wouldn't recommend skipping giving a Miranda warning!)

Ah, I understand, if I later confess to murder, Miranda or no, I can be found guilty if they are later given to me and I choose to speak, or if they find a bloody knife with my fingerprints and DNA. There is a good reason why police like confessions I think. What police officer would be so stupid to risk an evidence chain? Do you know of the term, "Fruit of The Poisoned Tree?" regarding evidence? You wrongfully search my car, find a loaded gun that is stolen, and a kilogram of drugs. You then go to my home, and find an enormous stash of drugs and weapons. You searched my home because of an illegal search of my vehicle, and now both are inadmissible in court.

 

[CRGreathouse]

After a Google search I also found United States v. Patane which is relevant.

Ah, I understand, if I later confess to murder, Miranda or no, I can be found guilty if they are later given to me and I choose to speak, or if they find a bloody knife with my fingerprints and DNA. There is a good reason why police like confessions I think. What police officer would be so stupid to risk an evidence chain? Do you know of the term, "Fruit of The Poisoned Tree?" regarding evidence? You wrongfully search my car, find a loaded gun that is stolen, and a kilogram of drugs. You then go to my home, and find an enormous stash of drugs and weapons. You searched my home because of an illegal search of my vehicle, and now both are inadmissible in court.

These situations are extremely difficult and I'd prefer not to make specific comment. State law varies and is quite relevant: for example California generally admits evidence even when obtained wrongfully. Confessions are also special; there is case law on both sides (Dickerson v. United States on one; I've read one on the other but can't recall the citation offhand).