Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[Pangloss]

On Friday Arizona's governor signed a new bill into law for that state which requires police to check an individual's citizenship status if they suspect that the individual is in the country illegally.

 

Couple articles pulled at random from Google News:

a liberal source

a conservative source

 

The state doesn't allow racial profiling, but some see this as a slippery slope to that very thing. The state already allows for checking when it has a suspect in custody, and it's not the only state that allows that (see second source above).

 

From the LA Times article:

 

Brewer spent as much time during her remarks talking about diversity and the need to avoid racial profiling as she did about fighting crime and protecting Arizona from illegal immigration. "People across America are watching Arizona, seeing how we implement this law, ready to jump on the slightest misstep," she said.

 

But the law's opponents were highly skeptical that it could be enforced without police singling out Latinos. One provision of the law prevents police from using race "solely" to form a suspicion about someone's legality, but the law does not prevent race from being a factor.

 

The problem is numbers -- Federal enforcement is insufficient to deal with the problem. Local enforcement has to participate. So I'm not really sure I see the problem here. If race does become a reason for checking citizenship then yes, that would need to be stopped. But as far as I can tell the opposition to this law seems to equate to be a gradualism argument (slippery slope fallacy) -- wanting to hold the line here due to prejudice and racism, both real and imagined.

 

I understand they have concerns, but what exactly is the opposing argument? We talk all the time about Republicans/conservatives not having a plan for the economy. Well what exactly is the Democrat/liberal plan for immigration? To do nothing to secure the border, but give citizenship to those here illegally? How is that NOT an argument for leaving the border open and uncontrolled? How is it NOT self-serving and a direct abuse of the democratic system of government to advocate ignoring the law so that your party can pick up millions of new voters?

 

And if that's NOT their plan, then what exactly is it?

 

Immigrants are having a tough time with their lot, I get it -- I'm sorry, and I'm happy to help them out of human kindness. But one of the reasons I CAN help them out is because we HAVE a border. Is it really THAT unreasonable for me to want that border to remain -- NOT CLOSED! -- but under control?

 

What do you all think?

[Dak]

The state doesn't allow racial profiling, but some see this as a slippery slope to that very thing.

 

The problem with racial profiling (which personally I think can be gotten around in better ways than simply banning it) is that if you focus on mainly investigating, say, black people for theft, then black people will obviously be caught stealing stuff more often, and then the statistics will justify picking on the darkies (thus perpetuating the situation).

 

I don't see how that could apply to illegal immigration: non-natives are the sole demographic that commit the crime of illegal immigration, so there's no chance of unfairness here.

 

(the slippery slope that i'd be worried about, comming from the UK, is that suspected immigrants will merely be the first group to suffer ID spot-checks and thus the obligation to always carry ID).

[Mr Skeptic]

As I see it, illegal immigration is a problem because of all these reasons:

1) Certain people want to come to the US

2) Certain people want said people to work for them.

3) The law forbids more than a certain number of immigrants, regardless of their skill or value.

4) Inability to enforce #3, partly due to #2.

 

The immigrants contribute to our economy... the peoples don't want them gone, and the cops can't do it themselves. My solution would be to make it easier to come to the US (if only to work rather than get citizenship), but keep the riffraff out. Then people wouldn't want anything to do with illegal immigrants because they would all be the riffraff.

[padren]

As I see it, illegal immigration is a problem because of all these reasons:

1) Certain people want to come to the US

2) Certain people want said people to work for them.

3) The law forbids more than a certain number of immigrants, regardless of their skill or value.

4) Inability to enforce #3, partly due to #2.

 

This is largely true, but I believe the significant issue is "Certain people want said people to work for them for wages and under conditions that are illegal."

Due to this factor, said employers don't care what happens to these guys - they use them as long as they can and when they don't show up because they got picked up by INS, they just grab fresh illegals to throw at their job. The sad part is we benefit as an economy from this, the employer benefits by chronically breaking the law, and the people they drag up get lucky for a little while, chewed up and spat out. Of course they are breaking the law by working illegally but you pretty much have to deport all of them continuously to have any impact on the key elements (employers) driving this cycle.

 

I think the best solution is if you employ an illegal alien and that can be proven, you immediately and legally become their sponsor for citizenship - and right now that includes the right for the government to sue you for reimbursement for any publicly funded services they obtain. Their application may still be denied, given criminal background checks and all the other factors, but it won't get you off the hook for their debts.

It would be messy, and employers would try to push it off in court saying they were unaware and their underling manager did all the naughty things... but no one would want to get stuck in that mess.

 

 

 

As for the legality of this AZ law, it seems very dubious to me, because what exactly would constitute "suspicious activity suggesting illegal immigration status" to an officer? Short of dashing across the border, I can't think of anything that an illegal immigrant would do behaviorally that any law abiding citizen would not also do.

By that measure, the only way for this law to have an impact is to consider lawful activity suspicious, and that applies an unfair burden on those lawful citizens just going about their day.

 

Can anyone think of any? I'm happy to be proven wrong, I just can't think of anything that wouldn't count as some sort of profiling.

[iNow]

Show me your papers!

 

 

 

Am I the only one who sees the fascist parallels?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As for the legality of this AZ law, it seems very dubious to me, because what exactly would constitute "suspicious activity suggesting illegal immigration status" to an officer? Short of dashing across the border, I can't think of anything that an illegal immigrant would do behaviorally that any law abiding citizen would not also do.

By that measure, the only way for this law to have an impact is to consider lawful activity suspicious, and that applies an unfair burden on those lawful citizens just going about their day.

I, too, am curious to see if some sort of reasonable response to this point actually exists.

[jryan]

Am I the only one who sees the fascist parallels?

 

Yes.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, this is absolutely "show me your papers" stuff. I strongly disagree with that part of the law. Forcing people to carry their documentation is a proven slippery slope. And it's a total offense to a freedom loving society.

 

I don't have a problem with investigating employers to verify they have received proper documentation from their workers and pressing charges for "soft slavery" if they haven't and are not paying their share of taxes - funding the government.

 

In some measure, I may have to concede some level of investigative technique to verify a person's legal citizenship, but it should be done through a respectful, civil due process of law.

 

How do I prove I'm a citizen? Do I carry my birth certificate around everywhere I go? Or do I get a pass because I'm caucasian? There are plenty of caucasian immigrants so it's not like it clears me from possible illegal status. What exactly is it that governs the discretion of who needs to carry papers and who doesn't? The idea that only immigrants are required to carry such, is inconsistent with common sense - how do you know I'm an immigrant in order to demand my paperwork?

 

Very oppressive. Insulting. I like controlling the border. I don't have a problem with militarizing it either. I don't care what "message" that sends. I do care about harrassing the citizenry for on-the-spot documentation on mere suspicion. Unacceptable.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Am I the only one who sees the fascist parallels?

 

Yes.

 

No.

 

I understand they have concerns, but what exactly is the opposing argument? We talk all the time about Republicans/conservatives not having a plan for the economy. Well what exactly is the Democrat/liberal plan for immigration? To do nothing to secure the border, but give citizenship to those here illegally? How is that NOT an argument for leaving the border open and uncontrolled? How is it NOT self-serving and a direct abuse of the democratic system of government to advocate ignoring the law so that your party can pick up millions of new voters?

 

I can't speak for them, I suppose. But I don't see the conflict in controlling our borders and not dolling out citizenship to illegal immigrants. They're illegal, and should be deported. Employers should be charged - with fines that equal the taxes that should have been paid if they had hired legally and paid them fairly.

 

I realize we're in 2010, but that's no reason to ditch the fundamental freedom of movement that we enjoy and expect here. I shouldn't have to carry one iota of identification of any kind. Only if I'm operating a motor vehicle should I be required to show a license that I can operate it. The authorities have a right to identify me if I'm being investigated in a crime where I am a suspect. If we suspect someone is guilty of illegal immigration, then how about we go to the trouble to use the same tools we use in any suspected criminal behavior? Their documentation to prove their status would be a natural consequence of such investigation, and steers us clear of harrassing folks based on their skin color, presumably anyway.

Edited April 24, 2010 by ParanoiA
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

Am I the only one who sees the fascist parallels? [/Quote]

 

iNow; I certainly hope so....that's an absurd analogy and no one in Arizona is going to be deprived their total 'due process', even if illegally in the US, members of a gang, dealing drugs, kidnapping, murder or anything else.

 

I will say this however; The law IS probably illegal in itself as written, along the line of forced enforcement. It has probably already been challenged and by tonight (Monday at the latest) an injunction will be placed AGAINST compliance by law enforcement, throughout the State. Maybe, just maybe, the Democratic Party and the far right Conservatives, will get off whatever horse their riding and DO SOMETHING. Reagan, did what he could, Bush/McCain tried and Obama/Reid/Polosi promised. Frankly, I'm at the point of giving amnesty to any person, not currently documented, having been here and can prove it, for 5 years, with out a past or current criminal record, period.

 

Thread; Green Valley Arizona, a retirement community that reached 50k people, a few years back, now 35k, about 45 miles north of the Mexican Border, is one example of what drug trafficking through that area has involved and for a very long time. My parents moved out after 23 years, in the early 90's when this began getting out of hand. Phoenix, now the US Capital for KIDNAPPING (drug related) has an even larger group of retired people (Sun City), with similar problems. Sleepy little Arizona, now with 6.5M people (less than 1M until near 1960, needed to try and get the attention of Washington, which contrary to what they are paying attention to, IS THEIR responsibility.

 

Here is a listing of a thousand homes, in GV, that would sell for 3-4 times (many cases) asking price anyplace else in the US, including Detroit. I'll address the migrant worker thing, if you like, but this is not their problem or issue, media is emphasizing the wrong issue, IMO.

 

http://www.trulia.com/AZ/Green_Valley/

[swansont]

Employers should be charged - with fines that equal the taxes that should have been paid if they had hired legally and paid them fairly.

 

Larger, I think, to give them more incentive to comply. If all they have to do is pay the difference, the only risk they run is getting caught, and since you won't catch 100% of the offenders, it's still a financial win to hire illegal immigrants. (But this does nothing if the illegal has bought forged documents and there's no way to check them.)

 

As far as the law goes, I suspect that after a few citizens are detained and sue for violation of their civil rights, it will be overturned or not enforced aggressively. In Brown v Texas, SCOTUS held that you can't detain someone and ask for ID without reasonable suspicion that they are committing a crime.

 

The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. 3 Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is

 

Reversed.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=443&invol=47

[ParanoiA]

Larger, I think, to give them more incentive to comply. If all they have to do is pay the difference, the only risk they run is getting caught, and since you won't catch 100% of the offenders, it's still a financial win to hire illegal immigrants. (But this does nothing if the illegal has bought forged documents and there's no way to check them.)

 

Yes, good point. And to be clear, when I say charges, I mean charges. Maybe I'm getting a little dramatic here, but this is generally unfair wage practice made possible with this illegal status which removes the protections and rights that we, citizens, all enjoy. That makes the illegals helpless to exploitation and abuse and we know that goes on.

 

I don't mean to imply there aren't decent people hiring illegal immigrants - I woudn't be surprised if some of them still pay them very fairly, sympathizing with their plight and work ethic. But that's a small percentage. And while still illegal, I would like not to bring the hammer down so much on those folks.

 

As far as the law goes, I suspect that after a few citizens are detained and sue for violation of their civil rights, it will be overturned or not enforced aggressively. In Brown v Texas, SCOTUS held that you can't detain someone and ask for ID without reasonable suspicion that they are committing a crime.

 

Ah, excellent. I'll bet you're right.

[Mr Skeptic]

Am I the only one who sees the fascist parallels?

 

Only against people who are a different ethnicity than me

 

I think the best solution is if you employ an illegal alien and that can be proven, you immediately and legally become their sponsor for citizenship - and right now that includes the right for the government to sue you for reimbursement for any publicly funded services they obtain. Their application may still be denied, given criminal background checks and all the other factors, but it won't get you off the hook for their debts.

It would be messy, and employers would try to push it off in court saying they were unaware and their underling manager did all the naughty things... but no one would want to get stuck in that mess.

 

I can't speak for them, I suppose. But I don't see the conflict in controlling our borders and not dolling out citizenship to illegal immigrants. They're illegal, and should be deported. Employers should be charged - with fines that equal the taxes that should have been paid if they had hired legally and paid them fairly.

 

These both seem like good ideas. To ParanoiA's I'd add that the illegal immigrant should be paid the difference between what the illegal employer payed, and the average wage for that position. This gives illegal immigrants big leverage over the illegal employers, and would encourage them to keep some nice documentation for when they have to or decide to leave that company. Hopefully, the illegal employers won't like this idea and will be more careful about hiring illegally.

[Pangloss]

As I see it, illegal immigration is a problem because of all these reasons:

1) Certain people want to come to the US

2) Certain people want said people to work for them.

3) The law forbids more than a certain number of immigrants, regardless of their skill or value.

4) Inability to enforce #3, partly due to #2.

 

The immigrants contribute to our economy... the peoples don't want them gone, and the cops can't do it themselves. My solution would be to make it easier to come to the US (if only to work rather than get citizenship), but keep the riffraff out. Then people wouldn't want anything to do with illegal immigrants because they would all be the riffraff.

 

I think in the interest of full understanding of the problem we actually have to modify your second point to the following:

 

2) Certain people want said people to work for them at a certain rate of pay.

 

And therein lies a significant hypocrisy in liberal preferences on this issue, because many of those jobs currently taken by illegal labor could be given to people at higher rates of pay if the illegal labor was less common.

 

Padren addresses the flip side of this in post #4, regarding working conditions and so forth, which is another hypocrisy by the left. The progressive front will simply blame working conditions and pay rates on the employer and ignore their own contribution to this problem.

 

 

I don't see the conflict in controlling our borders and not dolling out citizenship to illegal immigrants. They're illegal, and should be deported. Employers should be charged - with fines that equal the taxes that should have been paid if they had hired legally and paid them fairly.

 

It's a question of compromise, IMO. And it's not without logical merit. They got in. People employed them. They didn't break any other laws (or they'd have been deported, right?). In some way, on some level, the system failed. Giving them a path to citizenship is an acknowledgement that this is more gray than black-and-white.

 

And it's no free pass -- they still have to go through a process, which means there's no guarantee. But most immigrants I know have never asked for a free pass, and aren't those the kind of folks we want?

 

Regarding the ID thing, I empathize with your concerns, but I already have to carry ID around any time I climb into my car. I'm not really seeing a huge concern there, but I respect your opinion on it. (And the fact that you're not trying to call me a Nazi.)

[iNow]

Yes.

 

Seems reality disagrees with you, even just within the confines of this very thread. Others beside me see fascist parallels.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

iNow; I certainly hope so....that's an absurd analogy

You, too. Calling it an absurd analogy doesn't negate the validity of my point, nor the fact that many others agree with it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And therein lies a significant hypocrisy in liberal preferences on this issue, because many of those jobs currently taken by illegal labor could be given to people at higher rates of pay if the illegal labor was less common.

 

It's not like shipping illegal immigrants back across the border is going to magically make those employers suddenly have access to more funds which can be used to pay non-illegals higher wages. Further, this new law which increases the legality of profiling and provides cops with the ability to mandate that people "show them their papers" won't have any impact whatsoever on the hiring practices of employers nor will it have any impact on their focus on cheap labor.

 

You can toss about fancy meritless talking points like "liberal hypocrisy" and "hypocrisy by the left" all you want... the amount of money available to employers is limited (often painfully so), and taking a hard line and tough approach on illegal immigration won't change that reality.

 

 

Finally, where did anyone call you a nazi? Are you reading the same thread I am?

Edited April 25, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

And therein lies a significant hypocrisy in liberal preferences on this issue, because many of those jobs currently taken by illegal labor could be given to people at higher rates of pay if the illegal labor was less common.

 

Padren addresses the flip side of this in post #4, regarding working conditions and so forth, which is another hypocrisy by the left. The progressive front will simply blame working conditions and pay rates on the employer and ignore their own contribution to this problem.

 

Could you clarify what the hypocritical actions are of the left, and "which left" that is? I'm sure you have specific examples in mind I'm curious which ones they are though.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's not like shipping illegal immigrants back across the border is going to magically make those employers suddenly have access to more funds which can be used to pay non-illegals higher wages. Further, this new law which increases the legality of profiling and provides cops with the ability to mandate that people "show them their papers" won't have any impact whatsoever on the hiring practices of employers nor will it have any impact on their focus on cheap labor.

 

You can toss about fancy meritless talking points like "liberal hypocrisy" and "hypocrisy by the left" all you want... the amount of money available to employers is limited (often painfully so), and taking a hard line and tough approach on illegal immigration won't change that reality.

 

Isn't it really up to the employer to sink or swim? How is the financial difficulties of the company a defense for hiring illegals, where they can differ the costs from them to us all? Isn't that defense equally applicable to companies that "can't afford" to meet EPA environmental standards and illegally dump toxic chemicals? Fining them doesn't magically provide them with the funds to properly dispose of toxic waste, but we sure as heck expected them to find a way or sell out to a competitor that can.

[iNow]

How is the financial difficulties of the company a defense for hiring illegals, where they can differ the costs from them to us all? Isn't that defense equally applicable to companies that "can't afford" to meet EPA environmental standards and illegally dump toxic chemicals? Fining them doesn't magically provide them with the funds to properly dispose of toxic waste, but we sure as heck expected them to find a way or sell out to a competitor that can.

That's not what I was trying to say, but I can see it was not as clear as it could have been. Sorry about that. Let me try again.

 

Passing a law which allows cops to mandate that any random brown person they choose must show them their papers, without cause, does nothing to address the root issue. The root issue is that employers are seeking cheap labor and illegals are filling that niche in a symbiotic manner. Profile all the beaners you want... Until we crack down on the employers, nothing will change. Send everyone you catch back across the border... 10 more will come in to replace them since there remain scores of jobs to be found.

 

As you and ParanoiA both elucidated above, the core of the problem is in the hiring of illegals at slavish wages, and this law does nothing whatsoever to help address that.

 

Second, I should clarify... I was not arguing that lack of funds makes hiring illegals okay. My point was a direct rebuttal to the claim that employers would de facto pay higher wages if all illegals got shipped out of the country. This was my understanding of the comment quoted below from Pangloss, and my comments were aimed directly in response to that.

 

many of those jobs currently taken by illegal labor could be given to people at higher rates of pay if the illegal labor was less common

Sure, they could... I guess that's sort of possible. However, it's not quite that simple.

[Moontanman]

I can remember a time when the police couldn't put up a road block and stop people to check for their ID just to be checking ID's. They actually needed probable cause to stop citizens and demand an ID. Now days the police can indeed stop every car on any road and demand an ID for no reason other than curiosity.

 

Maybe it's just me but this doesn't strike me as progress. On the other hand why do so many conservatives seem to think it's a good idea to give amnesty to illegals just because they have been here for a period of time? If I kidnap someone and keep them for a certain period of time does this mean i should have amnesty? The law is the law, if we are going to give amnesty to illegals why should the amount of time they are here matter? Why do i feel that Conservatives want illegals here so they can exploit them by paying them low wages?

 

I am more or less liberal but not extreme as a matter of fact i have some very Conservative values but i do not want people to come here illegally, I see no reason to allow it other than of course if I had a construction business and needed some cheap quick labor.

 

i often walk around my neighborhood with no ID, sweat pants have no pockets, if i am stopped and have no ID does this make me a criminal? I honestly hate the slippery slop argument but in this case I've watched the slope get ever more slippery, do we live in a free society or not?

 

Where does it end? do they eventually break down my door and demand an ID on the off chance there might be someone there with no ID? If I am just unlucky enough to be dark or Asian or maybe my English is not quite as the same as everyone else's do i need to keep my ID on me all the time?

 

I just don't see how anyone can say that citizens should have to provide "papers" at all times. Conservatives talk about how Liberals are leaning toward communism but if i remember correctly this is the way most communist countries treat their citizens.

[padren]

That's not what I was trying to say, but I can see it was not as clear as it could have been. Sorry about that. Let me try again.

 

Passing a law which allows cops to mandate that any random brown person they choose must show them their papers, without cause, does nothing to address the root issue. The root issue is that employers are seeking cheap labor and illegals are filling that niche in a symbiotic manner. Profile all the beaners you want... Until we crack down on the employers, nothing will change. Send everyone you catch back across the border... 10 more will come in to replace them since there remain scores of jobs to be found.

 

As you and ParanoiA both elucidated above, the core of the problem is in the hiring of illegals at slavish wages, and this law does nothing whatsoever to help address that.

 

Second, I should clarify... I was not arguing that lack of funds makes hiring illegals okay. My point was a direct rebuttal to the claim that employers would de facto pay higher wages if all illegals got shipped out of the country. This was my understanding of the comment quoted below from Pangloss, and my comments were aimed directly in response to that.

 

 

Sure, they could... I guess that's sort of possible. However, it's not quite that simple.

 

That makes more sense, thanks for clarifying.

[iNow]

A good discussion this morning on THIS WEEK about exactly this.

 

As it turns out, there truly ARE others out there who see this as parallel to what happened in Nazi Germany, as an infringement on rights, and contrary to our ideals. Another interesting tidbit: The people making these points are not all left or liberal ideologically as some in various arenas have tried to imply.

 

 

WATCH: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-immigration-debate-10470602&tab=9482930&section=1206874&playlist=6505465&page=1

[jackson33]

You, too. Calling it an absurd analogy doesn't negate the validity of my point, nor the fact that many others agree with it. [/Quote]

 

iNow; In my mind it's not only an absurd analogy, but some what ignorant (you being from Texas) in not understanding their position. The law itself, will NOT even take effect for 90 days passed the close of this session of the Arizona Congress (could have been instant, with Governor signing), is not likely Constitutional (they know this) and a simple play for action. Then no one, probably even yourself, believe the Government and 70% of their people (poll in agreement) of Arizona, even remotely are similar to Nazi Germany, with the inference of treating Mexicans and the treatment of Jews....

 

One more thing per post 15; The Governor as said, 'Racial Profiling' would NOT be tolerated, suspicious activity would still be involved, probable cause still involved. If the law was found Constitutional/legal (questionable) it would still be subject to conditions and drug users/pushers are NOT all brown, whatever that means.

 

 

Thread; Employers are required to forward ALL SS number to the IRS, with in a certain period of time, think 30 days. If the IRS has questions, numbers don't match names or the number has not been used or person is dead, they will advise the employer. This could take months. Keep in mind 'Green Cards' for the purpose of working in the US are just as easily forged as anything else, probably easier and most employers are not forgery experts or want to be.

 

As for employers, hiring migrant workers, most of the maybe 100 I've known, would tell you they are simply more reliable (show up) and work harder than most Americans, even brown Americans (whatever that means). I feel sure it's a cultural thing, where in Mexico, you are these things to even hold a job and then when talking 5-10 times the hourly wage, well you get the point....

 

One other thing on illegal employees ; A very large percentage do domestic work, cut grass, housework, child care in home, or other work for individuals who may have no idea they are breaking law. Even small contractors, doing these things, stocking store shelves or other jobs for business, may be all illegal including the contractor. Farmers around the Country, contract labor by the field (-X-$/acre or field), whether chopping (cultivating/weeding) to harvesting/packaging and have no idea who is legal or not and not required to, same for Contractors that sub-contract portions of the work, home builders to road construction. Point what you think may be possible in rounding up illegal's, is much more complicated than your imagining and may even include yourself.

 

 

Moon; Many towns, along the border States or in many larger metropolitan areas there communities of Latino folks, that some originally illegal's have been there for 30-40-50 years, not to mention the many that were born in the US (Citizen by law), have worked, paid taxes, probably voted and consider themselves American. Other than to try and explain the laws in each States, over the past 30-50 years including some today, in many cases people are treated as equals with out regards to where they may have come from. The same would be true in Florida, with the Cuban's, I'm told in NYC with the 500K Irish and in California with many oriental people.

 

I used 5 years, as a reference point for amnesty, but for practical purposes you can use any time period, even the day something is decided. With an enforceable Amnesty Program, other laws would need to be enforced (Reagan's were not). Today, Crossing a US Border, with out permission (first offense), remains a misdemeanor under law and the process to return these violations has been complicated, once inside the US. There is simply no means to process, deportations of a couple million people (wouldn't cover the non Brown people -whatever that means- alone) much less the 10-12 or the 20 million some suggest are in the US. Then to repeat many here, 5 years or longer, may have kids, belong to the local PTA, own a home (5 million loans were issued to ILLEGALS), serving in our armed forces and so on...

[Pangloss]

It's not like shipping illegal immigrants back across the border is going to magically make those employers suddenly have access to more funds which can be used to pay non-illegals higher wages.

 

You can toss about fancy meritless talking points like "liberal hypocrisy" and "hypocrisy by the left" all you want...

 

Okay' date=' here is another "meritless talking point".

 

What you've said above is an argument often used by conservatives in "living wage" debates. To which liberals simply reply "charge more for your product". To which conservatives reply "inflation", food being a key economic indicator. To which liberals reply "so what", suggesting that we can accept a higher food cost because more money is being made by formerly low-income earners who can, therefore, spend more.

 

Do you feel that the "living wage" argument is meritless?

 

 

Could you clarify what the hypocritical actions are of the left, and "which left" that is? I'm sure you have specific examples in mind I'm curious which ones they are though.

 

See above. The "left" I was referring to is the mainstream progressive movement. Certainly not all of them are hypocrites, of course.

 

 

i often walk around my neighborhood with no ID, sweat pants have no pockets

 

Oh my god, get a job and a haircut! And get off my lawn!!!! And stop dating my neice, btw. (Actually I like her boyfriend, but I do harass him a bit about his tendency not to wear shoes!)

 

But seriously, you said "walk around my neighborhood". Would you get in your car and drive to the mall that way? Of course not -- you'd already be in violation of the law. So I'm still not really seeing a huge problem here.

[iNow]

Do you feel that the "living wage" argument is meritless?

No, of course not. I just didn't really appreciate you swinging the "lefties are hypocrites" bat so early in the thread, especially since nobody had espoused an unreasonable position.

[Pangloss]

No, of course not. I just didn't really appreciate you swinging the "lefties are hypocrites" bat so early in the thread, especially since nobody had espoused an unreasonable position.

 

You mean like calling them "teabaggers"?

 

I didn't say all lefties are hypocrites. What I actually said in post #12 (after you dragged out the Nazis, btw) is that there is a hypocrisy in the general liberal position of supporting higher rates of pay and opposing the securing of the border.

 

So you say that you support the "living wage" argument. How do you justify supporting a living wage and at the same time saying that employers can't be assumed to be able to pay more money for the jobs illegals are taking?

 

In fact, won't you just wait until the illegals have secured those jobs, and then demand that they receive a living wage, discarding your own argument?

[ParanoiA]

iNow; In my mind it's not only an absurd analogy' date=' but some what ignorant (you being from Texas) in not understanding their position. The law itself, will NOT even take effect for 90 days passed the close of this session of the Arizona Congress (could have been instant, with Governor signing), is not likely Constitutional (they know this) and a simple play for action. Then no one, probably even yourself, believe the Government and 70% of their people (poll in agreement) of Arizona, even remotely are similar to Nazi Germany, with the inference of treating Mexicans and the treatment of Jews...

 

One more thing per post 15; The Governor as said, 'Racial Profiling' would NOT be tolerated, suspicious activity would still be involved, probable cause still involved. If the law was found Constitutional/legal (questionable) it would still be subject to conditions and drug users/pushers are NOT all brown, whatever that means.[/quote']

 

Per the conservative source:

 

Among the constitutional questions raised by the law, according to current and former government officials and legal experts, are provisions that may violate protections against unreasonable searches, for example, by asking police to stop people solely to prove their immigration status.

 

Arizona and other states allow police to check immigration status if a person is under investigation for another crime.

 

The governor can say all she wants as the law, at least according to the Wall Street Journal and legal experts, approves stopping people solely to prove their immigration status. The only way I could go along with that game is if someone could give me a clue as to how you come to "suspect" someone is an illegal immigrant, a crime, that doesn't essentially rely on gut suspicions and racial harassment.

 

Alternatively, I do see how you do this with employers using information from arrested illegals. Since they would be suspected of a crime, auditing their paperwork for their workers should be perfectly ok.

 

A citizen should not have to give up private information upon demand of a government agent without probable cause.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause[/i'], supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

And apparently they can already do this when they are suspected of committing a crime, probable cause, which is absolutely fair.

 

This is not something we let slide. We punch this right square in the throat. All it takes is another terrorist attack and Newt Gingrich to win in 2012 and we could easily be profiling and demanding papers everywhere.

 

I think focus should be on the border, perhaps closing some of these military bases we have all over the world could help make it budget neutral. And then of course employers, and making it not worth it to take advantage of a person's illegal status to pay them beans.

 

Active investigation of illegal immigration crime is totally legitimate, but we have to work around civil liberties. I don't have a problem with deportation one bit, but we just can't harass citizens to get there.

[Pangloss]

And what if there is probable cause?

[ParanoiA]

Well like I said in my second sentence..."The only way I could go along with that game is if someone could give me a clue as to how you come to "suspect" someone is an illegal immigrant, a crime, that doesn't essentially rely on gut suspicions and racial harassment."

 

I'm down with probable cause. I'm challenging visual scrutiny of ethnicity as a constitutional application of probable cause. What is an example of constitutional probable cause to demand identity and detain for questioning? All the examples I think of involve other crimes, which is already in place in Arizona. How about immigration status?