Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[Rickdog]

Well, if your argument is that the law will lead to occasions where a police officer won't follow the law then I would ask you what law does that argument not apply to?

 

I personally don`t know the answer, but maybe if you ask the Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, maybe he can give you an answer, who even before that the new law had been aproved, had already specialized himself in racial profiling. And with the aproval of the new law, is more than happy, since now he can openly work, having an argument that he used to not have.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Rickdog
ortography

[swansont]

Well, if your argument is that the law will lead to occasions where a police officer won't follow the law then I would ask you what law does that argument not apply to?

 

Probably none. That's why it's a rebuttal to the position that there will be no racial profiling, simply because this law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The wording of the law is not proof against it being misapplied.

[padren]

Well, if your argument is that the law will lead to occasions where a police officer won't follow the law then I would ask you what law does that argument not apply to?

 

In most cases a law officer can apply the law effectively without breaking the law. In this law, it seems almost impossible to apply it effectively without racial profiling.

 

It's also worth noting that in many situations laws and policies exist to protect citizens from police that don't follow the letter of the law.

[ParanoiA]

In most cases a law officer can apply the law effectively without breaking the law. In this law, it seems almost impossible to apply it effectively without racial profiling.

 

Not that you can imagine anyway. I'm really not impressed with this line of reasoning. Limitations on your own imagination should not apply to others. Innocent until proven guilty, my friend. Let's stick with that.

 

It's also worth noting that in many situations laws and policies exist to protect citizens from police that don't follow the letter of the law.

 

And this law is written with clear letters they must follow. As I heard someone on the radio say today - the first victim of racial profiling in Arizona is going to hit it big. The law is too clear and forward about it for anyone to get away with it.

 

Probably none. That's why it's a rebuttal to the position that there will be no racial profiling, simply because this law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The wording of the law is not proof against it being misapplied.

 

The position of there being no racial profiling is a statement of intent not an act of presience. There will be just as many bad cops and rotten treatment as before this law, more than likely. That says nothing about the law itself, nor Arizona for passing it.

 

Intimating the dangers and fears of illegitimate police officers is an entirely different subject, and by definition, is not protected by this law. There is nothing about this law that has earned a speck of the negativity and protest it has endured.

 

Every appeal has to do with something not in the law. Arizona is being chastised for things that are not in the law. What in the hell are they supposed to do when everyone's complaints are based on fears and aversions that are not in the law?

 

Can someone tell me a problem with the law itself, that doesn't rely on a paranoid, emotional appeal with no textual support?

[padren]

Not that you can imagine anyway. I'm really not impressed with this line of reasoning. Limitations on your own imagination should not apply to others. Innocent until proven guilty, my friend. Let's stick with that.

 

Hence my skepticism and why I said it "seems impossible" rather that "it is impossible" and have repeatedly asked if anyone knows how this is supposed to work without profiling.

 

Btw, how is it any different than being skeptical of "spending our way out of debt" when you can't imagine how that could possibly work? Maybe I should send that Nigerian Prince my banking info - I mean, innocent until proven guilty right?

 

In the world of shades of gray, I am skeptical of this law since I don't see any way it could be applied effectively without racial profiling. I'm entirely open to new information and how this is intended to work to prevent that.

I think it's entirely fair for me to say I'd like the contradictions that I pointed out explained or resolved before I can agree with the claims that it's racially neutral.

[ParanoiA]

Btw, how is it any different than being skeptical of "spending our way out of debt" when you can't imagine how that could possibly work? Maybe I should send that Nigerian Prince my banking info - I mean, innocent until proven guilty right?

 

Do you practice skepticism by boycotting and holding protests and claiming wrongdoing as a foregone conclusion? I realize you are skeptical, and I'm personally on hightened alert as I want to see how this is going to play out - but to follow through and punish Arizona and rail against their law is not skepticism, that's premature activism based on emotional components.

 

It's not that their fears are invalid, it's that their accusations are. It's not that skepticism isn't warranted - we had better have skeptic americans in this republic - it's that boycotting and protesting their state is senseless activism against innocent people.

 

Unless I'm not following the thread exchange here, this started with justifying the protests and anger aimed at Arizona. Do I have you wrong here?

[padren]

Do you practice skepticism by boycotting and holding protests and claiming wrongdoing as a foregone conclusion? I realize you are skeptical, and I'm personally on hightened alert as I want to see how this is going to play out - but to follow through and punish Arizona and rail against their law is not skepticism, that's premature activism based on emotional components.

As I've said before, I think the boycotts are a bit over the top, and still feel like we have checks and balances in place. If Arizona had done something illegitimately, outside the rule of law (which they have not) I could see such actions being warranted.

 

As it is right now, I think the noise detracts from the dialog. I understand people's desire to have these questions answered, and their frustration with the answers provided to date. The FAQ on the Arizona website itself raises more questions than it really answers.

 

Arizona is probably in a somewhat defensive stance, and feels the need to argue their justification and sovereignty in their rights to enact laws like this, which overshadows the real debate about whether their new law could be refined so not to lead to an inevitable SCOTUS ruling.

 

Only time will show how this plays out.

It's not that their fears are invalid, it's that their accusations are. It's not that skepticism isn't warranted - we had better have skeptic americans in this republic - it's that boycotting and protesting their state is senseless activism against innocent people.

 

Unless I'm not following the thread exchange here, this started with justifying the protests and anger aimed at Arizona. Do I have you wrong here?

 

Some of the original concerns were apparently overblown, though there is still a lot with this law that bothers me that unless counter balances exist, that have yet to be seen makes the law problematic and in my mind, questionably unconstitutional.

 

I should also be clear that I have this bad habit of empathizing with everyone in a debate, whether I think their actions are helpful or damaging. I understand why Arizona would pass a law like this and I can't really fault them for doing so, although I think it needs to be refined. I can understand why some people are boycotting the state, even though I think it's wasteful and does more harm than good. It's symptomatic of the fact the issue of immigration blurs the lines between state and federal responsibilities and liabilities, and state-to-state dialog in lawmaking is not nearly as well defined as the state to federal layers. Without established channels people just start shouting, which sucks but is a natural side effect of this sort of situation.

 

If I was to advocate any single position, it would that everyone boycotting and protesting to realize their message is in fact heard, and take a good month to let things cool off. I'd advocate some sort of interstate panel on immigration that allows states to communicate and relate with each other how each others' actions impact each other on this issue, in concert with the federal level so people can actually have a civil outlet for these discussions, and PR soundbites and protests can take a back seat. I wouldn't suggest such a panel has the right to interfere with any given state's laws, but would exist to enhance communication, share concerns and approaches, and build consensus towards how to deal with what effectively is, an interstate problem.

And, through such a mechanism, I'd recommend laws such as the Arizona law be discussed in a civil environment, where issues such as the civil liberties angle and others can be addressed and improvements can be considered to refine the law as suggestions be debated and considered for Arizona to take back to their legislature if they so desire.

[swansont]

Can someone tell me a problem with the law itself, that doesn't rely on a paranoid, emotional appeal with no textual support?

 

What constitutes reasonable suspicion of being an illegal is not explained.

[jryan]

In most cases a law officer can apply the law effectively without breaking the law. In this law, it seems almost impossible to apply it effectively without racial profiling.

 

It's also worth noting that in many situations laws and policies exist to protect citizens from police that don't follow the letter of the law.

 

The way I see it, there is a good chance that it will APPEAR like racial profiling even when it isn't. There is no doubt that the vast majority of illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanic, and even if the request for citizenship status is applied evenly it will catch predominantly Hispanic illegals.

 

The numbers of challenges of this law, the ones that make it to the news, will therefor be predominantly Hispanics. The majority of the rest of those who are asked for proof of residency will provide their proof and be on their merry way.

 

But just because a law will catch mostly Hispanic law breakers doesn't mean it will involve racial profiling.

[swansont]

I think any evidence of racial profiling will have to come out of the false positives, i.e. legal residents who are detained.

[jryan]

Well, it would have to be citizens actually, since legal residence are legally required to carry residency documentation anyway.

 

This would all be solved with a national ID card...

 

Also, a brief bit of comic relief:

 

[swansont]

Well, it would have to be citizens actually, since legal residence are legally required to carry residency documentation anyway.

 

But why would they be suspicious, in a non-profiling way, if they were here legally?

 

This would all be solved with a national ID card...

 

A problem can be solved by more bureaucracy, and a larger government? Interesting.

[bascule]

Well, I read the bill...

 

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

How do you enforce a section like this, specifically in regard to racial profiling? And if someone is "presumed" not to be an alien only if they can produce an ID, does that mean they are presumed to be an alien if they can't produce such identification? Apparently it does. Immediately before that section:

 

ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

 

So if you're arrested, and the charges are otherwise dropped and you would normally free to go, they can continue to detain you until they verify your immigration status.

 

What? How is that constitutional?

[jryan]

But why would they be suspicious, in a non-profiling way, if they were here legally?

 

They don't need to profile at that point because the law requires the police to check the residency status of all people stopped for other reasons.

 

See bascule's quote of the law here:

 

ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

 

If they must verify everyone then where does the profiling start?

 

A problem can be solved by more bureaucracy, and a larger government? Interesting.

 

If it is a replacement for the Social Security card then it doesn't add any bureaucracy it simply moves the technology to the 21st century.

Edited May 23, 2010 by jryan

[Mr Skeptic]

They don't need to profile at that point because the law requires the police to check the residency status of all people stopped for other reasons.

 

Not stopped, arrested. If they only stop them then they only check if there is "reasonable suspicion".

[bascule]

Not stopped, arrested. If they only stop them then they only check if there is "reasonable suspicion".

 

And in a state that would pass legislation like this to begin with, I'm sure there's no racial profiling going on in deciding who gets arrested in the first place.

 

But the larger issue remains: even if they don't suspect you're an illegal immigrant or have any probable cause to believe you are one, after you're arrested and cleared or otherwise exonerated, they can still detain you until they can confirm your immigration status. How is that constitutional?

[Pangloss]

President Obama announced the deployment of 1200 National Guard troops to help monitor the border between Arizona and Mexico today, which I think is a good move. It's somewhat political, but it's also an indication that he's listening to the concerns that Arizonans have about security, and a way to back up his statements that he wants to do something about it.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/26/national_guard_will_bolster_mexico_border/

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

However, we saw more evidence today that many Democrats/liberals object to ANY border enforcement action on an ideological basis. New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (a Democrat) reacted to the almost-trivial 1200-troop deployment with this confused statement (reported almost nowhere except for Fox News):

 

"Border enforcement is a part of realistic, commonsense reform, but it alone is far from the answer," he said in a written statement. "The Obama administration's militarization of the border amounts to a submission to the political forces brought by the Republican Party."

 

Gee, it's too bad we can't militarize Afghanistan with only 1200 troops.

 

I guess what he's reacting to is the use of National Guard troops instead of border patrol agents, but the White House has already stated that these units are there solely to assist in spotting border transgressions, and will not actually participate in captures or arrests.

[swansont]

However, we saw more evidence today that many Democrats/liberals object to ANY border enforcement action on an ideological basis. New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (a Democrat) reacted to the almost-trivial 1200-troop deployment

 

"Border enforcement is a part of realistic, commonsense reform, but it alone is far from the answer," he said in a written statement. "The Obama administration's militarization of the border amounts to a submission to the political forces brought by the Republican Party."

 

So, is Menendez supposed to be one of these "many Democrats/liberals?" Because I can't reconcile "object to ANY border enforcement action on an ideological basis" with "Border enforcement is a part of realistic, commonsense reform"

[ParanoiA]

So, is Menendez supposed to be one of these "many Democrats/liberals?" Because I can't reconcile "object to ANY border enforcement action on an ideological basis" with "Border enforcement is a part of realistic, commonsense reform"

 

Same here. I can't reconcile "Border enforcement is a part of realistic, commonsense reform.." with "Obama administration's militarization of the border amounts to a submission to the political forces brought by the Republican Party".

 

Ok, Menendez, is it "part of realistic, commonsense reform" or not? Or is he just pissed because republicans wanted it more?

 

I guess what he's reacting to is the use of National Guard troops instead of border patrol agents, but the White House has already stated that these units are there solely to assist in spotting border transgressions, and will not actually participate in captures or arrests.

 

I suppose I should be happy for the step forward, but I'm just not. It's lame. Maybe helping to spot border transgressions is more significant than I want to believe, but it sure sounds like more symbolism. We need armed bad asses along the border that participate in apprehension and preventing entry illegally.

[bascule]

However, we saw more evidence today that many Democrats/liberals object to ANY border enforcement action on an ideological basis

 

I think it's silly. Penn & Teller covered the rather ironic subject of of border fences being constructed by illegal immigrants (oops!). They also showed how easily border fences are circumvented. The border is too large to patrol effectively and building more fences does not keep illegals from crossing.

 

That's not to say that we should just throw our hands up in the air and give up on border security entirely, just that I think we're seriously running into diminishing returns when it comes to enhancing border security. Conservatives want to dump more and more money into more border patrols and more fences with virtually no guarantees that such measures will actually cut down on illegal border crossings.

 

Did I mention that we have an enormous national debt right now, and conservatives say we should spend less? Apparently that philosophy doesn't apply to border security.

[ParanoiA]

No, lack of funds doesn't excuse protecting the citizenry. That's the first job of any legitimate government.

 

However, I'm not impressed with fences, and other wasteful engineering methods. I'm more impressed with technological solutions. Why don't we hear more about them? Have I been watching too much sci-fi? (it's entirely possible...I mean, the Others were able to keep the smoke monster at bay with technology...)

[CharonY]

Also, at least up until last year at least McCain was also against the use of national guard troops in enforcing border security. I guess the rise in violence made him rethink that, though.

 

Edit: I think there was a trial run with virtual fences but they were found to be too expensive and ineffective. IIRC they weren't able to distinguish between animals and humans, for instance. Subsequently funding for that was eventually cut.

[Pangloss]

Sure, fences aren't perfect. But isn't it obvious that a fence is more of a deterrent than a wide open field? It's not a question of utterly stopping illegal immigration, it's a question of eliminating as much of it as is reasonably possible and then dealing appropriately with the ones that got through. (No, a permanent amnesty program for people who got into the country illegally is NOT normal or reasonable, but having a temporary one to deal with the ones who are here at the moment does make sense IF we reasonably secure the border.)

 

Putting up a basic fence also indemnifies the country against the problem of safety along the border. Or put another way, it frees us from the expense of staffing food/water/1st-aid stations every 200 yards lest the world deem us evil (again).

[bascule]

Sure, fences aren't perfect. But isn't it obvious that a fence is more of a deterrent than a wide open field?

 

It won't really matter until there aren't any more wide open fields.

 

And even then the fences are mostly for show, because, as Penn & Teller demonstrated, they are easily circumvented with a little bit of muscle and know how. They demonstrated how the standard construction methods used on sections of the fence (ironically enough I believe in Arizona) could easily be circumvented with little more than a crowbar.

[ParanoiA]

It won't really matter until there aren't any more wide open fields.

 

And even then the fences are mostly for show, because, as Penn & Teller demonstrated, they are easily circumvented with a little bit of muscle and know how. They demonstrated how the standard construction methods used on sections of the fence (ironically enough I believe in Arizona) could easily be circumvented with little more than a crowbar.

 

Is that on Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit'? If so, I don't know how I missed it, but I've got to see it.