If 70% of Arizonians support the Immigration bill, which means they are willing to show their identification if asked, what's the problem? Who doesn't carry identification all the time, anyway? I never leave home without my DL. And from what I understand of the law, the Police can't profile, or just stop anyone without probable cause or legal contact. It is a secondary offense. Kind of like the seat belt laws in some states - you can't be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, but if you are pulled over for speeding or something, and you aren't wearing the belt, you can get a ticket. The bill also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
Many people are outraged about the bill, saying this infringes on the rights of all legal citizens, and is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. But I ask, are the rights of citizens in Arizona being more infringed upon by carrying the burden of 460,000 illegal immigrants, and living with dangerously high crime rates, or by showing ID if asked? (Personally, this seems like a good bill in this day and age of terrorism, as well...how many terrorists from 9/11 were here on expired visas?)
If you are an American citizen, how is this a burden? It takes two seconds to show your ID... It's like driving. If you are stopped, what's the first thing you have to do? Show your drivers license, registration and insurance. Driving legally, are you ever concerned about showing those documents? The only time you are worried is when you forgot to pay your insurance, or your DL is expired, no? So, what's the big deal?
Another hot button topic is the issue of whether illegals are "taking jobs" from legal citizens. With nationwide unemployment at 9.7% and as high as 15% in some states, I would think this would be a huge issue. But, as usual, we hear the same old talking point - no one would want "those jobs".
Sherri Shepherd said it on the The View (that no one would want those jobs) but, interestingly, that portion has been deleted from the video.
(Did the Danish King wear the Star, as Joy said? Nope.)
First of all, who are these people that think they are too good to work in the construction, hotel, restaurant and farming industries? Second of all, as I've said many times before, if we have 12 million jobs that could employee out of work legal American citizens, but no one wants them, then what the hell are we paying unemployment and welfare?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those industries. Most likely Sherri was referring to back breaking farm work when she made that comment. So, my question for her, and others who think like her, why do you believe Americans would not want or do the jobs that illegal immigrants do?
I imagine the reply would be something along the lines of "the jobs are demeaning and difficult and the pay is too low".
So...does that mean they aren't bothered that Mexicans are working for slave wages, doing horrible jobs that no *self respecting American* would touch? I would think people would have a problem with this. Apparently, as long as they are reaping the benefits, they don't mind *other people* working for slave wages, in crap jobs?
Opponents to the bill are charging supporters of the bill with racism. To me, it seems like the people who are in support of allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country and work for slave wages, in horrid conditions that none of them would accept, are perhaps the racists. After all, they need *someone* to pick their fruit, change their beds, wash their dishes, and build their homes...and they certainly aren't going to do it. Especially at those wages!! Let the Mexicans do it!
Doesn't that come across as a little elitist and perhaps racist, to you?
One could argue that immigrants come to America willingly, and out of necessity, take those jobs. But don't opponents of this bill have a problem with corporations utilizing illegal labor and paying them well below minimum wage? (I'm assuming they are paid below minimum wage, otherwise, why wouldn't unemployed Americans want those jobs?) And if these jobs were not going to undocumented workers, they would be at least minimum wage.
I had an online discussion with an owner of a construction company once, and he was telling me that he would love to employee Americans, but the only people who ever show up to his help wanted ads are illegal workers. He said he pays about $12 - $15 an hour. They work hard, never complain, and are always on time. This conversation was a few years ago, so I imagine times have changed. If not, again I ask, why the hell are we paying welfare and unemployment?
I can't fault someone for coming to America, wanting to earn a better wage, and provide for their families. I believe there are honest people who just want a slice of the American pie. The problems are the criminals, the drugs, the burden on tax payers, schools, health care industry, the companies that employ them, the fact that it is illegal, and the mess America is now in, because they avoided this problem for far too long.
Whether their intentions are good, or bad, the reality is, it is against the law. And if states like Arizona are burdened with violent crime, and dangerous borders, they should have a right to do something about it, if the Federal Government won't.
You have to love the brain power at MSNBC: "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant."
Uh....it is illegal, hence the name *illegal immigrant*. Newsbusters covered this here.
People are so concerned about racial profiling. How many civil liberties have we given up at the airport because the airlines refuse to profile? Instead of profiling, anyone who wants to fly is forced to almost fully undress, are subjected to body searches, revealing x-ray machines that show jiggly bits, harassment (video of 90 year old woman in wheel chair and her daughter detained at airport), etc. In order to not offend anyone, we are all punished....
And just for fun, here's a look at the media coverage in comparison to the tea party coverage.
What are your thoughts on the whole mess?
(Sorry if this is kind of disjointed...I was just thinking out loud. Scary, I know.)
Two good articles to read:
Obamacare Requires You To "Show Your Papers"
A law Arizona can live with
I have to wonder if our reliance on an illegal immigrant workforce hasn't stunted us. Surely in the year 2010 we could technologically come up with ways to replace the work done safer, quicker and cheaper (in the long run) if we had been forced too. Laws like this would then be unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAt first when I heard about the AZ Immigration bill I thought it was a good thing. after all, when I lived in Italy identification is required of all citizens and non citizens who have the right to be there. An officer there can simply ask to see your national ID card, and upon seeing that you are not a citizen your permesso.
ReplyDeleteHowever upon thinking about it I realized there is no identification for citizens in the US. A driver's license may be proof of citizenship in many states, but not in all. Maybe it is proof in AZ and that's why so many people there favor the law. I don't know AZ DL laws, but if you are from one of those states where it's not required and you are then visiting AZ and pulled over by a police officer because you look illegal, I for one would hate to spend the night in jail trying to prove my citizenship. Neither would I want to carry around my passport or Social security card in this day of identity theft.
The solution for me would be for the president or anybody at the national level to suggest that all people have national ID cards like Italy and many other nations do, but that idea is too big brother for the US and will never happen so I think this law should be shafted until a better one can be found in it's place.
"The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed."
ReplyDeleteRead more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0mLVhEI64
I know Washington state has Identification cards that you can get at the DMV, if you don't drive. So, it sounds like you have your choice of DL, ID card, or by law, you have to carry your green card, anyway.
I would imagine that if you were pulled over/stopped for doing something illegal (meeting the requirements of a "lawful contact") and you couldn't produce ID, no matter who you were, you would be held until your ID was verified, anyway. Say you were peeing in an alley, and a cop saw you, and asked for ID, and you didn't have any. What is the outcome? I know people have been arrested for it, fined for it, and issued warnings... but what if you can't produce ID, and you are drunk or peeing in public? I would imagine, legal or illegal, you are facing a similar situation?
This is the sort of thing that leaves me torn. While it seems completely reasonable with the "lawful contact" stuff included, it also seems a very slippery slope to tread with caution.
ReplyDeleteAlso the fact of the 70/30 split, in regards to surrendering what until now is considered a basic liberty to circulate freely, is a very risky proposition, which not only decides for the 30%, but then puts the 70% in the situation to control and monitor the 30%, rendering them weaker. This isn't just deciding a leader that can be changed in 2 or 4 or 6 years, but installing a measure that can be used as a tool itself to harass the 30% in the future (were it to be misused) without leaving them any recourse.
It makes a lot of sense on the surface, but the risks of it being misused ("What? a government bureaucrat misusing power?"), and not only as the current opponents claim, means it should be *very* carefully considered before its adoption, as it seems a very one way street.
I can see that there could be the possibility of misuse, as with any law, but this bill almost mirrors the federal law, the difference is, enforcement. (from what I understand)
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 70/30 split, isn't that a democracy? Majority rules? haha
I kind of agree with others that think this was a kick in the pants to Washington to say, do something or WE will. But I think the hysterics over the bill are extreme. Legal/Citizens shouldn't be worried, only illegal immigrants...
"without leaving them any recourse."
If someone is wrongly harassed, I have no doubt they would sue the hell out of the state, wouldn't they?
Considering the crime rate, and the fact that Phoenix is called the Kidnap capital of the world, with one kidnapping a day, and 900 illegals arrested daily trying to get over the border, and all the drug problems, they need to do something. It must be bad if people are willing to give up a little of their civil liberty to stop the problem. And if 70% support it...
Do you agree with my peeing in the alley scenario?
This is a good article:
ReplyDeleteBut Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of "reasonable" will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights -- the Fourth Amendment -- proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." What "reasonable" means in practice is still being refined by case law -- as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued "but upon probable cause." There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of "reasonable suspicion."
Brewer says, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of "evenness" as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042702741.html
Personally, I don't think this law is unconstitutional at all. All it requires is that you have a valid ID on you at all times. I don't leave the door without mine, even just to go to midtown in the afternoon.
ReplyDeleteThe other side of the (phony, imo) controversy is about votes. Everybody is pandering for the Hispanic vote (mostly the Dems, to replace those voters they lost since the last election).
If you notice, the only Republicans speaking out against it are Bush supporters, who will continue to support his failed amnesty program.
As for me? I live in NYC, not Arizona. I have to defer to the judgement of the people who live there and support them in what they feel is right for them.
To go back to the driver's license or state ID nondriver's licenses as proof of citizenship they simply are not. At least not in all states. That is why I think that to keep this law national ID cards are needed for citizens. Like you said non citizen legal residents already have documents.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that non-citizens who are in the US legally must carry their green card or work visa with them constantly but what about if they take the test and become US citizens? What will they carry then? Old, expired documents?
Also the immigration law doesn't say the arrested person need be doing something else unlawful like peeing in a park but just look illegal.
some states issue DL and/or ID cards to illegal immigrants? If that is the case, then I see the dilemma. If you take the test in the US and become a citizen, they don't give you anything for that? I don't think my BIL became a citizen, just has a green card. I need to ask him. A national card sounds like a solution.
ReplyDeleteI just read this:
"Has Michael Gerson never experienced any of those situations? And by the way, has he read the Arizona law? Does he know that it specifically states that in any encounter with police, when a person produces a valid Arizona driver's license (or, for non-drivers, other forms of ID listed in the law), that person is immediately presumed to be in the United States legally? Given all the situations listed above, can anyone argue that being asked to produce a driver's license, if one is in some sort of encounter with police in which police are acting lawfully (that is also specified by the new law) is overly burdensome? Being asked to produce identification is a burden that falls on everyone.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/What-America-is-Michael-Gerson-living-in-92301779.html#ixzz0mPVkwfqE
From what I read in the law, and from what I understood, the contact has to be legal - so a cop just can't stop someone for "looking like an illegal mexican". They can't profile, and the contact, as the law describes, must be lawful -
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Hitler would be crestfallen. This hardly reeks of extremism. It means the vast majority of requests for documentation will occur in the course of other police business, like traffic stops.
The police already have the power to stop illegal aliens, a power the Arizona courts have upheld; they already can ask about someone’s legal status (the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2005 that it has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment); and they already can detain illegal aliens. The Arizona law strengthens these existing authorities.
http://article.nationalreview.com/432612/hysterics-against-arizona/rich-lowry
Great post, no one really want to know that this is a response to our government looking the other way for decades.
ReplyDeleteAbout the DL being issued to illegal immigrants, in Florida they are asking for proof of legal status. As a matter of fact a couple and their son tried to sue (I think for being racist) and the judge threw out the lawsuit because they sued under John, Jane, and John Doe, Jr. In other words they were illegals and did not want to use their real name.
ReplyDeleteyes...the arizona law is just doing and inforcing
ReplyDeletewhat the gov't is supposed to be doing.
look...do you know most come here to drop out
their "anchor" baby..which becomes an american
citizen. we are stupidly the only country that allows this. and then, the baby drags everyone behind it for free services. im a senior. i dont
get that and im an american and put in my life work here. im outraged. some illegal person gets
what even i cant get. how is this fare.
in LA they have had to shut down 6 hospitals in bankruptcy because by law they are forced to treat illegals. and san fran post on billboards
where the illegals can get free services.
in gods name what is going on here.
we call ourselves a sovereign country but you
can not be a sovereign country unless you can
sequire your own borders. and the number the govt gives out that are in the country, ha!!
everyone knows that is low balled. it probably
double.
i live and work here my whole life and my
government benefits are reduced but they get
everything for free by impreganting someone.
its wrong. just wrong. and, all the govt is
too ball-less to stand up to it in the name of
people who came here legally and suffered thru
the process. god bless arizona for having balls.