AZ immigration law ...

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Am I going to have to start asking the companies I intend to do business with, "Do you do business with Arizona businesses?"?

Then, if they proudly answer "No", ...
I will tell them that I will not buy from them because they apparently do not understand what "illegal" means.
 
garygid said:
Am I going to have to start asking the companies I intend to do business with, "Do you do business with Arizona businesses?"?

Then, if they proudly answer "No", ...
I will tell them that I will not buy from them because they apparently do not understand what "illegal" means.

What exactly do you think the Arizona law does? And why is it illegal?
 
Immigration is probably the only issue I'm conservative about. Maybe it's because I'm a legal immigrant myself, and from a country that is allowed a very limited number of immigrant visas per year. So, yes, the Arizona law is wrong, on many levels. But the Federal government is falling down horribly on it's responsibility to properly police our borders.

Regan said that after he granted Amnesty in 1985 that there would be no more laxity on this issue, that the borders would be properly policed, and illegal immigration would be curtailed. Well, I was never a fan of Regan when it came to many of his policies, but immigration was one he tried to get right (even if it really was only to introduce a new entry-level class of worker for corporations to exploit!).
 
mwalsh said:
But the Federal government is falling down horribly on it's responsibility to properly police our borders.

Can you really police the long borders ?

The best way to control immigration is to make it easy to hire needed labor from across the border. The current situation is unworkable.
 
evnow said:
On this I'm with the critics. This is a racist law.

I'm trying to understand both sides of this. It's my understanding that, by definition, 'illegal alien' means the person shouldn't be in the US. These people aren't allowed to be here or work here. Employers aren't supposed to hire them. Traffickers aren't supposed to transport them. If identified for any reason, they can and should be deported.

We pay a lot of money to staff the Department of Homeland Security, and paid plenty to maintain INS and the other federal organizations that were rolled-into DHS. Some of these folks are tasked specifically with managing visas and finding/deporting folks that aren't supposed to be in the country.

I lived in Europe for 7 years and crossed borders in airplanes, cars, trains, and subways before and after the Berlin wall fell. I had to have my papers with me for every border crossing or I wasn't allowed to cross, and had to have identification docs with me 24/7 even when not crossing a border. And I had to present the ID docs if/when stopped by law enforcement for any reason.

I lived in Tucson for a bit over 2 years and have been in San Antonio a bit over 8. Anyone that thinks that ANY police force has the time or manpower to pull-over anyone in Arizona that looks to be of Hispanic origin doesn't know how few cops are in the state. ;)

I get that folks have a fear of racial profiling, but is the 'fear-of' larger or smaller than reality?
 
AndyH said:
I get that folks have a fear of racial profiling, but is the 'fear-of' larger or smaller than reality?

If you have had the pleasure of getting racially profiled, reality is larger than fear. Otherwise it is lower.

I'll accept any immigration law that punishes employers as much as employees when they are undocumented. For eg. in the current AZ law, if the pulled over "suspicious looking" person turns out to be undocumented, what happens to the person/s who employed him ?

We are now using "illegals" essentially as slave labor. They make things cheap for us - whether it is houses or veggies. We want their labor but we want them to remain invisible to us. Decades from now people will look back at this period and say how could they have been so inhumane - just like we do when talking about slavery.

To me it is a simple issue of human rights. The reality is that we have a large # (in the millions) undocumented people living in the US. If they fear being deported, they can be very badly exploited (since they won't call police). Whats to stop land lords from raping "illegals" ?

Will some AZ police wasting time pulling over and deporting a few dozen / hundred "illegals" solve the problem ?

Anyway, all this is just besides the point. The reality is that the law is not intended to solve any problem - it is intended to get votes.
 
The original incarnation of the law was definitely racial profiling. They have already amended it so that the law enforcement cannot pull over someone solely on suspicion of being an illegal. There has to be a preceding violation of some sort. If you have violated some obvious law (ie speeding), after that its no holds bar on what they can ask for such as proof of citizenship.

I'm some what okay with the newer version of the law, cause it would have been a nightmare enforcing some similar law here in Chicago, which has a large undocumented/illegal Polish population, almost every white person here would have been pulled over checking for their documentation.

I'm still not happy with it in general and I agree it was created to garner votes from the registered voters...legals.

However, I think the punishment for the people employing the illegals should be severe. If there is no job because some yokel decides to exploit the illegals and is arrested and put away or the business is shut down, then there will be no illegals coming over a boarder or across an ocean to get a job.
 
You might not like the law, but it IS the law.
It should not be difficult to try to identify "illegals".

If this law seems too "racial", then by all means, it should be amended to require all people to present "valid papers" at any contact with authorities, employers, schools, stores, businesses, hotels, restruants, banks, checkpoints, etc.

Then the law would not be racial in any way. Just good, proper, easily-checked identification at any transaction.
 
garygid said:
... it should be amended to require all people to present "valid papers" at any contact with authorities, employers, schools, stores, businesses, hotels, restruants, banks, checkpoints, etc.

Sounds like a police state to me ... and definitely violates the constitution.
 
AndyH said:
evnow said:
and definitely violates the constitution.

How so?

What Gary is proposing is far more than what HR 418 wants. Some provisions of even 418 have been struck down.

Depending on how exactly this proposal is written it would violate the 1st amendment and/or commerce clause, at a minimum.
 
evnow said:
AndyH said:
evnow said:
and definitely violates the constitution.

How so?

What Gary is proposing is far more than what HR 418 wants. Some provisions of even 418 have been struck down.

Depending on how exactly this proposal is written it would violate the 1st amendment and/or commerce clause, at a minimum.

I don't know, evnow. The funny thing is, I'm a disabled veteran with a full file in both the USAF and VA systems. Every time I request information or work within the system I have to present identification. I have to present an ID card to get on base, again when I check-in with a doctor or check-out at a store. I have to present an ID for myself, and a birth certificate for my son to register him for school on base. I got a reauthorization for my VA mortgage guarantee last week and had to resubmit my discharge package to prove that I served even though I have an open file with the VA. Bottom line - no papers, no authorization.

Why in the world would it be somehow cruel or unusual to have people bring proper ID to a school when registering their kids? This is just as taxpayer funded as the military system, right?

(I don't agree with Gary's suggestion that banks, restaurants, stores, or businesses have a need to know, however.)
 
garygid said:
You might not like the law, but it IS the law.
It should not be difficult to try to identify "illegals".

If this law seems too "racial", then by all means, it should be amended to require all people to present "valid papers" at any contact with authorities, employers, schools, stores, businesses, hotels, restruants, banks, checkpoints, etc.

Then the law would not be racial in any way. Just good, proper, easily-checked identification at any transaction.

On the news yesterday, they said the Tucson police and Pima County sheriff officers will view a 3 hour training video sometime during the next two days. This is suppose to teach them when and where to ask for papers. I'm just waiting for the law suits to begin with "born and bred" Americans (of many races) are asked for papers by the police and of course, don't have them. I've been mistaken for Hispanic many times and my ancestors came to the "New World" from southern Germany (Bavaria) in 1754.

What Gary is proposing is a police state. Everyone carry citizenship papers. Do I need to wear my passport around my neck? If it gets to that, its time to leave this state. Canada sounds nice.
 
AndyH:
Why in the world would it be somehow cruel or unusual to have people bring proper ID to a school when registering their kids? This is just as taxpayer funded as the military system, right?

I've taught in Arizona public schools for 23 years. The ladies in the school office do ask for a birth certificate and make a copy of it whenever a new student is registered. These sweet, office ladies get paid $7.50 / hour. If they must turn in anyone who is born outside the U.S. to the immigration department or the Border Patrol they have just been made into U.S. Immigration officers who make triple that pay. That doesn't make sense.

A school's purpose is to educate children, not police who should live here or not.
 
Back
Top