We should be happy about this, why?
Whether you know it or not, the next big political battle will be over immigration and it may be starting in just a matter of weeks.
For the record, I favor some aspects of immigration reform and I believe we are morally obligated to treat illegal immigrants humanely because they are, well, human. I also believe that the problem cannot just be laid at the feet of those that are here illegally as our country has willingly turned a blind eye for a long time because of the economic benefit. Due to this collective culpability, a path to some form of legalization should eventually be realized.
That said, any and all realistic immigration reform must start with securing our borders. Must. Must. Must. Only when the borders have been proven to be secured will I, as a voter, consider any path to legalization for those already here.
So, to the topic of the day. In Arizona, lawmakers are considering a law by which they will make illegal to be illegal — brought to you by the Dept. of Redundant Laws Dept. But here is the kicker, the legislation would require law enforcement officers to check the legal status of those they suspect are undocumented.
Those they suspect? Huh? Are they kidding? Those they suspect based on what? What happens if Jose Gomez, third generation Mexican American, goes for a stroll without his wallet? What then?
No no. This is America, law enforcement officials don’t just stroll up to a law abiding citizens and say “Papers, papers please.” Not here, never. It is not about them, it is about us.
Sorry, I prefer the “illegals” over the Gestapo, any day.
Let’s secure the border for real and this will cease to be a serious problem begging for really bad solutions. If we do that, then one day a police officer can walk up to Pedro Jimenez and when he says “Papers, papers please,” Pedro will sell him a newspaper because that is his legal job. Then together they can complain about the insanely high taxes, because that is the American thing to do.
April 21, 2010 at 6:49 am
In California, I, the great-granddaughter of technically legal Scotsmen, who looks it, have been stopped to have my citizenship verified. It was near San Diego, about thirty miles from the border.
Where was your worry then?
((Just to make it better, I was in a US Navy van, with several thousand dollars worth of equipment in the back. And my great-grandfather was legal, but the rest of his family save a brother was "technical" because they had to have $100 in hand– and they did. And passed it through the fence for the next guy.))
I know folks who have been harmed by illegals acting illegally. For love of the good Lord, my folks are STILL dealing with the mess when some illegals bought a totaled SUV from a junk yard (my folks filed the proper papers!!) and proceeded to slam it into someone else, and then scatter. Thankfully, nobody was killed. That time.
They need "reasonable suspicion." Same as any other suspected crime. There is no "walk up and demand papers" in this– as much as many libs would like to claim only Mexicans are illegal, there are illegals from many places. (Good gad, John Derbyshire was an illegal.)
It also makes it a crime to transport someone who is an illegal immigrant and to hire day laborers off the street.
I LIKE this. Why? Because my brother use to get work mowing lawns. Then, one of the "lawn services" suddenly hired a bunch of Mexican folks (we know what country they were from, because our hired hand cursed them roundly) and he had no more work.
Of course, we should also make a lot of the transient worker laws a lot more relaxed– the Pickers in Washington have pretty much be regulated out of offering a place to sleep– but complaining about police being allowed to check when they have reasonable suspicion a crime is being permitted?
April 21, 2010 at 6:50 am
Gah, that was longer than expected. Put it down to growing up in the dry side of Washington, which has a very large illegal population.
April 21, 2010 at 7:41 am
Secure the borders, and create just immigration laws that don't make it an arm and a leg to get here- all that does is benefit the unscrupulous.
April 21, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Patrick, Jose will be free of suspicion as soon as he opens his mouth. Third generation immigrants speak great english.
And yeah, recent legal immigrants may have to put up with a little hassle, for the same good reason that 20-something arab men should expect extra scrutiny in the airports. It's unfortunate for them, but it makes sense.
April 21, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Oh, and by the way, there is no requirement that I am aware of for anyone to carry their papers! All it says is that police are required to determine their immigration status! When you are stopped by police you only have to give your name and address. What research they do from there is up to them.
April 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Yes, borders must be closed. Follow that up with a law stating that to be a citizen born here, one must have a parent that is a citizen and I think its covered. Perhaps the need for "papers" is best left at the point of services; ie. welfare, college admissions, employment, etc. That is where one should provide evidence of citizenship. There is certainly a need for immigration reform, including how illegals are dealt with.
April 21, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Oh, Patrick. I think you are stretching this a bit too far. Our borders MUST be closed. Period. I don't care how they do it, but they should do it. I am all for people coming here to go to work or to find a better way of life, but there are proper channels. I hate that other governments are corrupt–the citizens should do something about that then. But illegals immigration is a huge risk to Americans. 2 years ago, we had a whole boatload of Mexicans from Alabama here to help build Lowe's. Over half were illegals. No one bothered them until they started raping young girls, wandering down the streets highly intoxicated, and crashing cars into telephone poles. The whole lot of them were rounded up and shipped home. Immediately. We've had similar cases with Phillipinos, Czechs, Russians, and Africans. One year, we had an African illegal infect a whole community with various diseases. He hadn't been immunized because he was ILLEGAL. The English comment above was spot on. My husband lived in France for just over a year. What was the first thing he did? LEARN FRENCH. Want to live here in America? LEARN ENGLISH. Period. Get these criminals OUT!!!! I do have sympathy for so many people–there lives are bad, they are trying to escape but you have to obey the law! If you are coming here illegally then you are already a criminal. What moral obligations do we have to criminals??? To provide their comfort and care until they can be prosecuted. That is it. We aren't morally obligated to send them to educate them or raise their babies. I don't have a problem requiring all LEGAL immigrants to carry proper ID. We do. Whenever you get stopped for "suspicious" activity, you have to show your Driver's license. Why can't a cop just say, "Driver's license or Immigrant Worker Card please." I think this is a good law in general. At least somebody is doing something…
April 21, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Anonymous, you only have to carry a drivers license when you are driving. Otherwise there is no paperwork required for American citizens, which is as it should be.
April 21, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Patrick, after my previous comments I read a news article that suggested "everyone" would be required to carry identification. I became interested and found the text of the bill:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
I think that reporting is in error. All the bill says is that if the police suspect the person is here illegally, they need to make a reasonable attempt to find out if that is the case. This is true for most crimes: if the police suspect you are driving drunk, they must then make a reasonable attempt to find out if you are, in fact drunk. You can make the same analogy with any law.
But I can't find any language in the bill that would suggest that people who are here legally will be required to carry any paperwork. You're free to read the bill and draw your own conclusions, but I think a correction is warranted in the original blog post.
April 21, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I'd love to have a lawyer's opinion of the bill at Kevin's link.
It seems to me that it is largely for those who the police have some reason to approach (ie pulled over, in custody,…) with some extensions of what constitutes a reason to approach (eg day laborers).
April 21, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I work in (legal) immigration. I know how complex some situations can be and the individual is totally legal. Just how are they planning to teach all the officers the intricacies of immigration law?
I like the "dept of redundant laws dept." That was funny!
April 21, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I forgot to add that in most states you have to prove legal (immigration) status in order to get a driver's license. I don't know if that's the case in Arizona.
April 21, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I think the proper way to understand this bill is that they are removing any special exceptions PREVENTING police from discovering a person's immigration status using the same means as they would use to investigate any other suspected breach of the law.
April 21, 2010 at 3:54 pm
To echo Kevin– such "cannot notice illegal status" laws are very popular with "sanctuary cities."
April 21, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I think it it perfectly proper to obtain the status of an individual if he is being detained or investigated for another valid reason.
I merely object to the notion that officers could walk up to American citizens and demand they prove same simply becuase they look like an "illegal."
Nope, there has to be a better way.
April 21, 2010 at 4:33 pm
What's to stop a police officer from walking up to a kid with dreadlocks and a nose ring and saying "Prove to me that you're not a drug dealer."?
The answer is that cops aren't allowed to do that without a reasonable suspicion. The same applies to other crimes like illegal immigration.
April 21, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Patrick, what do you think the police should do if they receive a tip from someone that a neighbor in their apartment building is an illegal immigrant, based on evidence. For instance, suppose the person claims that the immigrant admitted to them that they are here illegally.
Should the police be allowed to pursue that lead? Should they be able to obtain that person's name and discover whether they are here legally or not?
April 21, 2010 at 4:41 pm
And by the way, if a person is here legally and they get stopped by police, they should say "Yes, I am here legally. Have a nice day."
If the police decide to escalate that confrontation any further, they had better have some evidence justifying their suspicions, or there is going to be a lawsuit. I have no doubt there's a large number of hispanic-looking people in Arizona that are American citizens. The police are not stupid enough to start hassling everyone that looks Mexican.
April 21, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Kevin,
My objection is very narrow. Law enforcement is law enforcement. I have no issues with that. I object only to requiring Americans to prove their citizenship because the look illegal.
This law, as I understand it, would give the gov't the power to do just that and I don't trust any gov't with such power.
April 21, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Patrick, you say you only object to "requiring Americans to prove their citizenship because the [sic] look illegal" If that is the case I don't understand what that objection has to do with this bill. As stated in the text of the bill on page 2, line 22, police must first have a reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant before they can make an attempt to determine their status.
I think reasonable people will agree that simply looking Hispanic is not enough to arouse such a suspicion. Police officers, and judges that would rule on complaints of police behavior, are well aware that there are lots of Hispanic looking folks in Arizona that are American citizens.
Your concern would seem to be that police officers go beyond what they are authorized to do, and abuse their authority by hassling Hispanics. But again, I don't know what your issue is with this law. Police officers aren't allowed to do that, just like they're not allowed to hassle kids with dreadlocks even if a large number of drug dealers are also kids with dreadlocks. I guess if you are against this bill you also oppose allowing the police to pursue a reasonable suspicion that somebody is a drug dealer? After all, the same potential for profiling and abuse exists there too! Kidding.
I think you were misled by the way it was reported in the press jumped the gun. It would be nice to see a retraction in the original post. There's no shame in that. Nobody is right 100% of the time.