Judge hears arguments over Arizona immigration law
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 2 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 3 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
23 Comments
Login to comment
0
djuice
Do they want to legalize illegal immigration?
0
mikehuntez
Arizona is not setting immigration policy. It merely is enforcing a check on the status of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. What's wrong with that?
0
adaydream
I hope they continue with their new law and it's allowed. Arizona will go broke.
Business owners are leaving state.
State tax payers are leaving.
A great percentage of their buyer base will leave or won't visit the state and dollars won't be spent.
Many...many dollars will be spent to enforce the law.
Many...many dollars will be spent keeping these people confined.
I can see the state of Arizona dwindling into the poor house.
Almost worth laughing at. < :-)
0
smithinjapan
adaydream: agreed. Proponents of the law whine about how illegal immigration takes their jobs and money, etc., but in the end this law will be more detrimental than beneficial, and that's not even touching on the human rights it violates.
0
Molenir
Won't cost hardly anything. Simply means handing these people over to ICE.
0
MistWizard
I have several questions, but can we first agree that Arizona has a significant illegal immigrant problem at least?
0
GJDailleult
Unless I missed something in the article, there is nothing here about the people and companies that hire illegals. I have no problem with the general public being upset about the situation, but it looks like somebody is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Try and look like you are doing something, but don't tick off the people making a buck off the situation.
0
lostrune2
Now it's up to the courts, and that's what matters.
0
TrentonGaijin
Why is Arizona being targeted for enforcing Federal immigration laws while states that openly defy Federal immigration laws (via "Sanctuary Cities") are allowed to continue with their policies?
0
mikehuntez
WHAT? Why do you think so? Because they don't like the this particular law? I thought you liberal types were against people taking advantage of others like in Japan "Cheap labor force" etc you cite and now you do this "flip-flop" and say illegal workers are needed? Screw your heads on properly in the morning please.
0
Molenir
Arizona already has one of the harshest laws in the country on hiring and employing illegals. If you knowingly hire or employ an illegal, and they catch you, you can lose your business license. A second offense, means its automatic, meaning, you can no longer own or operate a business in the state of Arizona. I suppose they could increase the penalties so that theres jail time involved, but they're afraid if they go much further, they'll harm Arizonas economy.
0
Triumvere
The problem is the way it's set up. When you create a law there are a number of unintended consequences which occur naturally. When you make a new law, you need to take a careful look at what these consequneces mught be, and assume that the law will be taken to extremes or exploited to the maximum extent possible.
So, what will the natural consequences of this particular law? Well, I don't think its hard to see the "racial profiling" angle, which is a fairly obvious outcome. Explicitly stating (in the law and in department policy and training manuals) that racial profiling is not acceptable will not help; it will occur naturally in large part because of the vaugeness of the acceptable guidlines for suspicion.
If this were merely an issue of giving a greater ammount of scrutily to people of hispanic origins, then I would not necessarily be opposed (see TSA airline passenger screening for the debate on the practicalities of profiling)But it is much worse than that: Police officers are being asked to identify illegal immigrants (who are largely mexican) and CAN BE SUED BY PRIVATE CITIZENS if the are precieved not to be performing sufficiently. This creates a huge pressure to interrogate and detain. So who are going to get the scrutiny? Not white folks. Yes, it will be guys crammed into the back of old pick-up trucks and lotering in certain areas, but it will also be hispanic people in the wrong place at the wrong time. These people will be asked for papers.
Now, here's were the real problem kicks in. It's not with illegal immigrants; they will be identified and detained. Fine, they aren'r supposed to be here anyways. It's not even with resident aliens; they are all ready by law required to carry their identification. No, the problem is with LEGAL CITIZENS of the United States, who are not required to carry any ID at all (not even a driver's licence, though it's hard to do without one). There citizens, the ones who are stopped, will largely be hispanic... and even if they aren't, it's still a travesty. These people will be asked to prove their citizenship, and when they can't - because they won't be carrying the required documents - they will be detained until someone somewhere can dig up a birth certificate or proof of naturalization, or otherwise satisfy the requirements. This, I repeat, is a travesty in and of itself; the resultant racial descrimination is insult on top of injury.
Important to note that this is not a question about the decency and professionalism of Arizona law inforcement. I have the greatest respect for the police and the job they do, and I am sure the majority of them are good people. But it is inevitable that a certain portion of them will not live up to this standard - doubly so because of the pressure this law puts on them, which will pressure good officers to make bad decisions through no fault of their own.
This is just the core of what is wrong with the law. I will elaborate further shortly.
0
Triumvere
So, what are the other problems and probable consequences of the law?
Well, it's bad for the state in a number of way, financially:
First is legally - the lawsuits alone may bankrupt the state, which doesn't seem to have much legaly to support it's position. They will be sued by an number of different civil rights and anti-racism groups, as well as a never-ending number of individuals who feel that they have been racially discriminated against. Furthermore, state and local government will be sued by Arizona citizens who feel that the state isn't doing enough to screen out illegal immigrants.
Second has to do with the police department - the police, by in large, do not support the law. It forces them to take on huge new resposibilities (usually reserved for the federal government) and exposes them to both racial discrimination lawsuits, and lawsuits from people who feel they aren't enforcing the law sufficiently. It's essentially lose-lose. Furthermore, they have to devote a portion of their limited resources to enforcement that are desperately needed to fight crime elsewhere.
Third is the potential effect on the economy. Like it or not, a lot of businesses rely on illegal immigrants - not only those that employ them, but the buisnesses that sell to them (grocery stores, resturants, department stores, etc...) These businesses will suffer. We can expect an exodus from Arizona, not only of illegal immigrants, but of legal residents and citizens of hispanic orgin who fear discrimination feel unwelcome in their home state. Finally, there will be a certain amount of backlash: the state will lose a some business and tourism from hispanics and others who consider the state policy unwelcoming or discriminatory.
Now, I am sure that for some on the left and the Hispanic community that opposition to this law is really about supporting illegal immigrants. But even if you oppose illegal imigration, or immigration in general there are plenty of reasons to oppose this law, especially if you consider yourself a principled conservative or libertarian. Basically, THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO FIGHT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Especially when there are much more effective solutions availalbe to us. The federal government may have dropped the ball, but the State of Arizona has neither the athourity or the correct strategy to pick it up again.
If you really want to end illegal immigration and cut down on narco-trafficing, then the solution is simple (but will require a large amount of political courage and self sacrifice):
You should also take a good, hard look at the following two options, even if you find them repugnant in priciple:
0
Triumvere
A final note:
What Arizona is doing has already been tried in certain places in the us (a believe in a town in Virginia - sorry, I don't remember the name - and elswere). In the Virginia case there was an influx of hispanic immigration, both legal and illegal which prompted a crackdown from the local government. The result was a mass exodus of both legal and illegal residents that ruined the local economy.
Culture warriors be warned.
0
MistWizard
Yes.
I beleive they DO have the authority. If they don't, then the overbearing Federal government stole it, pure and simple.
I agree with you that this is the wrong strategy. You, McCain and I all favor finishing the fence.
0
mikehuntez
Resultant racial discrimination? An officer of the law who stops someone because of any reason and finds that these people are not native English speaking hispanics may with justification ask a person to prove they are in the country legally and detain them until they can. So it'd be advisable that if you are a citizen or there legally that you carry an ID to prove this. If you can't then that's your tough luck. You remain detained until it is found out who you are and where you come from. A citizen should have some form of ID to prove who they are like the drivers license you should be carrying if driving a vehicle stopped by the police. If you don't have any ID then you should be detained no matter a citizen or not.
0
adaydream
Molenir, turn them over to ICE? I takes them to court, judge sets trial for 3 months, they make bail and then they are released to return for trial.
HA!! HA!! HA!!! HA!!! They ain't coming back. ICE won't hold them till trial. I love it. Turn them over to ICE. That's good. < :-)
0
Triumvere
A number of problems here: first off, ability to speak English is not necessarily a requirement for citizenship. There may be a number of "native" citizens (and properly a great deal more naturalized ones) that do not speak English well. You may think English ability should be a requirement for citizenship (and you might just be right) but as it stands, the US has no official language. Doesn't it seem unfair to demand something of one group of citizens that we don't of any other?
Likewise, there is no such thing as a national ID in the US - in fact creation of such a scheme is vociferously opposed by privacy rights advocates. While it is generally impractical to do so, no-one is required to carry drivers licences or other state sponsered ID's with them wherever they may go. (You only need the ID if you want to DO something like drive a car or get a check cashed, as opposed to just walking around or buying something at a store - I went to a resturant with family tonight, sans wallet. Obviously I didn't drive or pay. Should that be a crime?). So going for a walk sans wallet can now potentially get you into trouble if you are the kind of person that police might find suspicious. So citizens of Arizona (or those unfortunate enough to be passing through) are now required de facto to carry ID where in any other state they would not be, and - once again - the burden falls disproportionately on hispanics. As with the first item, you may feel all citizens should carry ID at all times, but currently that isn't the cases, and it seems massively unfair to single out a single ethnic group for special treatment.
I suspect a good deal of support for the law comes from the fact that most US citizens will never be in much danger of running afoul of it. IF you are white in Arizona you probably won't get stopped. If you are hispanic you may never get stopped either, but you'll always be looking over your shoulder. Would you want to live like this? Even if you, like most people, carry a vaild ID with you, you still are going to be under mental strain worrying about whether you'll be harrassed, or have to prove that you are a 'real citizen' of your own country.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound very American to me, and its not the country I want to create. If you are seriously concernerd with illegal immigration, then a much better solution is already available. Build the fence, and crack down on the employers.
0
lostrune2
This is like Roe v. Wade. It's not what people believe. What matters is what the court believes, and what the court believes is the current law of the land.
0
mikehuntez
Then they should have the documentation to prove they are citizens.
You misinterpret me: I mean that if stopped and found not to be native north american english speaking then they are considered suspicious until proven who they are. They could be tourists with a passport, or international students with supporting documents like passport or school ID, or illegals who won't have any ID or any means to produce one. That is just the way it goes and helps filter through the legal ones.
Yes if you are hispanic and live in Arizona knowing the new law and that illegal hispanics are a problem I'd be damned willing to carry my ID to prove I'm on the legal side of the fence. No profiling there. Just common sense. And I'd hope that "passer through" would also have ID on them. Anything with a name.
Mexicans are considered hispanic and it is mainly them that are the immigration problem. If I were hispanic I'd expect more checks so with my common sense I'd make sure I were carrying ID so the cops would get to know that I'm a legal one. I'd actually help them find illegals if at all possible because I don't like the illegals making me look bad. It wouldn't be the cops I'd worry about but the hispanic gangs that may spill over the border and mistake me for someone they were targeting. So as a legal hispanic in Arizona I'd be doing everything I could to fight illegal hispanics in the country.
See my above comment. And it'd make me proud to prove I were a citizen and not an illegal. Is this the same mental strain you percieve when the police in japan ask to see your gaijin card? I've showed ID like that when dealing with the police to prove that I were here legally and had no problem with it. If they didn't check me I'd be wondering what they were on as they are the soul law enforcement on the street.
I heard on Israel related threads that a fence is "cruel" and would make Mexico into a prison etc. Now which way is it really?
0
Triumvere
No, its not the same, though the sentiments are related. I never had to show my card and wouldn't have had any problem with doing so, though there are clearly many who do (and write angry posts about it on JT). The difference is that I was a legal alien as opposed to a citizen. I think it takes a lot out of many people to have their allegiance questioned constantly, especially along racial lines - something very sensitive in the US.
0
Triumvere
Do I speak for everyone now? According to me, build the fence. I supported the Israeli fence because I felt the Israelis had the right to go about their daily lives without exploding (though I am extremely displeased with Israelis current self-distructive policies). I support the US border fence because I feel the US has the right to control who does and doesn't get to cross its borders (though I am displeased with are current immigration policy). I am, at least, internally consistant.
0
Triumvere
What does this mean? "The court" is currently hearing arguments, so "the court" hasn't made up it's mind (nevermind the appeals process). Even if it had, are we not allowed to debate the issue?
Back to top