Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Arizona H-1B Workers Advised to Carry Papers At All Times 884

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the snuck-in-through-the-indo-american-wormhole dept.
dcblogs writes "In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday on Arizona's immigration enforcement law, H-1B workers are being advised to keep their papers on them. About half of all H-1B visa holders are employed in tech occupations. The court struck down several parts of Arizona's law but nonetheless left in place a core provision allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people in the state at specific times. How complicated this gets may depend on the training of the police officer, his or her knowledge of work visas, and whether an H-1B worker in the state has an Arizona's driver's license. An Arizona state driver's license provides the presumption of legal residency. Nonetheless, H-1B workers could become entangled in this law and suffer delays and even detention while local police, especially those officers and departments unfamiliar with immigration documentation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arizona H-1B Workers Advised to Carry Papers At All Times

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:25PM (#40445397)

    You know, they could be Russian mafia or that guy from Wikileaks.

    Somehow, I doubt it.

  • this is new how? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jaymz666 (34050) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:26PM (#40445411)

    You mean like the work authorization card that you are supposed to carry ANYWAY?

  • Okay, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Penguinisto (415985) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:27PM (#40445417) Journal

    ...not to be too facetious here, but how often does someone from India or Russia sneak in over the Arizona/Mexico border?

    Seriously - this state law was built to stem the tide of one particular group of people. Forget your position on it and all, but consider that Montana certainly has no such laws, even though it borders a different nation as well.

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:27PM (#40445419)
    When will we realize that immigrants, "legal" and otherwise do not cause problems but rather raise the standard of living for -everyone-?
  • by Stirling Newberry (848268) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:30PM (#40445455) Homepage Journal
    Your papers please. Don't tell me you don't have them. What, am I supposed to believe you are a citizen? You need to come with me.
  • by bigjarom (950328) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:31PM (#40445471) Journal
    I'm a caucasian Canadian citizen living in Arizona on TN-status as a Management Consultant, and I have a valid Arizona driver's license. I doubt that I will be randomly asked for my immigration papers. I somehow don't think that I'm the reason Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio and company came up with this law.
  • by Idbar (1034346) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:40PM (#40445581)
    Having and H-1B (or F-1 or some long term stay visa), entitles you to get a driver license, which is what you use to identify yourself.

    You're telling me, if you're an American, and the cops think your accent is funny, they can ask you for your work authorization card and make your life impossible?
  • by trout007 (975317) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:43PM (#40445633)

    The only problems with immigrants are due to our own stupid laws that attract the wrong kind of immigrants and the problems they bring. The war on drugs brings the drug gangs, the war on poverty brings the destitute that aren't here to work but be a parasite, and the war on terror brings the ever elusive mid-eastern terrorist posing as a mexican.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:46PM (#40445681) Homepage
    why states enact these laws other than pandering to their geriatric neoconservative constituents and ginning up a scapegoat for high unemployment rates.
  • by dr2chase (653338) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:49PM (#40445729) Homepage

    Arrest != crime. Arrest can also indicate mere harassment by police.

  • by Okian Warrior (537106) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:50PM (#40445755) Homepage Journal

    Many states have implemented "must identify [wikipedia.org]" laws, which state that you must identity yourself (correctly) to a policeman when asked. Depending on the state, you're also required to correctly answer other questions, such as "what you are doing there, where did you come from, where you are going".

    These laws were brought to the attention of the supreme court, which stated flatly that these laws were constitutional so long as no proof of identity was required. Short of an arrest, police cannot demand proof of ID just for being in an area. (I don't believe that proof of license to drive a car on the highway has been addressed directly.)

    With this new ruling, states can pass laws that allow police to detain anyone who cannot prove their identity, on the theory that they *might* be illegal immigrants.

    The "must identify" laws effectively did away with anonymous meetings and anonymous protest. The police can simply wait outside any meeting and ask the participants their names as they leave.

    Now they can demand proof of ID as well.

    The right to peaceably assemble anonymously, the right to be in public anonymously, the right to protest anonymously is gone.

  • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:53PM (#40445789) Homepage

    They are willing to work for very low wages, which pulls wages down for everyone. Companies are then forced to pay those lower wages to compete against the other companies that already pay low wages, thus pulling wages down for the entire working class.

    So, make it trivially easy for them to be in the country legally, and thus entitled to the same workplace requirements as everyone else - minimum wage, etc.

    That way they can't get tossed out of the country and they can't be exploited by dodgy companies who expect them to put up with ridiculously low wages if they don't want to be grassed up. This then means that they're no longer cheaper to hire than locals, so you may as well hire locals instead of giving the job to immigrants.

    Simple enough.

  • by Paracelcus (151056) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:55PM (#40445839) Journal

    Javol, Heir!

    It is getting like cold war Europe or occupied France and kind of like an old style Soviet republic too.

  • by causality (777677) on Monday June 25, 2012 @06:58PM (#40445879)

    You might want to read this GAO report:

    "In our population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, we found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990."

    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R [gao.gov]

    Unfortunately, the people who oppose this aren't concerned about facts. This is their religious cause. Ignoring facts is how they demonstrate the depth of their faith.

    If they did care about the facts, they would have already done the research, already come to the one correct conclusion, and admitted that their previous position was knee-jerk, emotionally driven, and mistaken. Then they'd actually change their minds and you'd never hear the old view from them again. Maybe they'd also learn an unforgettable lesson about informing yourself prior to vehemently taking a position on something.

    That's what they would do if they were concerned about facts: the easily-researched, easily-comprehended facts of the matter. Clearly, they are not concerned about facts. They do seem to care about hand-waving, turning basic law enforcement (and anything else they don't like) into a racial/ethic issue, and saving face. In the absence of facts supporting their position, using the term "racist" as a weapon is all they have.

    There are issues where multiple valid positions are possible. There are topics which are opinion-based in nature. This isn't one of those. To maintain a verifiably false position in the face of multiple contradictory facts is a degree of self-deception and insanity I find difficult to comprehend. It's simply psychotic (that is, indicates no contact with reality).

    They remind me of the flat-earth adherents.

  • Which means.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gman003 (1693318) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:01PM (#40445929)

    Okay, so the immigrant workers are going to carry their papers. And many of the illegal ones, or at least the smart ones, will carry forged papers - at least ones good enough to pass cursory inspection.

    But what about the native-born citizens? Not everyone has a driver's license (or an Arizona license - would my Virginia driver's license count as "proof of citizenship"?), and I highly doubt citizens will be carrying around their birth certificates or anything - after all, they're not immigrants, why should they be concerned about an immigration law.

    This is basically carte blanche for the police to harass anyone, and non-immigrants are going to be surprisingly affected.

    In any case, I'm now mentally filing "Arizona" next to "East Germany", because both require me to have my papers in ordnung (and because both are effectively in the past - E.G. literally, Arizona figuratively).

  • by dr2chase (653338) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:01PM (#40445935) Homepage

    So, you can prove you're a citizen by carrying no papers? :-)

    That's what's always impressed me about these laws -- in theory, citizens need not carry papers, but if you don't, how does that "discussion" with the cop usually go? Of course *I* don't have to worry about this, I'm a fat old white guy. It's obviously discriminatory, it's intended to be discriminatory, and it's understood to be discriminatory. If *I* (and my kids) had to carry papers around all the time or risk arrest, I'd be furious. But I'm supposed to be okay with the law, because I'm white, so "we all know" that won't happen to me, it's only a problem for "other people". Bleah. This law has to go.

  • by Idbar (1034346) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:02PM (#40445951)
    Which still doesn't answer my question:
    How do American citizens show they are allowed to work in the US in case they're stopped.
  • by CohibaVancouver (864662) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:02PM (#40445953)

    So Canada will let anyone smuggle themselves into the country and allow them to stay however long they want?

    No, but we tend to do more cost/benefit analysis on programs than do our American friends. If illegal immigration is costing Canada one billions dollars per year then it doesn't make sense to spend 3 billion building a fence (these are just made-up numbers to make a point). Certainly criminals are deported, but some illegal picking apples in the summer and shovelling driveways in the winter is not likely to get much attention focused on him because it's cheaper to let him stay.

  • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot&gmail,com> on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:06PM (#40446009) Homepage Journal
    You classify legal and illegal immigrants together, but they are not. Don't insult my grandparents. When Prince William County, VA, enacted a similar law, it cut down on a lot of trouble. Murders halved from 9/yr annually to 4/yr annually, because 50% of the murders were by illegal immigrants. Over $100M in english-as-a-second-language class tax money was saved. If you want to come to our country legally, learn english to pass the entrance exam first, on your own time, not on my dime. I wouldn't expect I country I emigrate to to teach me its language; I'd expect to learn it myself and even make my wife speak to me in it as much as possible until we could conduct business in that country.
  • by russotto (537200) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:08PM (#40446043) Journal

    If an H-1B worker carries a California drivers license and is pulled over on a traffic stop in Arizona, the presumption of legal status with an Arizona driver's license goes away, said Jorge Lopez, co-chair of the Immigration & Global Migration Practice at Littler Mendelson.

    "Papers? What the fuck, man, I was born in East LA!"

  • Re:Okay, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darkmeridian (119044) <william.chuang@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:12PM (#40446109) Homepage

    That's kind of the problem here. It is a law meant to target Mexicans. The problem is that there are also legal Mexican-Americans who will get ensnared in the law as well. Believe it or not, there are brown folk in Arizona who are in the country legally. After all, we took Texas from the Mexicans. The law, as originally designed, allowed the state government to snatch people off the street if they thought they were illegal immigrants. Query: everyone admits that we're targeting Mexicans with this law, so how do you protect the rights of Mexican-Americans while still targeting illegal immigrants? Answer: you can't.

    The better approach is from the demand side and go after employers of illegal immigrants. But good luck getting Arizona to target big business. Or you can check someone's immigration status after you've arrested them for another crime, which seems to be where we're headed now because it has the ancillary benefit of deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, but it will also force illegal immigrants to walk on eggshells.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:12PM (#40446117)

    As someone who lives in AZ, it's about people like the "Chandler rapist"- who was an illegal who had been deported multiple times.
    It's about paying to educate criminals (whether they're being drug around by their parents or not).
    It's about NOT rewarding criminals- even if the criminals are the parents who get to see their kids get a better life.
    It's about requiring the police to do their jobs, instead of turning a blind eye to criminals and keeping enforcement uniform throughout the state.

    If any of you have driven I-8 to San Diego, or I-10 to LA, you pass through a FEDERAL immigration checkpoint (possibly several). I know a former coworker on a H1-B who didn't bring his papers with him and got stopped at one of these. He had to call another coworker to fax the documents. This was before 1070 was passed- and a lot of the officers are hispanic.

    Interesting fact: Federal regulations permit agents to consider a person's race when deciding if they may be a suspect. 1070 prohibits this. That's right- this law has stricter protections than federal guidelines.

    Personally, I'd like to see a real work permit program that ran trains down to the southern tip of South America so those who want to come here *legally* can. But the pigs on both sides don't want a workable solution.

    The crying libtards cry "but you're separating families". Newsflash folks: that's what happens to criminals. Nobody's crying that Jerry Sandusky's kids won't be able to see their father while he's in jail (hopefully forever).

    This law has over 60% support in AZ. That doesn't happen without the support of a *LOT* of hispanics.

  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:14PM (#40446145)
    While I don't like the law or the checking... this type of argument is not a good way to argue about it. Why should they routinely and often check whites? Arizona is on the border of Mexico. If you have some stats about how many illegally residing Caucasians are in Arizona vs. illegally residing Mexicans that show there's a surprisingly large portion, those would be welcome. Otherwise, I will continue to assume that most of those illegally residing in Arizona, are, in fact, Mexican, due to proximity to Mexico.

    On the other hand, if this were Washington, I would assume most of them are from B.C., so I would be interested in B.C.'s demographics.

    That said, the real issue, to me, is not racial profiling per se; the real issue is that I don't think it's fair that you always have to carry ID or go to jail... i.e., be guilty until proven innocent. Subpoena for proof of citizenship when having actually been involved in something else illegal? Fine. But just being routinely stopped for something that you may not have even done and having to prove your citizenship on the spot?

    (for example: if you're speeding, get pulled over, don't have a license... I see no reason why it's unfair to be penalized in whatever way the law states for driving without a license plus having to prove that you're a citizen in the first place; however, if you are pulled over for speeding and DO have your license, then it's not fair to have to prove citizenship... after-all, you have a license, which is all I [a citizen] carry, so if there's a problem with licenses, then the DMV should be looked at.)

  • by Okian Warrior (537106) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:16PM (#40446177) Homepage Journal

    I don't really see what all this whining is about. My dad did not become a US citizen until after I graduated from high school and he had a resident alien card in his wallet next to his driver's license. His citizenship was delayed for a long time due to processing backlog. In that interim period though it didn't seem to be a big deal. Why is this hard?

    Oh, well then. Let me explain it to you.

    You see, there's this famous expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" which means, essentially, sometimes actions which are well intentioned have negative consequences.

    If you look narrowly at, well, just about anything you can spin it as a good thing. It's sometimes difficult to see the effects that something has on the global population, or society at large.

    You see, even though the law is aimed at illegal immigrants, and only applies to illegal immigrants, it's pretty certain that a lot of legal citizens will have their rights violated because of this law.

    Rights which we have enjoyed and held dear for many years.

    If you take the trouble to see what effect this law will have on everyone, you realize (as does every other "whiner" on this thread), that the supreme court has just thrown out one of our most cherished rights, and hastened this country into the decay of fascism.

    I assure you, this is something worth whining about.

  • by Omestes (471991) <[omestes] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:19PM (#40446209) Homepage Journal

    already come to the one correct conclusion,

    And what is that "one correct conclusion", oh great enlightened master? Let me guess, it aligns well with you political idealogy, and is generally agreeable to the body of your preexisting views and biases?

    Please enlighten me. I am an Arizonan, I have read up extensively on immigration issues, I spend lots of time debating and pondering them. Until, of course, I realized that both sides of the issue are full crackpots and blustering idiot ideologues.

    There isn't an easy answer. There never will be. The facts which we can base an answer on are all murky and subjective. The human issues are more so. Immigration is an issue that can only be solved through unhappy compromises, and trying to balance the human elements on both sides of the equation. It is truly a textbook ethical dilemma.

    Also, that report is a farce, at least for the purposes of this discussion. It says nothing about the vast majority of immigrants (illegal or non) who aren't incarcerated.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:24PM (#40446289)

    Because citizens do not have to carry any card at all times. If you ask everyone to carry proof of legal status at all times, you can at least be fair. But if you don't, how do you separate a naturalized citizen that doesn't have to carry anything, and non citizen that has to? The cop just suspects anyone that has an accent. Before the ruling today, chances are a citizen with an accent would get arrested without breaking the law at all.

    Might not worry you, who has been here long enough to not have a foreign accent, but would you like to have to get a call from your dad because he just got arrested for not carrying papers that don't exist?

  • by couchslug (175151) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:25PM (#40446295)

    ..pay what the market will bear.

    Hiring coolie labor to undercut US workers is great for the coolies, not so for the people the US BELONGS to.

  • by rk (6314) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:31PM (#40446393) Journal

    Except that how do you prove you're NOT a foreigner in the US? Not quite as homogenous here as Japan.... and if I wanted laws like Japan, I'd fucking move to Japan.

  • by causality (777677) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:38PM (#40446501)

    Yes, and it makes sense. But do you have to carry it around, in case a cop decides to question your legal status in the US? The article title says... "Arizona H-1B Workers Advised to Carry Papers At All Times" (emphasis mine).

    In Arizona, having a valid driver's license provides a presumption of citizenship. The cops can inquire about citizenship if someone is pulled over at a traffic stop, or arrested because they are suspected of a crime. Now, if they're driving, they're supposed to have a license anyway. If they are arrested for a crime, documentation will be the least of their worries. I don't see a problem here.

    As for as H-1B workers who might be passengers, AND don't have driver's licenses? The people of Arizona, through their representatives, have decided that some extra hassle attached to this edge case is a worthy trade-off in return for being able to do something about the serious illegal immigration problem they are experiencing. The people of Arizona have this right, as the courts have rightly upheld. It is their state.

    Foreign workers are like guests in their home and it's about time this became more widely recognized. If you are a guest in my home, you will be treated with kindness and all of your civil rights will be respected because that's a minimum standard of decency. But if you bitch, complain, try to tell me how I should live, demand I accept trespassers, or in any way don't like being there, then you can kindly get the fuck out. This is the same thing at a larger scale, that's all.

    I don't personally like every law on the books of every state myself, but I accept them and abide by them. If those H-1B workers truly have a problem with the law, and don't consider the benefits of living and working in the USA to be worthwhile, then their option is clear. If they think that's terrible, they should have a look sometime at Mexico's immigration laws. Mexico doesn't coddle and pander to illegal aliens, they blatantly give preferential treatment to their own citizens over legal aliens, and I don't blame them. I don't blame the people of Mexico for wanting Mexico to be primarily for Mexicans.

    Even if all federal immigration laws were vigorously enforced AND all states followed Arizona's lead, the USA's immigration laws are still rather soft and egalitarian compared to the rest of the world. In light of this, I'm tired of the sense of entitlement and all the whining. The way it should work is that the USA is primarily for USA citizens (natural-born or legal naturalized immigrants) and anything we do for anyone else is out of the kindness of our hearts and will be withdrawn if it is not appreciated. That childish sense of entitlement is like anything else: it only grows if you feed it.

  • by neonv (803374) on Monday June 25, 2012 @07:48PM (#40446627)

    I lived in Russia for years, got asked for my papers all the time. It didn't bother me. Just about any other country requires foreigners to carry their papers 100% of the time, regardless of color. If I became a citizen of Russia, I'd still be asked for papers just because I look and sound American. There's no way to get around that and still allow Russia to have orderly immigration.

    I don't think skin color is a strong motivator for the Arizona law. I think if everyone in Mexico were white, the same laws would be passed. Similar things happened in the 19th century when Europeans immigrated to the US for jobs. Foreigners took jobs and make citizens mad. Hence there was a hatred of white immigrants from Ireland or Scotland. If Canadians started crossing the border in the millions, you'd see Montana getting scared and passing immigration laws. Now there's a flood of immigrants from Mexico, who also happen to have different skin color, taking jobs and possibly increasing crime. It's historically repeated reaction to resist mass immigration. There's always some racism, but race in this reguard is almost irrelevant.

  • by causality (777677) on Monday June 25, 2012 @08:00PM (#40446793)

    I still don't understand why States need to enforce federal laws.

    If the federal government doesn't want to enforce laws, that's because they have a reason to - no need for states to get involved in international affairs.

    (The answer is: Americans want illegal immigration to continue)

    Because most of the law enforcement and other government services that are expended because of illegal aliens happen at the state and local levels. It's easy for the federal government to be lazy here because the federal politicians get the support for looking the other way AND they're not the ones bearing the burden of it. You might as well ask why a heavily-polluting industry doesn't want anti-pollution laws to be enforced.

    And no, most Americans don't want illegal immigration to continue. I know a very vocal minority likes to portray their view as representative of the general population but it isn't. The only ones who benefit from it are: big businesses who like paying lower wages, the Republican candidates they tend to sponsor, and Democrat candidates who score points with their base by pandering to the Hispanic minority.

    Most people are not majority shareholders in large corporations. Most people are not Republican federal politicians receiving campaign contributions. Most people are not federal Democrat politicians receiving votes from well-meaning but stupid people who feel good about making everything a racial issue only because they happen to be on the privileged side of this particular one.

    The vast majority of Americans gain nothing from this at all. The legal American citizens who live in places with large illegal alien populations not only fail to gain, but lose a lot. They lose in the form of lower wages, higher crime, language barriers, and money leaving their local communities because it's being sent to relatives in foreign nations. When it turns out they don't want to be exploited like this, they're told about how "racist" they are for not liking it, just to add some insult to injury. They're pretty damned tired of it. Do you blame them? Those legal American citizens are the hosts, while the federal political machine that benefits from this is the parasite.

    They're politically fighting back at the state level because they have no voice at all on the federal level. They can't outclass the corporate sponsorship on the Republican side. Meanwhile the Democrat party will never give up its obsession with dividing people by race because playing various racial/ethnic groups against each other is how they get many of their votes. So the people are taking the options that are still available to them. All you are seeing here is that the people are better represented in state and local governments than they could ever dream of being in the federal government. This is nothing new.

    Again, do you blame them? It's all easy to play armchair critic and forget that this is a direct response to a real problem.

  • by causality (777677) on Monday June 25, 2012 @08:09PM (#40446893)

    And what is that "one correct conclusion", oh great enlightened master? Let me guess, it aligns well with you political idealogy, and is generally agreeable to the body of your preexisting views and biases?

    That the laws on the books, concerning immigration and anything else, should either be enforced or repealed. Is that biased enough for you?

    Of course, by assuming that I must be biased against someone or something, you are confirming my point. Some kind of accusation of bias of some kind is like a hammer to so many, and by God everything suddenly looks just like a nail. Maybe if you just keep trying hard enough it will finally work?

    It's like you were doing this: "Hmm. Don't like what that guy said - check. Have to portray him as biased, bigoted, or just plain unpleasant because heaven forbid two adults have a conversation about a national issue without making it personal - check. Muddy the water with "human issues" and "both sides of the equation" when concepts like "rule of law" are so damned simple - check."

    Tell you what. If you truly want to be as unbiased and fair as possible, I have a proposal. Let's follow Mexico's lead and do it the way they do it! Let's harmonize our immigration laws to match theirs, the same way that copyright laws are harmonized among various nations. If you support illegal immigration, you wouldn't like that one damned bit. But it would be so unbiased!

  • I hate to break the news to ya, but it ain't just poo little Paco coming to work that's crossing the border,

    On behalf of us conservative, middle-class, white Americans [1]: kiss my ass. "Poor little Paco" is some dude who wants a better living for his family. You don't get to blithely throw that baby out with the bathwater. Dismissing concerns about "those poor little brown people" is a giant "screw you" to everyone who's ever emigrated to America.

    we are talking dope dealers,

    ...who wouldn't be an issue if we dropped this stupid War On Drugs,

    human traffickers,

    ...who are heavily involved with the same drug warlords our insane policies have made rich,

    some really serious scum are crossing that huge leaking sieve of a border as well.

    ...but fortunately they constitute a tiny portion of border violators. Your little link listed, what, 10? 20? people killed by illegal immigrants. They'd call that a busy week in Chicago (no, really: unlike you, I actually looked up the numbers).

    So we have a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have. And then we have a few thousand who want to get rich off the drug laws we've almost custom-tailored to those ends. Ruling out the crime of illegal immigration itself, I'd wager that the crime rate among those immigrants is no more than equal that of natives in similar economic classes. I'd make a side wager that it would be less, as tight-knit communities self-police to keep the limelight off themselves, and because an illegal immigrant making $X is likely to feel much less poor than a native making the same amount.

    So in short, you ought to be ashamed for writing off "poor little Paco", as though his desire to live better is no big deal. There are a lot more of him than there are of the scary drug kidnapper straw men you've used to justify your racist assholishness. You, personally, are the reason that the Republicans don't completely own the Latino vote. Their conservative culture would be a near-perfect match for the Republican platform if you could get over your squeamishness and quit driving them away.

    [1] I'm still a fiscal conservative, but I couldn't abide by the social hyperconservatism of the current Republican party. I'm not gay and the occasional mai tai is the hardest drug I get near so it's not like I was feeling personally oppressed. It's just that I stopped feeling the need to tell other people how to live. You, too, can get over the "Rush says it so it must be right!" mindset and start enjoying the world around you. It's not nearly as scary as rightwing talk radio would lead you to believe.

  • by davidwr (791652) on Monday June 25, 2012 @08:47PM (#40447245) Homepage Journal

    The problem comes when a citizen who is NOT carrying id is hassled by the police because he is the wrong skin color, speaks with an accent, or doesn't - or chooses not to - speak clear English.

    At this point you have an American Citizen whose civil rights are being violated based on a "protected" issue such as skin color, national or presumed national origin, race, etc.

    This leave the police very little choice:

    Either ask for papers from people independent of reasons that boil down to "He looks Mexican" or don't ask for papers at all.

    If cops in your town are NOT engaged in pulling people over for "driving while Hispanic" and they demand papers from EVERYONE they pull over or, in the absence of papers, demand that the person they pull over sign an affidavit stating their citizenship and/or visa status, then they'll be immune from accusations of illegal discrimination. Lying on an affidavit is perjury.

  • by tftp (111690) on Monday June 25, 2012 @08:51PM (#40447273) Homepage

    So in short, you ought to be ashamed for writing off "poor little Paco", as though his desire to live better is no big deal.

    Either you have no idea how US immigration works, or you are positioning yourself against millions of legal immigrants (Green Card holders, H1B, TN and naturalized citizens.)

    It is very difficult - sometimes impossible - for a foreigner to obtain residency in the USA. It takes enormous effort to find a company that is willing to sponsor you, to get the visa, to move in and work as a slave for many years until your GC application is approved and completed. A GC card holder still cannot vote, and he can be kicked out of the country whenever the government wants it (for a reason or without.)

    But you here are proposing that someone from MX is free to just walk across the border and get everything (if not more) than a law-abiding citizen works toward for more than a decade?

    Of course that's not the only reason to stop illegal immigration. One of the most significant signs that a state is a failed state is its inability to control its borders. When anyone can waltz in and out, carrying anything he wants (from his kids to his drugs and his nuclear bombs) you have no country. You are not in control; you are at mercy of invaders who may or may not kill you today. Some that do kill are disappearing back across the border and remain out of reach of the law.

    You should also notice that the country is not in its top shape right now. Each illegal immigrant takes a job from a citizen. You may say that the job pays so poorly that no citizen would want it. Well, stop the government payouts and watch. Otherwise of course who would want to work - for any salary - if he can live well enough by doing nothing.

  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday June 25, 2012 @08:53PM (#40447283) Homepage Journal

    I'm a recent American citizen

    Welcome aboard, by the way! Sorry that Arizona is currently acting like a dumbass, but I think most Americans genuinely like that people want to come here and hang out with us. I'm glad that you found something in our home that made you want to stick around.

  • by CajunArson (465943) on Monday June 25, 2012 @08:54PM (#40447291) Journal

    Ooh you made a typo there:
    Just like Germany in 2012. There fixed that for you.

    Oh but you were making a Nazi refernce to sound deep! Well guess what: They also drank beer and taught math in Germany in 1938 too! Therefore, we should outlaw beer and math or else it's Hitler all over again!

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday June 25, 2012 @09:09PM (#40447409) Homepage Journal

    On the other side, the Conservatives reacted by enacting local state laws such as what Arizona, Alabama, Virginia are doing

    It isn't that...I mean AZ isn't overrun by conservatives...but they ARE being overrun by illegals, and the toll it is taking on crime, overburdened schools, hospitals and other state/city services is immense.

    From the polls I've seen, this kind of law, holds widespread support by the majority of the whole state....as it does in many border states that are having to deal with this...something other states can't comprehend since they're not wearing the same shoes.

    It IS a major problem, and the federal govt. is not enforcing the laws on the books. If you could stop the flood of people coming in, and then revamp the immigration system...well, it would help.

    I don't think the majority of people have a problem with legal immigration, but it has to be monitored and metered. The unbrideled flow of illegal people in the country is taking its toll on the system, and it isn't fair to the many thousands of people from all over the world, trying to wait in line and come here to become US citizens properly, with all the rewards and obligations that entails, including important requirements such as proficiency in English...something important to integrating into the larger American culture, rather than isolating into small communities cut off from the larger culture and population.

    On the high level, presidental level, sure, it is all political...but if you had to live and deal with the situation that border states with Mexico are having to deal with...you'll find it cuts largely across both political ideals with regard to support for securing the borders and doing something about cutting the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants flooding those states.

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday June 25, 2012 @09:18PM (#40447477) Homepage Journal

    What about people who are trying to get out of Mexico to live or work here?

    Simple...follow the fucking rules and try to come in legally and become a real citizen.

    I agree our immigration policy needs to be reformed and streamlined...but just because a foreign national doesn't like our laws, doesn't give them the right to come over and break it at will.

    Just because we're on the same continent, doesn't mean you can wander over here at any time.

    Just see how Mexico itself views illegals coming across ITs border if you'd like a nice comparison.

  • by wierd_w (1375923) on Monday June 25, 2012 @09:33PM (#40447617)

    Most staple foods in the US are mechanically harvested.

    The ones that can't be (notoriously, strawberries), are specialty crops.

    Illegal immigration does not bring the price per bushel of wheat down in any noticable maner. What is allready obscenely cheap to produce compared to manually picked crops, when you count only total laborers involved. (A single farmer plows, irrigates, sows, fertilizes, and sprays insecticide on a huge plot of land. Several people show up to harvest, only because it takes several drivers to haul the crop off, and because many hands make lighter work, and more fields can be harvested PER DAY. Compare to strawberries, which take DAYS to harvest one field.

    You don't get "cheap food" from illegal labor. You get cheap luxuries from illegal labor.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, 2012 @09:39PM (#40447681)

    Yes, I know the law says you can't use race as a factor. Doesn't really stop cops from using race as a factor when deciding who to stop.

  • by Loki_1929 (550940) on Monday June 25, 2012 @09:45PM (#40447719) Journal

    Enforcing every law, aside from somehow knowing them all, would grind the system to a halt. Discretion has been around for a long time. Could you imagine what would happen if every jaywalker got hauled into court? If everyone who went over the speed limit got a ticket?

    That's a problem with the laws; not anything else. Selective enforcement of the law is a democratic society's back door to tyranny. Whereas a despot requires no reason to imprison anyone he pleases on a whim, that's not possible in a government of limited power unless you ensure that everyone is guilty of some kind of crime. Once you've achieved that, imprisoning who you please is a simple matter of finding which of the innumerable laws they've violated and using those as an excuse to do what the despot could have done just slightly easier.

    Fix the laws or become a prisoner of them, subject to the whims of the ruling class.

  • by Wakko Warner (324) on Monday June 25, 2012 @09:51PM (#40447759) Homepage Journal

    On one side the Liberals declare that people entering the USA, even illegally, should be considered as "legal", so long as they do not make trouble

    I've literally never, in my entire life, heard any self-described "liberal" say this. Never. You're setting up a false dichotomy so you can make it look the problem is being caused by both sides.

    It isn't.

    This is entirely a right-wing issue, and the flames of racism are being fanned entirely by so-called "conservatives".

  • by jc42 (318812) on Monday June 25, 2012 @10:05PM (#40447833) Homepage Journal

    There's a law in the states that citizens are not required to carry identification. Thus all a foreigner has to do is state that they are a resident and there's not much an officer can do about it.

    Kinda naive, aren't we? ;-) If you're a citizen, but don't "look right", there's a lot that any police officer can do to you.

    Fact is, the officer can arrest anyone, for any reason, or for no reason at all. If you object or resist, you'll be held overnight or longer. Then, when they're tired of harassing you, they kick you out. If you try to file charges, you find that there's no record you were ever there, and they all insist that they've never seen you before. This isn't at all a hypothetical scenario. It's pretty well understood by most non-white Americans over the age of 5.

    There's always lots a police officer can do to you if he wants to make your life difficult.

    (If you have some witnesses, perhaps you can file charges against them. But chances are, your friends won't be too quick to volunteer as a witness. That would result in their names being in the police department's records. ;-)

  • by cffrost (885375) on Monday June 25, 2012 @10:22PM (#40447933) Homepage

    P.S. don't you love how Obama panders by pronouncing "Latinos" differently than any other word? Imagine how the liberal hypo would piss themselves if Romney had a shout out to the "Afro Americans" sounding like Ludacris. If I was "Latino" I'd be pretty pissed at being pandered to, but apparently the promise of welfare checks and scare tactics that big mean Republicans are out to get you is enough to keep the sheeple dependent and in line.

    I don't pay a lot of attention to the trivialities of partisan, campaign rhetoric. I'm more interested in facts, such as the Obama administration's record deportation of undocumented immigrants. [washingtonpost.com]

  • by Qzukk (229616) on Monday June 25, 2012 @11:39PM (#40448461) Journal

    The problem is that despite all the yammering about skilled vs unskilled labor, the ability to withstand manual labor in the summer sun all day long is very much an acquired skill, one which a lot of legal workers don't have, and no about of screaming at unemployment recipients will magically imbue it.

  • They broke federal law by illegally entering our country.

    A man looks at a line on the map and thinks, "on this side, my children go to poor schools until 3rd grade and then start a lifetime of manual labor. They'll have no more than I. On that side of the invisible line, they go to good schools and maybe work hard to become a doctor." Then he steps over the line. Yeah, that's just a hair's breadth away from slanging 'caine with a gang.

    The fact that you think this is how humans reason about morality says a lot more about you than it does our new visitors.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @12:33AM (#40448837)

    I'm an Arizona citizen and your summation matches how I see reality here.
    Growing up industries like plumbing and other construction trades were a viable option for un-educated people but not anymore. Personally I feel that big corporations (and even not so big companies) use illegal immigrants just like pre-civil war farmers used slaves. I wish we could solve the real problem driving it: corruption in Mexico.

  • by arkane1234 (457605) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @12:54AM (#40448969) Journal

    Cheap food is a benefit. You may not like it, you may see other problems, that's not MY problem. Undocumented workers do provide a benefit.

    A benefit on the backs of people being abused.
    You're a wonderful person, I want to know you.

  • by fearofcarpet (654438) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @01:39AM (#40449193)

    Fact is, the officer can arrest anyone, for any reason, or for no reason at all. If you object or resist, you'll be held overnight or longer. Then, when they're tired of harassing you, they kick you out. If you try to file charges, you find that there's no record you were ever there, and they all insist that they've never seen you before. This isn't at all a hypothetical scenario. It's pretty well understood by most non-white Americans over the age of 5.

    And strip-searched. Don't forget that the same SCOTUS that says it's ok to demand proof of citizenship says that the police can strip-search you without bringing up any charges. Put those two things together, sprinkle on good old fashion racial profiling, and voila legal shelter for racists and xenophobes to harass people for the crime of being non-white in a border state.

  • Re:Oh, c'mon ! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SvnLyrBrto (62138) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @02:06AM (#40449315)

    > What about Obama's Immigration Directive ?

    So what exactly do you think a child who is being brought into the US illegally by his/her parents should do in their situation? Run away? Snitch on their own parents? What if they're too young at the time to even be aware of the illegality of their crossing, or it's repercussions? Hell, some of those kids don't even know they're here illegally until the government launches into a deportation.

    And then what? They're supposed to go back to a country where they have no ties, may not remember, and may not even speak the language? Leave the only home they've ever known because of something their *parents* did when they were children?

    You people are just sick. Whatever one might think the policy should be on adults who cross the border illegally; to oppose the Dream Act, or its replication in Obama's recent directive, isn't just morally repugnant. It's inhuman and sadistic.

  • Read the case FFS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @02:25PM (#40455611)

    As an immigration attorney, the misinformation in this /. post is driving me bonkers. At the same time, this is not legal advice, go listen to your own damn attorney not me. In fact, you do not know if I am really an attorney, because I am posting as anonymous coward. Enjoy.

    Please read the damn case. Any immigration attorney telling their H-1B clients to carry their papers at all times has clearly not read the ruling. SCOTUS left the "papers now" provision in to see how the State proposes enforcing it. At the same time, SCOTUS told them how they could not enforce it. SCOTUS went so far as to give unprecedented examples on how the law may be enforced and how it cannot be enforced. Rather, not unprecedented for Kennedy, but unprecedented for the court as a whole to sign on to. Page 22 of the opinion (page 26 of the PDF), all you need to know is there, READ IT. Here is a link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

    If you are stopped for an on-arrestable offense and the officer has a reasonable belief, not based on race or nationality, the officer can ask you if you are legally in the United States. The officer can also ask you for a copy of your documents proving that you are here legally. But, the officer can ONLY do these things IF it WILL NOT ADD ANY TIME TO THE LENGTH OF YOUR DETAINMENT BY THE OFFICER! And, if you are not OTHERWISE ARRESTABLE the officer cannot harass you, hold you, or detain you, if you are proven to be illegally in the U.S. The result of this is that if you are temporarily stopped by an officer, but not arrested, you can and should tell the officer that you refuse to answer the question as you believe that is a matter of federal law and not state law. Everyone, Citizen, H-1B, Illegal, Visitor, you name it should do this. "I am sorry officer, but under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution you cannot compel me to answer that question." And if the officer tries to arrest you for it or come up with "interference" charges because you refuse to answer the question you should say, "I am sorry officer, but you cannot detain me further to answer that question. If you are not going to arrest me, you must now let me go." And go on your merry way.

    On the other hand. If you are arrested and taken into custody, the officer can call ICE and check out your status. BUT, the officer cannot prolong your detention because of it. Therefore, if you are arrested and they would normally release you, even if they have no response from ICE, they must release you.

    THE LAW IS TOOTHLESS. It is UNENFORCEABLE. Refuse to answer the question and do so politely. Do not talk more than is necessary.

    TREAT THIS AS YOU TREAT EVERY TIME YOU ARE STOPPED BY A POLICE OFFICER - whether for driving while black, latino, or shits and giggles - DO NOT SAY ANYTHING. NEVER TALK TO A POLICE OFFICER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. DO NOT SHOW DOCUMENTS UNLESS YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO. A STATE POLICE OFFICER CANNOT REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW YOUR IMMIGRATION PAPERS. IF YOU REFUSE, THE OFFICER CANNOT DO ANYTHING. ONLY AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER CAN REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW THE PAPERS.
    DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=related

    Under the Fourth Amendment there must be probable cause that a crime has been committed, before the officer can require you to show your ID. Showing your immigration papers has nothing to do with showing your ID, unless they are the only ID you have on your person. Kindly tell the officer No and refuse to show your immigration papers.

    To quote Justice Jackson, Watts v. Indiana 338 US 49, 59 (1949): "[A]ny lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Showing your papers or telling the officer your immigration status is a statement to the police.

    : Pissed Off Attorney (POA)

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Working...