I should probably clarify that I don't actually expect the law to be enforced without abuse, I was just trying to rhetorically separate whether people think it's a crappy law even when Saint Tinkerbell and her Miniature Army of Hombres enforces it perfectly. I halfway suspected that people would still think so, based on the vitriol that's flowing towards it.
That said, there's an extent to which the reason why I get to write this in my comfortable, air-conditioned house is because law enforcement officers are out there getting their asses shot at night-in and night-out, doing a very difficult job that needs to be done. Some of them, maybe most, are doing it to a pretty high level of professionalism, given the constraints.
Some of them just like to blow half-inch holes in the chests of unarmed juvenile black men for fun, though, so it's fair to say that there's a pretty broad spectrum.
Because the law REQUIRES officers to ask for proof of legal status when they have "reasonable suspicion," whatever that means--and the bill states that they can be sued if they DON'T ask for proof of legal status. What is reasonable suspicion? Being a brown person? Speaking with an accent? Much of the opposition is not because this bill will lead to "illegals" being kicked out, but because it will lead to legitimate immigrants being harassed and it encourages racial profiling.
"Reasonable suspicion" has been well defined and upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the federal Circuit Courts (including the 9th Circuit), and by the Courts of Appeals as being compatible with the 4th amendment. It does not cover being brown or speaking with an accent, at least not in theory. In practice, there will be some level of abuse, but I'm not sure I can blame this law for that abuse, and I don't know how to correct this law to prevent it, and I'm not convinced it wouldn't be there even after this law is repealed
( ... )
Amazing how much abuse and harassment already occurs in apparent Utopia. Cops in most states can already seize property and sell it without ever even charging someone with a crime.
Just because you've never been harassed by a cop doesn't mean it's not happening all the time.
If your property is seized unjustly, you have recourse in the law. Show me a place on earth with stronger protections against illegal search and seizure. If you choose not to avail yourself of those protections so that you can keep a lower profile and continue smuggling heroin in peace in a newer, shinier speedboat, that's not my problem. The instances of cops seizing property from law-abiding citizens and selling it without charging anyone with a crime are (I suspect) astonishingly rare.
Who says I've never been harassed by a cop? Who said it's not happening all the time? I simply said that people have strong existing recourse, and wonder whether it will really happen that much more often after this law starts being enforced, versus before. I consider the issue of police abuse to be almost entirely orthogonal to SB 1070, rather than being multiplied by its existence
( ... )
You realize there is essentially NO way for an unskilled or low skilled laborer to enter the country legally unless they marry someone here? Thus your 'some people wait in line' analogy is utter crap.
Also, the law is predicated on a complete falsehood, namely that illegal immigrants cause crime and steal jobs. Statistically speaking illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes and tend to improve the economy. Crime in Arizona has decreased more than other regions of the country with fewer illegal immigrants in the past few decades
( ... )
Hey there! I was really hoping you, shabinka, or martian687 would take some time to help me out on this, I'm really glad you posted. I'm still pretty ignorant on this topic despite efforts to educate myself, which is part of why I'm asking for help figuring it out.
> You realize there is essentially NO way for an unskilled or > low skilled laborer to enter the country legally
Okay, I dispute this. First, some gigantic fraction (half?) of the 12 million illegal immigrants already here are illegal exactly because they did 'wait in line', got proper visas, but then decided to overstay them. Over a million people were naturalized as citizens last year, and Mexico was the #1 nation of origin for those people. Maybe those half-million-plus Mexican-American immigrants are all skilled, I guess, but I really doubt it. The U.S. offers naturalization to tens of (hundreds of?) thousands of low-skilled Mexican-American immigrants annually
( ... )
100% of illegal immigrants violate federal law, which, last I checked, is a crime. And, while they do on aggregate improve the economy, they also distort it by dragging the labor market underground and creating black markets, while depressing wages overall. Now, I'm completely anti-price-controls, so I think the economy benefits from people being willing to work for below minimum wage, but last I checked, you were equally vociferously opposed to that, too, because it's exploitative. The first step towards protecting ALL citizens is establishing just who exactly are the citizens, which I still feel like this law is trying to do in the face of much criticism.
Finally, Arizona, one of the seven states that take the brunt of the costs associated with supporting large numbers of illegal immigrants, does not enjoy the many benefits of immigration nearly as disproportionately. Perhaps I should have specified crimes with an actual victim. But pick any particular genre of crime you wish(property theft, violent crime, etc..) and the story is
( ... )
(some thoughts, since I've had some time to take this in)
The DHS says "In 2009, the total number of persons naturalizing was 743,715 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The leading countries of birth of new citizens were Mexico (111,630), India (52,889), the Philippines (38,934), the People’s Republic of China (37,130), and Vietnam (31,168). The largest number of persons naturalizing lived in California (179,754), New York (88,733), and Florida (82,788)" and "The number of persons naturalizing in the United States declined to 743,715 in 2009 from 1,046,539 in 2008.", which is where I got my mistaken 1,000,000+ figure
( ... )
I think I'm going to have to say that I, too, think this is probably an ok law, as written. I also have some hope that it will be a net positive effect for Arizona.
As I read about it, the most objective sources I can find lead me to like it, and the opposition seems to be pretty much just spreading FUD or saying that, despite living elsewhere already, this law would make them not want to live in Arizona. Reading the actual text of the law [1] and some brief summaries of some pieces of it has me pretty convinced that it was written reasonably.
Also, enforcing existing law seems to me to be an admirable thing and one of the best ways to gain support for overturning a bad law (and in this case I mean immigration restrictions) is to enforce it.
Oh, I also wanted to say on the subject of police abuse ... I'm not sure that illegal aliens themselves have sufficient (if any) protections against it. Some of the bad law enforcement abuse stories are about ICE, who obviously deal largely with aliens. However, Arizona's officers may be better than ICE.
Comments 27
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
That said, there's an extent to which the reason why I get to write this in my comfortable, air-conditioned house is because law enforcement officers are out there getting their asses shot at night-in and night-out, doing a very difficult job that needs to be done. Some of them, maybe most, are doing it to a pretty high level of professionalism, given the constraints.
Some of them just like to blow half-inch holes in the chests of unarmed juvenile black men for fun, though, so it's fair to say that there's a pretty broad spectrum.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Just because you've never been harassed by a cop doesn't mean it's not happening all the time.
Reply
Who says I've never been harassed by a cop? Who said it's not happening all the time? I simply said that people have strong existing recourse, and wonder whether it will really happen that much more often after this law starts being enforced, versus before. I consider the issue of police abuse to be almost entirely orthogonal to SB 1070, rather than being multiplied by its existence ( ... )
Reply
Also, the law is predicated on a complete falsehood, namely that illegal immigrants cause crime and steal jobs. Statistically speaking illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes and tend to improve the economy. Crime in Arizona has decreased more than other regions of the country with fewer illegal immigrants in the past few decades ( ... )
Reply
> You realize there is essentially NO way for an unskilled or
> low skilled laborer to enter the country legally
Okay, I dispute this. First, some gigantic fraction (half?) of the 12 million illegal immigrants already here are illegal exactly because they did 'wait in line', got proper visas, but then decided to overstay them. Over a million people were naturalized as citizens last year, and Mexico was the #1 nation of origin for those people. Maybe those half-million-plus Mexican-American immigrants are all skilled, I guess, but I really doubt it. The U.S. offers naturalization to tens of (hundreds of?) thousands of low-skilled Mexican-American immigrants annually ( ... )
Reply
Finally, Arizona, one of the seven states that take the brunt of the costs associated with supporting large numbers of illegal immigrants, does not enjoy the many benefits of immigration nearly as disproportionately.
Perhaps I should have specified crimes with an actual victim. But pick any particular genre of crime you wish(property theft, violent crime, etc..) and the story is ( ... )
Reply
The DHS says "In 2009, the total number of persons naturalizing was 743,715 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The leading countries of birth of new citizens were Mexico (111,630), India (52,889), the Philippines (38,934), the People’s Republic of China (37,130), and Vietnam (31,168). The largest number of persons naturalizing lived in California (179,754), New York (88,733), and Florida (82,788)" and "The number of persons naturalizing in the United States declined to 743,715 in 2009 from 1,046,539 in 2008.", which is where I got my mistaken 1,000,000+ figure ( ... )
Reply
As I read about it, the most objective sources I can find lead me to like it, and the opposition seems to be pretty much just spreading FUD or saying that, despite living elsewhere already, this law would make them not want to live in Arizona. Reading the actual text of the law [1] and some brief summaries of some pieces of it has me pretty convinced that it was written reasonably.
Also, enforcing existing law seems to me to be an admirable thing and one of the best ways to gain support for overturning a bad law (and in this case I mean immigration restrictions) is to enforce it.
[1] Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment