Apartheid in Arizona

[Tempra]

Tempra,

Yes, but it was already a crime to be an illegal immigrant. So the question is, what changed with this law? What changed is that suddenly being brown becomes very alike to giving the police probable cause. While not every PC is necessarily criminal in itself, it is at least supposed to be an actual, you know, in and of itself indication of a crime.

Of what crime is it an indication to have brown skin, if not having brown skin itself?

I'll be honest, i don't know what gives cops reasonable suspicion that an individual is an illegal immigrant if not skin color / name. It will be interesting to see what the governor's training handbook will entail on proper reasonable suspicion. I assume ICE agents are taught to be on the look out for certain types of activity as opposed to skin color, but I don't know.

Nevertheless, I don't think this law is going to last very long because it preempts federal law.

ETA: And as to the point about "not all Hispanics have brown skin," you're saying -- what? That blond-blue-eyeds who're named Alvarez are going to suffer, too? Okay, so that disproves the premise of the OP in what way exactly?

I mean, if the law is never enforced, that's bad, too. Why are we passing laws we cynically know are never going to bear fruit? To the extent that it's going to be enforced, it's states overstepping their authority. If your political ideology rests on consistency and separation of powers, then why wouldn't that be a problem for you?

Besides: what is supposed to define "Hispanic" in the meaning of the law?

I don't think this is properly aimed at me.

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

I don't think this is properly aimed at me.

It was not intended for you, and I will be more specific in my responses in future.

[Lord Mord]

Emo,

Well, I think the question is, what means "to question"? If it amounts to "Hey, you there! Show me your ID... oh, I see you actually got one and it looks legit. Sorry, thought you were an illegal immigrant. Have a nice day!" - then it might be annoying to have to go through this more often than other people just because you share your complexion with the majority of illegal immigrants (and thus give "reason to suspect" you're one of them), but I do not see how this would constitute racism, as this treatment doesn't deprive you of any rights (except if you consider it a right not to have an ID on you all time - but that's clearly an American thing; in Europe it's perfectly normal and no one has any problems with it) or severely hamper your daily life. If, of course, it means being held up for dozens of minutes or even being arrested and brought to the next police station...

Emphasis mine.

You seem to be asking, "why is this necessarily racist?" and I guess the answer depends entirely on the bolded part: on what basis was it thought that the actual citizen was a possible illegal?

[Shryke]

A couple of things more about this law:

1) This will only sky-rocket crime in areas with minorities or illegal immigrants. This law does an excellent job severing yet more ties between these communities and law enforcement. Bravo.

2) Apparently, this law ALSO allows anyone to bring a civil suit against any entity that adopts or implements a policy to enforce federal immigration law to any extent less than the limit set by federal law.

Which, of course, means anyone can sue the local police department for not rounding up enough Brown People for their taste.

Which only encourages police departments to racially profile and harass brown people EVEN MORE.

[CloudFlare]

I mean, if the law is never enforced, that's bad, too. Why are we passing laws we cynically know are never going to bear fruit? To the extent that it's going to be enforced, it's states overstepping their authority. If your political ideology rests on consistency and separation of powers, then why wouldn't that be a problem for you?

Besides: what is supposed to define "Hispanic" in the meaning of the law?

The law says nothing about Hispanic, Latino, Mexican, PR etc, just immigration status. Obviously the bulk of illegals in Arizona are from south of the border though, and will be darker skinned.

can't see what the problem would be with 1

the problem is that immigration is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction. the first state law indictment for being an unlawful alien should be answered: state statute is void because it is pre-empted by federal statute.

Hmmm.... I don't know about that. Arizona was already part of the voluntary program to train local cops in immigration matters. The state law says nothing about taking precedence over fed law. From the first portion, what I gather is:

1) If a cop makes a lawful stop

2) And suspects the stopped party to be illegal

3) The cop has to make a reasonable effort to check immigration status *with the Feds*

4) If practical

It's basically expanding the local cops' power to enforce immigration law. It doesn't seem that radical to me.

On #1, even the most racist white judge and jury won't be able to let cops get away with skin color stops without the feds intervening.

On #2, no American DL will be the big thing, or no visa/passport/English.

On #3, it's near impossible for local cops to get the feds interested in illegals that have been snared(legitimately) in the criminal court system. I suspect the feds will continue to ignore local cops unless it's a real violent felon, drug dealer etc.

On #4, at some point you have to trust local cops. Yes, there are bad apples, but the majority aren't Nazis. They're not going to cuff some mother with three kids while waiting half a day to hear from ICE. Suspected/known gangsters, drug dealers, scumbags? They _might_ get roped up with this law, but like I said, the feds don't usually care about any but the biggest fish.

For the local cops who don't want to enforce the law, #4 provides a lot of wiggle room to ignore it as well. "Your honor, I was chasing the radio all night, I didn't have time to wait to hear back from ICE, so I let Maria Yglesias y Sierra y Garcia y Pablo go for driving without a license."

Part E of the law may be more draconian, but I suspect it's just boilerplate. Is it a tautological(?) law? I can arrest you on suspicion of being illegal, because I suspect you of being illegal?

Page 10 seems to give a lot of wiggle room to those who employ illegals WRT entrapment. I suspect this is a bone thrown to Arizona's business interests, as usual.

Page 11, lines 24-26 seems to explicitly state the employer sanctions part of the bill has to have evidence other than "that a bunch a Mexicuns workin' somewhere".

We went through this hysteria with e-Verify, which IIRC has had zero prosecutions brought.

[BLU-RAY]

On #4, at some point you have to trust local cops. Yes, there are bad apples, but the majority aren't Nazis. They're not going to cuff some mother with three kids while waiting half a day to hear from ICE.

I mean, I don't live there, but from previous threads, indications are that cops in some parts of Az are going to do exactly that sort of thing.

[CloudFlare]

I mean, I don't live there, but from previous threads, indications are that cops in some parts of Az are going to do exactly that sort of thing.

Joe Arapaio of MCSO launches crime sweeps in Hispanic/high crime neighborhoods from time to time. They don't accomplish much, but they give Joe a chance to feel big and tweak his enemies. He'll die or get voted out sooner or later, and that will be the end to that.

It's probably not racism on his part BTW. He's lobbied the county supes to let him hire green card holders as MCSO deputies, which the law prohibits. He just like grinding people's gears.

[Lord Mord]

KD,

1) If a cop makes a lawful stop

2) And suspects the stopped party to be illegal

3) The cop has to make a reasonable effort to check immigration status *with the Feds*

4) If practical

Emphasis mine.

Just to be clear, are there any specific criteria which may be used as the basis for the bolded?

[Red Sun]

Well, I think the question is, what means "to question"? If it amounts to "Hey, you there! Show me your ID... oh, I see you actually got one and it looks legit. Sorry, thought you were an illegal immigrant. Have a nice day!" - then it might be annoying to have to go through this more often than other people just because you share your complexion with the majority of illegal immigrants (and thus give "reason to suspect" you're one of them), but I do not see how this would constitute racism, as this treatment doesn't deprive you of any rights (except if you consider it a right not to have an ID on you all time - but that's clearly an American thing; in Europe it's perfectly normal and no one has any problems with it) or severely hamper your daily life. If, of course, it means being held up for dozens of minutes or even being arrested and brought to the next police station...

I do think that there is a lot of underlying racism in the way immigrants, legal or illegal, are treated in Germany, so that's a really hot topic. It should also be noted that it is more than "annoying" when you are constantly regarded with much more suspicion because of your skincolour. It means that your existence alone makes you appear as a criminal. If you are dark skinned, you have higher chances that the police will suspect you being a drug dealer more often.

[Old Nan]

If the feds would do their job and maintain a modicum of control over the border, it would never get to this point.

This is the key point as far as I'm concerned. The Arizona law is not terribly different from federal statutes, and it seems a bit disingenuous for the federal government and the Democrat and Republican elites to accept the laws being on the books, passively resist enforcing them except with halfhearted sporadic sweeps, and then complain that someone else has the temerity to actually take them at face value. Perhaps it isn't strictly legal, but a cop who independently busts a gang who had been paying off the chief of police should not be fired for insubordination.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

On #4, at some point you have to trust local cops. Yes, there are bad apples, but the majority aren't Nazis. They're not going to cuff some mother with three kids while waiting half a day to hear from ICE.

They might chain her to the bed while she's giving birth

Also let us not forget, the MCSO has already had it's immigration enforcement powers stripped by ICE because of repeated abuses.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

KD,

Emphasis mine.

Just to be clear, are there any specific criteria which may be used as the basis for the bolded?

To me, the concern is that citizens of hispanic origin may be unfairly questioned. I really don't have a problem with aliens, illegal or not, having hte mild inconvenience of being asked to show documentation that they are here legally.

That's an important distinction because it is reasonable to expect that citizens will be conversant in English. It's an explicit requirement for naturalization, and its quite unlikely that an adult U.S. citizen, even one of hispanic origin, is not going to be conversant in basic English.

That suggests an officer will have a reasonable basis to question immigration status if, in the performance of his other normal duties, he encounters people unable to speak English. That's one way I could see this law being enforced that wouldn't infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens.

[Shryke]

This is the key point as far as I'm concerned. The Arizona law is not terribly different from federal statutes, and it seems a bit disingenuous for the federal government and the Democrat and Republican elites to accept the laws being on the books, passively resist enforcing them except with halfhearted sporadic sweeps, and then complain that someone else has the temerity to actually take them at face value. Perhaps it isn't strictly legal, but a cop who independently busts a gang who had been paying off the chief of police should not be fired for insubordination.

It is different from the Federal statutes and, more importantly, it's the FEDERAL governments responsibility to handle immigration, not the states.

[Hereward]

except if you consider it a right not to have an ID on you all time - but that's clearly an American thing; in Europe it's perfectly normal and no one has any problems with it

I live in Europe and I can assure you that the majority of people here have a huge problem with being required to have ID on them.

[Altherion]

I live in Europe and I can assure you that the majority of people here have a huge problem with being required to have ID on them.

This varies from country to country and I am not sure you would have a majority when considering all of Europe. Some countries (e.g. Belgium, Italy) issue a single ID card which every adult must have on them unless they're in their house or really close by. Others (e.g. France, the Netherlands) issue an ID card which is not compulsory, but you have to have some document (e.g. said ID, passport, etc.) that the police can use to verify your identity if you're stopped. Still others (e.g. the UK) do not appear to require people to have an ID on them at all (at least as far as I can tell).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This varies from country to country and I am not sure you would have a majority when considering all of Europe. Some countries (e.g. Belgium, Italy) issue a single ID card which every adult must have on them unless they're in their house or really close by. Others (e.g. France, the Netherlands) issue an ID card which is not compulsory, but you have to have some document (e.g. said ID, passport, etc.) that the police can use to verify your identity if you're stopped. Still others (e.g. the UK) do not appear to require people to have an ID on them at all (at least as far as I can tell).

The law doesn't require everyone to carry an I.D. It only requires non-citizens to carry an I.D. And if the cops start dragging citizens off to jail because they don't have an I.D. and can't prove they're not aliens (either legal or illegal), the department is going to get sued big-time.

This law prevents the situation where illegal aliens claim they're here legally but just "forgot" their green cards. If the cop has reason to suspect they aren't citizens -- and not speaking English is a good tipoff -- he has to take them in. Then, even the ones who are here legally can be fined for not having their green card. The law could be abused, but on the other hand, it could be enforced in a perfectly reasonable, common-sense manner as well.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The law could be abused, but on the other hand, it could be enforced in a perfectly reasonable, common-sense manner as well.

Haha, just like all those other laws that are applied in an even-handed, common sense manner with no eye towards racial discrimination?

[Watcher]

To me, the concern is that citizens of hispanic origin may be unfairly questioned. I really don't have a problem with aliens, illegal or not, having hte mild inconvenience of being asked to show documentation that they are here legally.

That's an important distinction because it is reasonable to expect that citizens will be conversant in English. It's an explicit requirement for naturalization, and its quite unlikely that an adult U.S. citizen, even one of hispanic origin, is not going to be conversant in basic English.

That suggests an officer will have a reasonable basis to question immigration status if, in the performance of his other normal duties, he encounters people unable to speak English. That's one way I could see this law being enforced that wouldn't infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens.

And what about U.S. citizens being asked to prove where there were born? Do you have a problem with cops harassing America's about their country of origin?

[Emo Targaryen]

You seem to be asking, "why is this necessarily racist?" and I guess the answer depends entirely on the bolded part: on what basis was it thought that the actual citizen was a possible illegal?

Well, but then, what would be a reasonable basis for this suspicion? Malicious lingering? Wearing the wrong clothes? The wrong hairdo? Conspicuously unconspicuous looks and behaviour? All of these might not evoke thoughts of racism, but all the same, they incur the risk of harassing a perfectly honest citizen with your suspicion. So I think the question is rather: How much harm does it cause to an honest citizen to be suspected of a crime? And I think if it really just amounts to a quick show of your ID without being held up for longer than, say, two minutes, it's a price people should be ready to pay if it really gets some criminals caught (and yes, illegal immigration is a crime). However, I don't know how police in AZ will handle this. If they are of the kind which would hold up hispanic-looking people for half an hour just for the fun of it, pretending they're checking their immigration status...

All I wanted to say is that I don't see the law as racist in itself. I see some problems (especially the part with people being able to sue governement agencies for "not doing enough against illegal immigration" - what is "enough"?), I see some excellent parts (making it a crime to employ illegals - on one hand the promise of work draws illegals into the country, on the other hand employers often abuse the illegal status of their workers), but I don't see it as racist in itself. Except of course if you work on the premise that failing to legalize all immigration is in itself racist and from there conclude that fighting illegal immigration is racist in itself. At least that's what some people here in Europe think concerning illegal immigration from Africa, so I suppose the same thing happens in America concerning Mexico. This being said, I do believe that there should be more opportunity for legal immigration (concerning Europe/Africa as well as America/Mexico), but we don't achieve this by tolerating illegal immigration.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And I think if it really just amounts to a quick show of your ID without being held up for longer than, say, two minutes, it's a price people should be ready to pay if it really gets some criminals caught (and yes, illegal immigration is a crime).

I would still be against it in this case, but it has already been proven that this is not the case. The truck driver (I think he was mentioned up thread) was arrested and taken to jail. His wife had to bring his birth certificate and social security card to get him out.

Quick - do you know where your birth certificate is? If it's not in arms reach you are going to jail. Guess what? You're going to jail next week too, because you mouthed off to the cop, and he can have another one of his buddies "suspect" you of being and illegal immigrant.

Beyond that, a huge part of the American "thing" is not having a government that can demand your papers. Hell, that's what the fourth amendment is all about. There is no law requiring you to have identification on you, or obligating you to provide it on request. Now there is. It's bullshit.

ETA:

Who gives a flying fuck if it's a crime? Smoking weed is a crime. Driving too fast is a crime. Incorrectly filling out your tax return is a crime. "Getting some criminals caught" is very low on my priorities for what the government should be doing. (priority #1: going and fucking itself)