If there's no victim, there can't be a crime even if there's a law saying so. So which ones are illegal ones? Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, truancy laws, laws against shining shoes on public property, laws against prostitution and pornography, etc. AND laws against immigration. I pointed out in a previous thread that immigration laws are a relatively new thing, originally and still used to restrict immigration based upon Race. I don't see this arizona thing as any different, nor do I see why we should have animosity with or be at war against Mexico or Mexicans.
Police were already suppose to check someone's legal residency before this law was in effect. They would hand illegal immigrants that commit crimes (beside living here) over to immigration services. What crime is there for standing in front of a home depot looking for work? You're taking away jobs from someone else? OH NO!?!
I have no animosity toward Mexico or Mexicans. Or French or Canadian or Zimbabwean people for that matter. But there are laws for French citizens coming to the US, both visiting and staying. HCP had to have documentation to get into Canada. So why is it that Mexican people get a free pass? Is there a quota for immigration based on race now? How has that not been stricken down? All of those laws that you brought up have (iirc) been deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.
Those are just words on paper, in practice we all know that people who "look mexican" will be pulled over for doing 26 in a 25, and all sorts of things that other people wouldn't.
Canada doesn't refuse to let people in, or require people to carry papers, or build walls to keep people out. Scotus isn't infallible. See Plessy v. Ferguson.
if it's an illegal immigrant looking for work, he's committing a crime. If not, he's just loitering. Which doesn't have to be penalized (like doing 27 in a 25). Again, what 's your stake in this? That hispanics will be profiled and harassed like eastern European Jews in 1940? That police will run rampant with their new-found power? What?
I think the problem is that you're evaluating the wording of the law as though written and enforced by angels. Yes, IF police actually refuse to racially profile in order to decide who strikes them as suspicious, there's a lot less problem. However, those who are largely against this don't believe that that's how it's going to play out. Saying, effectively, "Demand documents from anyone who strikes you as possible an illegal immigrant. And, oh by the way, don't racially profile," sounds a lot more like writing in plausible deniability than it does effectively removing racial profiling from the equation. A lot of cops are going to "be suspicious" of people who fit their image of illegal immigrants...poor brown people. Even if they haven't consciously decided to racially profile, many are going to automatically bias toward the stereotypical image of an "illegal immigrant." I don't really think it's even possible to do otherwise...there are very few other things that could be used to generate "suspicion" of this sort of thing. Are you being overly naive or are those of us you're arguing being overly cynical? I guess there's no way to know.
My father was refused entry into Canada last week b/c he was taking electronic tools to fix hospital equipment and he didn't have documentation for them. Yes, they do require papers and they do refuse to let people in, and if you haven't seen the fence at the I-5 border I'd recommend a trip.
That Hispanics will disproportionately (or almost exclusively) be the ones asked to prove they "belong" here. And even legal Hispanic residents who don't happen to have proof of legal residency on their person when asked (which, by the way, is entirely legal in the US) will be pulled down to the police station due to not proving their status.
Maybe I'm being naive. But we're saying that we can't trust cops to do their job when it comes to illegal immigration law, but we can when it comes to things like, I don't know, domestic disputes or speeding or murder? Are hispanic people in AZ unfairly targeted for speeding? Obviously they're not unfairly targeted for fraudulent employment verification, since a whole bunch of illegals were just found on an audit at that supermarket chain.
You can go up through Maine in the wilderness, much like the dessert of the Arizona border. As far as immigration limits, I believe it is based on country, not race/ethnicity.
gotcha. So if (to use your example) the citizens of New Brunswick kept asking the Canadian government for border enforcement b/c the Down Easters were setting up drug runs, killing ranchers, and generally causing problems in their area, you think the Canadians would just let it happen?
I think we can't trust the cops (or anyone) to enforce laws that are so heavily influenced by prejudices. What an illegal immigrant looks like, what seems suspiciously illegal immigrant-ish are fundamentally different questions from "Was this person driving faster than the legal limit?" or "Is there forensic evidence that this person took the life of another?" I have no idea, but whether someone is speeding can be evaluated without having to appeal to an officer's world view.
Yes, and I can just imagine all the asian/african americans/latinos complaining about white canadians causing so much trouble and asking for anyone that looks like an illegal canadian to be stopped and asked for papers... But seriously I think the biggest problem is how can you tell if someone is an illegal immigrant. I bet Oregon police already would deport people if they commit a crime.
so the problem isn't with the law, but the worldview of the cops enforcing it? So if all we did was enforce the federal law, not the AZ law, and make everyone carry ID....then everyone's good with this? Except Denny, who thinks it's a natural right to trespass a country's border?
If it was just Driver's License or a similar thing, I would be okay with that. But I think, like I said, cops ask to see your ID anyways when you're pulled over or whatever. However you have the right to refuse to show it.
No, the problem is writing a law that requires cops to make decisions based on world view. I don't think anyone should be empowered by the law to decide who "looks like an illegal immigrant" (or who "looks like a terrorist" to use another example germane to this past decade). Putting in extra metal detectors in airports? Doing random (blind in terms of the picking) screenings of passengers? Fine. Asking airport workers or police to step in on people they think looks like the people they're trying to find? Not so good...absolutely introduces the temptation and, many times, the actuality of employing prejudices built from stereotypes to enforce the law. Even if asked not to do so. What is the federal law? I actually agree with Denny about open borders, though I don't know whether closing them violates "natural, inalienable rights."
