Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,620
10,935
136
I think we need a four prong approach.

1. Seal up the border as best as possible.
2. Deport those found here illegally - to the far edge of their home nation, not just barely across the border they obviously have no problem crossing. For Mexico, that would be Merida, Yucatan.
3. Terribly fine companies who employ illegals. $100,000 for each found to be employed should suffice.
4. Allow those here illegally to safely return to the country of origin (or any other country of their choosing) without fear of being arrested while trying to leave.

With these three in place, we will just wait it out and eventually the problem fixes itself. The jobs will dry up and the illegals will leave. Those who stay will eventually be caught and deported. New illegals will have trouble entering, and no jobs to find once they are here.


FINALLY...someone who gets it.

It shouldn't matter if the illegal immigrant is married to a US citizen, if they have children who are US citizens, or how long they've been in the country...if they're illegal, they need to go.
Give them the opportunity to leave on their own. If they fail to do so, any/all property gets seized to defray the cost of deportation.
Those who leave "willingly" should be allowed to apply for re-entry to the US, but they don't necessarily get the right to "skip places" in the line of immigrants waiting to enter.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
People dont realize that the illegal immigrants come here because of the incentives such as welfare, healthcare and education. They can many great benefits so they will keep coming to the US. The government needs to get rid of the benefits to stop them
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
FINALLY...someone who gets it.

It shouldn't matter if the illegal immigrant is married to a US citizen, if they have children who are US citizens, or how long they've been in the country...if they're illegal, they need to go.
Give them the opportunity to leave on their own. If they fail to do so, any/all property gets seized to defray the cost of deportation.

I believe if they are married, in most cases, they ARE legal.

Those who leave "willingly" should be allowed to apply for re-entry to the US, but they don't necessarily get the right to "skip places" in the line of immigrants waiting to enter.

Skipping places is... second place.

What should happen is that work visas, or "commuting aliens" (seasonal?) should be made more readily available.

If people can come and go for entire growing seasons more readily, less people will try and sneak in. You simply make it easier to do something than another and people will go for the easier route (if they can).

BTW, beware the cybr. He is prime rib spam. ;)
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,620
10,935
136
I believe if they are married, in most cases, they ARE legal.

No. They MAY be able to apply for a green card, but it's not guaranteed.

Skipping places is... second place.

What should happen is that work visas, or "commuting aliens" (seasonal?) should be made more readily available.

If people can come and go for entire growing seasons more readily, less people will try and sneak in. You simply make it easier to do something than another and people will go for the easier route (if they can).

BTW, beware the cybr. He is prime rib spam. ;)

I like the idea of seasonal visas. I've advocated it for years.
Set up a program similar to the "Bracero" program of the 1950's where immigrants apply to enter the country to work the ag jobs...and are required to leave the country at the end of the season. Withhold a significant portion of their wages in an interest-bearing account until they do. The Bracero program fucked a lot of people out of their money...safeguards to prevent that need to be in place so the workers (or their families in case of death) can actually get the money owed to them.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Human labor is a resource, like any other.

The key is to make sure you do not ruin it. You can't "abuse" oil quite the way you can human labor. The more we see it as valuable, the better off we will be.

Either that, or we can start paying $3 a head for Iceberg lettuce or $8 a pound for strawberries.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Angst, that is VERY debatable.

If there is a push against illegal immigrants.. note the "illegal" in that term, and the cop has "reasonable suspicion", iow, the guy is Mexican looking, then he can argue that he is 100% legal in pulling him over.

It would not be the first time a vaguely worded law has been abused. He can be "suspicious of the driver because he was driving too slow" or "too fast" or "had too many people in the van" or "had an old looking van" or any number of a dozen different things.

The key here is simple. YES some of those signs may be indicators of an illegal activity, but they are not proof. Also, when an enforcement agent has their own crime already assigned to the individual, they look to prove the crime, not the assumptions veracity. Being able to arrest someone for a broken tail light because they do not have a passport is 100% possible, and a bit scary.

SB1070 has about every possible safeguard in it, including verbiage that explicitly forbids racial profiling. Will that stop it from happening? No, but then no law stops anything 100%. Hell, do current laws stop dirty cops from planting drug evidence on suspects? No. Should we then throw out all drug laws? What it DOES do is it gives teeth to the state to go after those who may. The fact you cant see this is beyond me.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
that says nothing at all about having to carry ID at all times.

I suggest you read stop and identify statutes. Here, let me make it easier. Stop and identify statutes allow police to stop and question someone on reasonable suspicion (a standard already defined by SCOTUS) and demand they identify themselves. Tell me how one would identify themselves if not for carrying ID?

Its a two edged sword. On one hand the law does not explicitly require one to carry ID; however, it DOES require you to produce it if you are asked by police.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Some states have the drivers license picture available to the police officer on the computer so they can see if you are who you say you are.

That said, I have my DL number memorized in case I ever forget it so they can look me up.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
I believe if they are married, in most cases, they ARE legal.

Thats incorrect. If someone marries an American they MUST apply for, and be approved for, a visa to legally enter the USA. It is not automatic. One cannot simply marry an American and hop on the next plane to JFK.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
SB1070 has about every possible safeguard in it, including verbiage that explicitly forbids racial profiling.

Yet is still happens.

How can you prove "racial profiling" in any individual case? They have found it difficult to do so in many cases.

Teh only time you can get an idea of profiling is when you see a pattern. you don't get patterns from single events.

Will that stop it from happening? No, but then no law stops anything 100%. Hell, do current laws stop dirty cops from planting drug evidence on suspects? No. Should we then throw out all drug laws? What it DOES do is it gives teeth to the state to go after those who may. The fact you cant see this is beyond me.

You are conflating un-equivalent situations. In order to "spot" an illegal immigrant, from mexico (as they are the most proliferant), you need to look at a guy, see he is Mexican, and RACIALLY PROFILE HIM.

You do not see cops stopping whiteys in AZ with this law for 2 reasons:

1. They would not catch many illegals.
2. They would piss off the voters.

BUT, it would be fair and truly not racially profiling.

You CANNOT have a law like this be effective w/o profiling.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Yet is still happens.

How can you prove "racial profiling" in any individual case? They have found it difficult to do so in many cases.

Teh only time you can get an idea of profiling is when you see a pattern. you don't get patterns from single events.



You are conflating un-equivalent situations. In order to "spot" an illegal immigrant, from mexico (as they are the most proliferant), you need to look at a guy, see he is Mexican, and RACIALLY PROFILE HIM.

You do not see cops stopping whiteys in AZ with this law for 2 reasons:

1. They would not catch many illegals.
2. They would piss off the voters.

BUT, it would be fair and truly not racially profiling.

You CANNOT have a law like this be effective w/o profiling.

Then quote the section of the bill that makes it easier to profile? I will argue SB1070 due its wording will discourage it more than it does now with current laws on the books.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Thats incorrect. If someone marries an American they MUST apply for, and be approved for, a visa to legally enter the USA. It is not automatic. One cannot simply marry an American and hop on the next plane to JFK.

Granted.

All it takes is marriage outside the country, then you get married there and go through the process (min 3 month wait I believe).

http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/familybasedimmigration/persons-in-us.html

They also say something about "not being in the country for more than 6 months"... Proof might be difficult in that case.


BTW, that was not the case in the past. There seems to have been a few exceptions to this. I am guessing that the restrictions have only gotten more strict since all those Sweeds started moving in.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Yet is still happens.

How can you prove "racial profiling" in any individual case? They have found it difficult to do so in many cases.

Teh only time you can get an idea of profiling is when you see a pattern. you don't get patterns from single events.



You are conflating un-equivalent situations. In order to "spot" an illegal immigrant, from mexico (as they are the most proliferant), you need to look at a guy, see he is Mexican, and RACIALLY PROFILE HIM.

You do not see cops stopping whiteys in AZ with this law for 2 reasons:

1. They would not catch many illegals.
2. They would piss off the voters.

BUT, it would be fair and truly not racially profiling.

You CANNOT have a law like this be effective w/o profiling.

Except they are only allowed to stop them as part of an otherwise lawful search.

And one of the lefts favorite examples is of German Mercedes Benz Executive being detained in Alabama. Since when did Germans start looking mexican?
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Then quote the section of the bill that makes it easier to profile? I will argue SB1070 due its wording will discourage it more than it does now with current laws on the books.

The bill simply requires you to have proof of citizenship when a cop comes up to you with "reasonable suspicion", correct?

That, in a nutshell, is the power to profile. If the chances of you finding an Illegal is greater by looking at Mexicans in AZ (it makes sense. Like I said, you can look for illegal Germans, but you probably would not find many), that is who you will look for.

If you don't you are stupid.

Therefore, you need to profile, by race, to be effective in doing this. It is a catch 22.

If Mexicans looked just like the Caucasians, then there would be no problem with racial profiling. They don't, therefore there will be a problem.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Except they are only allowed to stop them as part of an otherwise lawful search.

And that is the problem.

It has been done countless times in the past that those "reasons" and "suspicions" have been minor, fraudulent or non-existent.

"Disturbing the peace" and "Loitering" are two biggies here. Cops use them all the time. And, unlike in cop shows, they usually work.

And one of the lefts favorite examples is of German Mercedes Benz Executive being detained in Alabama. Since when did Germans start looking mexican?

How many Germans were pulled over? How many Mexicans? Also, what was he pulled over FOR in the first place? Was this just a way to put a guy behind bars because he was being a dick? Details on that my friend. You don't drop and run with something as vague as that...... ;)
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,620
10,935
136
Like it or not, you're profiled constantly. By employers, by co-workers, by cops, waitresses, airport security personnel, even by people on the street.

Profiling, of and by itself isn't wrong...acting illegally on such profiling is.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
I suggest you read stop and identify statutes. Here, let me make it easier. Stop and identify statutes allow police to stop and question someone on reasonable suspicion (a standard already defined by SCOTUS) and demand they identify themselves. Tell me how one would identify themselves if not for carrying ID?

Its a two edged sword. On one hand the law does not explicitly require one to carry ID; however, it DOES require you to produce it if you are asked by police.

'i am <first name> <last name>'
'do you have ID on you?'
'no'

there's nothing there allowing them to arrest you for that. per your own page, only the colorado statute says you must produce ID, and even then only if available

there is no requirement for an adult citizen to carry around ID at all times.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Granted.

All it takes is marriage outside the country, then you get married there and go through the process (min 3 month wait I believe).

http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/familybasedimmigration/persons-in-us.html

They also say something about "not being in the country for more than 6 months"... Proof might be difficult in that case.


BTW, that was not the case in the past. There seems to have been a few exceptions to this. I am guessing that the restrictions have only gotten more strict since all those Sweeds started moving in.

Well, thats not all it takes. With spousal and fiancee visas there must be a clean background check from the home country as well as from the USA. as well as many health tests etc. If even a quarter of our illegals had to go through the same process they would probably get denied entry.

And 3 months is minimum. There is a decent chance of admin review also, which can move that 3 month mark to 12+.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
The bill simply requires you to have proof of citizenship when a cop comes up to you with "reasonable suspicion", correct?

That, in a nutshell, is the power to profile. If the chances of you finding an Illegal is greater by looking at Mexicans in AZ (it makes sense. Like I said, you can look for illegal Germans, but you probably would not find many), that is who you will look for.

If you don't you are stupid.

Therefore, you need to profile, by race, to be effective in doing this. It is a catch 22.

If Mexicans looked just like the Caucasians, then there would be no problem with racial profiling. They don't, therefore there will be a problem.

You understand, dont you, SB1070 has more safeguards against profiling than current law which, if 1070 is overturned, will remain on the books?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
How many Germans were pulled over? How many Mexicans? Also, what was he pulled over FOR in the first place? Was this just a way to put a guy behind bars because he was being a dick? Details on that my friend. You don't drop and run with something as vague as that...... ;)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-immigration-alabama-mercedes-idUSTRE7AL0DT20111122

He was pulled over. Had only German ID card. And was put in jail until an associated produced his passport/visa.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
'i am <first name> <last name>'
'do you have ID on you?'
'no'

there's nothing there allowing them to arrest you for that. per your own page, only the colorado statute says you must produce ID, and even then only if available

there is no requirement for an adult citizen to carry around ID at all times.

In what is legally called a consensual interaction you are correct. In a detention or Terry stop, you are incorrect.

Here is the wiki on stop and identify.

...allow police to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they do not.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
So what is the ratio of Mexican to German incarcerations?

Why does that matter? The case shows that it is clearly possible to have reasonable basis for detaining immigrants without resorting to racial profiling.

I would imagine their would be more Mexicans detained because

1.) There are more mexicans in the US than germans.
2.) There are far more mexicans without US ID or valid passport/visa for obvious reasons.