Arizonans and The Nation Torn On Immigration Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People defending this thing are putting a lot of faith in the local John Q Law understanding as much about immigration as the average VJ poster, which I seriously doubt most of them do. Do they know that an NOA1 is proof of legal status for someone arriving on a K visa with pending AOS or that it can extend the validity of a 2 year green card with LOC is being processed? I suspect they, like most of the general public, think they hand them out at the Justice of the Peace. Everyone who spends any amount of time on this site knows that government agencies like the Social Security office and the DMV often don't know their a$ from the elbow when it comes proving your status.

My husband was pulled over in AZ when he was here as a tourist and they didn't even know what the #### an international driving license looked like. This was near the Grand Canyon, a place I imagine receives a lot of international tourists. And speaking of tourists, I guess all of them visiting places like the Grand Canyon will have to carry their passports at all times, including when they go rafting in the Colorado or swimming at their pool at their motel.

Will AZ be investing in training for them to understand what many of us have spent hours studying on this website trying to understand when it comes to doing things "legally"? I really doubt it.

Great post.

[Ali G. 37]

Why don't you think about it before you type? Workplace audits take place across the country all the time. Unauthorized individuals are found an detained all the time. All that happens. Problem is, the businesses get away with a slap on the wrist and continue on their merry way. The prohibitive fines aren't there. Put in place an enforcement mechanism that puts businesses out of business and managers into jail if they are found to have hired unauthorized workers and those willing to take this unreasonable risk will be very few and far between right quick.

I can count on one hand how many of those types of busts have occurred over five years of being here. I spent three weeks in AUS and read about two raids on small businesses while I was there. Illegal immigration is not even 1/100,000th the problem it is here.

Same story with terrorism or crime. We want to catch the terrorist buuuut you are not allowed to use any proactive measure.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Ali G.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

People defending this thing are putting a lot of faith in the local John Q Law understanding as much about immigration as the average VJ poster, which I seriously doubt most of them do. Do they know that an NOA1 is proof of legal status for someone arriving on a K visa with pending AOS or that it can extend the validity of a 2 year green card with LOC is being processed? I suspect they, like most of the general public, think they hand them out at the Justice of the Peace. Everyone who spends any amount of time on this site knows that government agencies like the Social Security office and the DMV often don't know their a$$ from the elbow when it comes proving your status.

My husband was pulled over in AZ when he was here as a tourist and they didn't even know what the #### an international driving license looked like. This was near the Grand Canyon, a place I imagine receives a lot of international tourists. And speaking of tourists, I guess all of them visiting places like the Grand Canyon will have to carry their passports at all times, including when they go rafting in the Colorado or swimming at their pool at their motel.

Will AZ be investing in training for them to understand what many of us have spent hours studying on this website trying to understand when it comes to doing things "legally"? I really doubt it.

Actually, the law requires the police to make a reasonable effort to determine the legal status by contacting federal authorities. The cops are not supposed to try to make this determination themselves.

BTW, some states do not recognize an international driver permit. California, for example, will recognize a valid license issued in another country, but NOT an IDP.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Yes, but an international driving license/permit is generally used in conjunction with the driving license from the country of origin. My husband had both with him, yet still confusion from the local officer. How could this be?

Can you believe that this local police officer also did not know the difference and the relationship between "England" and "the United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" or the fact that they can actually be the same place all at once? I mean, after all they are highly trained in such things and will always seek clarification with a federal agency even though its 9pm and after office hours and it means losing face in front of someone they just pulled over.

[sachinky 465]

Certainly people need to eat.

If I follow your logic though, it's quite all right for the employer to break the law so the employee may eat.

No, I'm not saying that's it's okay for employers to break the law. Not at all. I am saying that if it's matter of food on the table for the employee, he will just not care as much. I doubt your acquaintance was outraged. He/she probably was like "meh, this guy is a jerk but whateves. I need this job."

Similarly, say this law is passed and is being enforced strictly. A couple of months from now one of you have a very important business meeting in Arizona. Chances are that you will go there and you will take your passport/GC along with you 'cause you no matter how much you protest from your armchair on annonymous internet message boards, if something that is important to you comes up and it is imperative that it go well, you will toe the line instead of shouting slogans and picketing the lines.

I doubt you'd be saying, "Oh, ** the Arizona police. Let them dare ask me for proof of citizenship/residency. I'll show them. I'm not gonna carry sh*t. ** that." No, that business meeting is important to you and you're not going to risk being thrown into jail for no goddamned reason.

You may call me wimpy or submissive for meekly following the law. However, I just think of that as being cautious and not taking any chances.

[sachinky 465]

I'll give you an example. I was flying back from Newark Airport once and going through security. An old Indian/Tamil couple was in standing in front of me in the line. They spoke no English and were being treated like dolts by the security guys. Those idiot buffoons were making fun of the couple and their shoes and laughing at them because they couldn't understand the instructions to take off their shoes, belts and jackets etc. It really was quite embarassing to watch and it angered me a fair bit. I translated what was being told to the couple in Hindi so they could follow the instructions and then I turned to the security guy and made a wise-#### comment about trying to get their point across with a little sensitivity instead of humiliating the passengers. What do you know? I spent the next sixty minutes being thoroughly searched, asked all sorts of questions, and had my luggage repeatedly checked. All of which nearly made me miss my flight. So much for standing up for someone's right not to be humiliated.

Was it fair? Of course not. But who said anything about life being fair?

It always amuses that it's the usually white people who make the most noise about "standing up for one's rights" and such, never realizing their white skin is what allows them the privilege to get away with certain things that others wouldn't be able to. (Most of the nay-sayers here too seem to be white USCs, or from Canada or the UK). You, as a white man, could probably talk back to a cop in Arizona and tell them to go mind their own damned business if they asked you for your papers and you'd probably not get into trouble for that. I do the same thing--I'd probably get hauled off for questioning. Or they'd just harass me for a few hours and then let me go. I'm sorry if it makes me a wimp for wanting to avoid getting into trouble in the first place. Look, I admire those who have the conviction to take a stand, truly take a stand but I'm not an armchair revolutionary. Raging against the man isn't going to get me anywhere -- some of us prefer to live in the real world where life isn't always fair. You take what you get and roll with the rest.

Edited April 27, 2010 by sachinky

[Deb+Steve 13]

Most undocumented immigrants follow the laws of the country, Viramontes said, and deserve the same human rights afforded U.S. citizens.

Too much to read in this thread so this from the article - would this statement qualify as an oxymoron?

And on another note: it gives me piles everytime I read that word now ... undocumented ... illegal is illegal. *sigh* Never mind.

[sachinky 465]

Oh, it kills me too, Deb.

"My neighbor, she's so hardworking, she's here illegally BUT she's never broken any laws or committed any crimes."

Say what?

[Deb+Steve 13]

Oh, it kills me too, Deb.

"My neighbor, she's so hardworking, she's here illegally BUT she's never broken any laws or committed any crimes."

Say what?

I know lady, ... I know ... same problem here in Aus. It's the vocal minority and the bleeding hearts that rule ...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll give you an example. I was flying back from Newark Airport once and going through security. An old Indian/Tamil couple was in standing in front of me in the line. They spoke no English and were being treated like dolts by the security guys. Those idiot buffoons were making fun of the couple and their shoes and laughing at them because they couldn't understand the instructions to take off their shoes, belts and jackets etc. It really was quite embarassing to watch and it angered me a fair bit. I translated what was being told to the couple in Hindi so they could follow the instructions and then I turned to the security guy and made a wise-#### comment about trying to get their point across with a little sensitivity instead of humiliating the passengers. What do you know? I spent the next sixty minutes being thoroughly searched, asked all sorts of questions, and had my luggage repeatedly checked. All of which nearly made me miss my flight. So much for standing up for someone's right not to be humiliated.

Was it fair? Of course not. But who said anything about life being fair?

It always amuses that it's the usually white people who make the most noise about "standing up for one's rights" and such, never realizing their white skin is what allows them the privilege to get away with certain things that others wouldn't be able to. (Most of the nay-sayers here too seem to be white USCs, or from Canada or the UK). You, as a white man, could probably talk back to a cop in Arizona and tell them to go mind their own damned business if they asked you for your papers and you'd probably not get into trouble for that. I do the same thing--I'd probably get hauled off for questioning. Or they'd just harass me for a few hours and then let me go. I'm sorry if it makes me a wimp for wanting to avoid getting into trouble in the first place. Look, I admire those who have the conviction to take a stand, truly take a stand but I'm not an armchair revolutionary. Raging against the man isn't going to get me anywhere -- some of us prefer to live in the real world where life isn't always fair. You take what you get and roll with the rest.

You seem to think that capitulating to authority, not matter how outrageous or unreasonable the request is perfectly acceptable and reasonable so long as you get to live a quiet life. It's one thing to take a stand against these things; sure not everyone does it and yes, sometimes it isn't practical to do so. I can accept that. However, it is quite another thing to shrug your shoulders over unfair laws which act against your own best interests. But you won't even stop there - you'll actively endorse something that exposes you to discrimination.

In metaphorical terms, you're prepared to bend over and take it from whoever/whatever and shout "do me harder!" into the bargain!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Too much to read in this thread so this from the article - would this statement qualify as an oxymoron?

And on another note: it gives me piles everytime I read that word now ... undocumented ... illegal is illegal. *sigh* Never mind.

It's not an oxymoron if you take the full statement into account and don't ditch the part about human rights.

Human rights are universal, not having legal immigrant status doesn't mean you lose your right to due process of law or that the authorities can subject you to cruel and unusual punishment.

[sachinky 465]

You seem to think that capitulating to authority, not matter how outrageous or unreasonable the request is perfectly acceptable and reasonable so long as you get to live a quiet life.

I'm not sure how following the law is "capitulating to authority" -- I'm guessing you wear seatbelts while you drive? Or that you don't drink and drive? Are you capitulating to authority as well?

I actually don't think this law is unreasonable or outrageous, especially given the current situation with illegal immigration, and therefore, I'm willing to shrug my shoulders and say, hey, whatever.

If I truly thought it was outrageous, sure I'd be up in arms about it.

You seem to be mistaken that just because I don't care about the same issues as you do or that this law doesn't get my knickers in a twist, I'm willing to bend over and take it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure how following the law is "capitulating to authority" -- I'm guessing you wear seatbelts while you drive? Or that you don't drink and drive? Are you capitulating to authority as well?

I actually don't think this law is unreasonable or outrageous, especially given the current situation with illegal immigration, and therefore, I'm willing to shrug my shoulders and say, hey, whatever.

If I truly thought it was outrageous, sure I'd be up in arms about it.

You seem to be mistaken that just because I don't care about the same issues as you do or that this law doesn't get my knickers in a twist, I'm willing to bend over and take it.

How am I mistaken if you believe, as you have stated, that being held to a different standard to the rest of the population when it comes to proving your identity is acceptable and above board.

We have already established that this introduces a rather complex situation with USCs whose rights to travel within their own country are infringed if they are required to purchase and carry passports just to visit Arizona. You do realize that a lot of Americans don't travel outside of the US and so do not go to the trouble of buying a passport (which isn't cheap) until such time as they have concrete travel plans?

[Deb+Steve 13]

It's not an oxymoron if you take the full statement into account and don't ditch the part about human rights.

Human rights are universal, not having legal immigrant status doesn't mean you lose your right to due process of law or that the authorities can subject you to cruel and unusual punishment.

I have empathy for those that deserve it. It depends on the how, why, what, when. I don't make blanket assumptions based on race ... I know all about carrying a 'book of life' and being subjected to different rules simply because of race.

[sachinky 465]

The reason it doesn't get my goat is because there are always different rules in play.

For example, LPRs are supposed to carry their GC on their person at all times. USCs don't have to carry an ID.

Natural born USCs can run for POTUS while naturalized USCs are ineligible to run for the same office.

Why? Where's the logic in this?

When I am in India, I get all the rights and privileges as an Indian citizen as accorded by the Indian Constitution. An American in India doesn't and has to play by a different set of rules.

When I'm in the U.S., I expect to have to follow their laws. I understand that my legal status is not written on my face and could possibly be called into question. If it needs to be clarified through a piece of paper that I presumably have on me any way, it doesn't inconvenience me to produce it to a law enforcement officer in order to prove my identity. That takes five seconds of my time and I'm not about to go around shouting "DISCRIMINATION" to all and sundry.

As for USCs, maybe it's time to institute a National ID of some sort or have the legal status included on the D/L?