# Arizona is out of control **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 24, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171 "2010-04-24T01:17:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/141 "2010-04-25T14:24:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If thats the not the kind of man we want for a citizen, I’d like to know who is. A man that didn’t break the law the moment he set foot in this country. Or as Khan from King of Hill once said, “It so easy to get in, I can’t believe I had to learn the Bill of Rights.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/142 "2010-04-25T14:59:37Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > A man that didn’t break the law the moment he set foot in this country. Or as Khan from King of Hill once said, “It so easy to get in, I can’t believe I had to learn the Bill of Rights.” Well, in my case I could say that the Reagan and Bush senior administrations broke American and international laws to support the murderous right wing military dictatorships in Central America and that lead to people like me to set foot in this country. The result was that indeed I broke the law then but later even the Republicans realized the jerks that they were for denying political asylum to many then. So, amnesty and the NACARA law allowed me later to get residency first and then citizenship. So yeah, I had to learn the bill of rights after I broke the law, but when even the Republicans back then understood that there were humanitarian reasons **to change the law** to allow many to become good American citizens. Sadly, inhumanity reigns among the current crops of Republicans and Teabaggers. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/143 "2010-04-25T15:06:21Z")
> [@](#): > > A man that didn’t break the law the moment he set foot in this country. Or as Khan from King of Hill once said, “It so easy to get in, I can’t believe I had to learn the Bill of Rights.” That’s why I’m not against having extra help from the states to help the Feds identify illegal immigrants. In effect as it is now we are telling legal immigrants and law-abiding Americans “screw you, we’d rather employ lawbreakers.” Should officers be _required_ to ask for proof of citizenship if they have reasonable suspicion? No way. Many officers would perform loads of racial profiling just in case, for fear of negative consequences if they didn’t (i.e. if the person they stopped turns out to be a dangerous criminal and you had no suspicion they were other than a “suspicion” about their immigration status, or if your boss thinks that all brown people are illegals and you don’t stop enough of them.) Should they be _allowed_ to? I’d be more ambivalent about that, but that’s not what this law says AFAIK which is why I’m against it. What tools should we use to curb this? Better border enforcement and workplace enforcement would both be better than pretty much randomly checking within a state, and both are less intrusive. I’m not against a fence except in terms of cost (“Oh noes, we have barbed wire, we’re teh Nazis!!!111”) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/144 "2010-04-25T15:24:42Z")
The southern border is 1956 miles long. Border Patrol may have 700 miles covered. Over 500 ,000 people illegally cross the border every year. I guess they won’t come to Arizona anymore. Problem solved. Those who claim the US does very little about it are wrong. But what do they suggest, a great wall be built along the border? Arizona police already get immigration information from those they pull over for a transgression. This law actually forces them to question others who they have reason to suspect are illegals. I would not wear a sombrero or grow a mustache in Arizona. This will result in the harassment of dark skinned people. Some of the police resent getting pushed into doing it. It is an ugly thing to do: stop a person for being the wrong color. It is not supposed to be the American way. But, people have little trouble giving up their freedoms when they think it will only be applied to others. It does not usually work that way. Many legal aliens will be harassed as they go along minding their own business. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/145 "2010-04-25T15:33:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > But that just begs the question of defining what was so “out of control” about the 1980s. Were there riots or rebellions or widespread crime of some sort attributable to illegal immigrants? If not, then what _were_ the negative effects of illegal immigration in the 1980s? What are the effects now? What was the negative result of Reagan granting amnesty? If there wasn’t one, doesn’t this suggest that illegal immigration is simply not that big of a deal? The single biggest problem with reagan granting amnesty is that it encouraged more illegals to come here. There were, ostensibly, under 3 million illegals here then. That has grown to anywhere from 12 - 20 million. His amnesty told illegals: just get there and wait, and you, too, will be granted amnesty. And that thinking has proven to be logical. First, Bush tried his Amnesty Light. And now Obama wants to similarly shirk his duty and do the same thing. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Personally, I’m of the opinion that a law that serves no purpose is useless and should be abolished. It’s a simple enough question - what is the purpose of existing immigration law and the new Arizona law? Any immigration policy should serve the needs of the host country. If they need more people, they can allow in more people. If they don’t, they can close the spigot some. The laws simply are the framework to allow that immigration to happen. A tightly controlled border allows them to know WHO they are letting in, and IF they should be let in. Even during the great waves of immigrants coming through Ellis Island, we knew who was coming in. We also were able to check them for diseases. And if we viewed them as a risk to the populace we sent them back This was done routinely. And this was during a period when we wanted increased immigration numbers. The Arizona law seeks to address what the federal government has failed to do. Additionally, as a border state, they are entrenched in the most unsavory parts of illegal activity: human and drug trafficking. And the violence they can bring. Also, given the increased violence across the border (not to mention that we know there are groups that would love to sneak a dirty bomb into the U.S.) makes it imperative that SOMEONE talk a hard stance. The Feds have shown no inclination to act, so the people are left to fend themselves. I think it’s great that people are acting to protect and improve their communities. We need more of this kind of activity, not less. They should make Arpaio the Chief Immigration Law Enforcement official in the U.S. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What problem is the law supposed to be addressing? It’s simply not enough to say “illegal is illegal” and I don’t get why you don’t seem to get that. By default, I would think, a government must _prove_ a law is necessary before imposing it, and if a law is too strict or unjust or serve no purpose, a citizen has the moral obligation to fight it. Problems? How about the strain they put on hospital via emergency room visits. Hospitals in the south west have closed due, in part, to this added stress. And that leaves out the treatment citizens—who pay for it—wind up receiving. How about schools? Since we allow the children of illegals to attend our schools, the percentage of speakers other than English is increased. This adds to the cost of education, makes for more crowded classrooms, and slows up the class because a larger percent of them can’t keep up. Yes, they can be removed to their own classes, but then you simply have increase and increased cost that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > As for “serving our needs”, why not let the marketplace do that? If there are too many immigrants, wages will fall and the U.S. will be a less attractive market for their labour. I don’t think they go to the U.S. because of some romantic notions about American exceptionalism - they go where the work is. I’d love for the marketplace to set the wages and the need for more workers. (Which, by the way, can be solved by increasing immigration or having a guest-worker program, like Canada.) First, there’s the nonsense that “illegals are just doing work Americans don’t want to do”. And that is simply bullshit. What is true is that Americans don’t want to do those jobs _for the same wages_ that illegals are willing to do them. Illegals might be willing to Job A for $X, but Americans won’t. But an American might be willing to do it for 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0 X. THAT would be letting the market set the need. And who do you think gets hurt the most when you allow in a workforce willing to work below market wages? For the jobs we’re talking about it’s those on the bottom rungs of the economic scale. One group that has traditionally done well in times of low worker supply in America is Blacks. Subsequently, they have been harmed the most while illegals come in a take jobs. Think about it, why do employers hire illegals? Because it’s more profitable to do so. That means that an American worker loses out on a job every time an illegal is employed. And given the Unemployment Rate we now have, do you really think its a good idea to have more non-citizens taking jobs form Americans who need them so desperately? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/146 "2010-04-25T15:46:55Z")
For anyone interested, [here’s an article](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754517-28.stm) pointing to a real world employment tensions between illegals and Blacks: > [@](#): > > STILLMORE, Ga. – After a wave of raids by federal immigration agents on Labor Day weekend, a local chicken-processing company called Crider Inc. lost 75 percent of its mostly Hispanic 900-member work force. The crackdown threatened to cripple the economic anchor of this fading rural town. > > But for local African-Americans, the dramatic appearance of federal agents presented an unexpected opportunity. Crider suddenly raised pay at the plant. An advertisement in the weekly Forest-Blade newspaper blared “Increased Wages” at Crider, starting at $7 to $9 an hour – more than a dollar above what the company had paid many immigrant workers. The company began offering free transportation from nearby towns and free rooms in a company-owned dormitory near to the plant. For the first time in years, local officials say, Crider aggressively sought workers from the area’s state-funded employment office – a key avenue for low-skilled workers to find jobs. Of 400 candidates sent to Crider – most of them black – the plant hired about 200. > > A customer at a convenience store in Douglas, Ga., told April Paulk, a part-time clerk, that a recruiter was in town looking for workers. Ms. Paulk passed the word to her husband, 32-year-old Germaine Royals, who had just been laid off from the latest in a series of temporary jobs. Both are African-American. > > Less than a month after the raids on illegal immigrants, Mr. Royals and three other workers met at a gas station parking lot and piled into a van sent by Peacock Poultry Inc., one of several contractors hired to fill the ranks of Crider’s production lines. Two hours later they pulled into an austere complex of brown dormitories owned by Crider that three weeks earlier had teemed with Hispanics. Mr. Royals stashed two small bags of belongings and a boom box in a dingy room and took his place the next morning on a production line at the chicken plant. > > For the first time since significant numbers of Latinos began arriving in Stillmore in the late 1990s, the plant’s processing lines were made up predominantly of African-Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/147 "2010-04-25T15:53:07Z")
Wow, what a racist article. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/148 "2010-04-25T15:54:47Z")
Purely out of curiosity, does anyone else find the term “illegal” (as a noun) tasteless? I mean, these are people, and they are not illegal — they are merely _here illegally._ Normally, if you do something illegal, the proper term is “criminal” — but of course, that would be too obvious a slur, and too obviously ridiculous, so it’s easier to just shorten “illegal alien” “Illegal alien” is at least a technical term. “Illegal immigrant” makes sense too. Dropping the second word removes the context and makes it just another offensive slur. It’s poisoning the well, but very subtly, so nobody can object. Seriously, am I just weird? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/149 "2010-04-25T16:02:12Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Purely out of curiosity, does anyone else find the term “illegal” (as a noun) tasteless? I mean, these are people, and they are not illegal — they are merely _here illegally._ Normally, if you do something illegal, the proper term is “criminal” — but of course, that would be too obvious a slur, and too obviously ridiculous, so it’s easier to just shorten “illegal alien” > > “Illegal alien” is at least a technical term. “Illegal immigrant” makes sense too. Dropping the second word removes the context and makes it just another offensive slur. It’s poisoning the well, but very subtly, so nobody can object. > > Seriously, am I just weird? We could call them criminals. Does that make it better? ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/150 "2010-04-25T16:06:34Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > We could call them criminals. Does that make it better? Well, like I said, you couldn’t really get away with it, since it’s more obvious. But at least it’s more honest. (And actually, I think one or another of these immigration threads had a hijack about whether or not they were criminals — the claim being no, since most of the ways of being in the US illegally are misdemeanours. Still, beats “illegal”.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/151 "2010-04-25T16:10:50Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Purely out of curiosity, does anyone else find the term “illegal” (as a noun) tasteless? I mean, these are people, and they are not illegal — they are merely _here illegally._ Normally, if you do something illegal, the proper term is “criminal” — but of course, that would be too obvious a slur, and too obviously ridiculous, so it’s easier to just shorten “illegal alien” > > “Illegal alien” is at least a technical term. “Illegal immigrant” makes sense too. Dropping the second word removes the context and makes it just another offensive slur. It’s poisoning the well, but very subtly, so nobody can object. > > Seriously, am I just weird? No, you’re right. The intent is to dehumanize, and to do so based on race. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/152 "2010-04-25T16:11:34Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > We could call them criminals. Does that make it better? Oh, and, to respond seriously, you could call them “illegal aliens”, or “illegal immigrants”. Anything wrong with that? For that matter, “aliens” is technically incorrect, but might still work. ETA: **Dio** , I don’t know whether it’s based on race or not, though it certainly doesn’t use race. There might be shades of “Jap” and “Paki” and all that fun stuff in there, but I’m not sure enough to assert it definitively. (Come to think of it, “aliens” would be just as bad that way, wouldn’t it…) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/153 "2010-04-25T16:12:09Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > We could call them criminals. Does that make it better? What crimes have the committed (being undocumented is not a crime. Just FYI)? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/154 "2010-04-25T16:33:52Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Well, like I said, you couldn’t really get away with it, since it’s more obvious. But at least it’s more honest. > > (And actually, I think one or another of these immigration threads had a hijack about whether or not they were criminals — the claim being no, since most of the ways of being in the US illegally are misdemeanours. Still, beats “illegal”.) Misdemeanors are not crimes? A word to the left if I may. People who are in the country without a valid visa are breaking the law. Aliens who work with a valid work visa are breaking the law. We are a country of laws. If you don’t like our immigration policies work to change them. If you decide that some laws can just be ignored, then other people will decide they can ignore other laws. Maybe they’ll ignore the law that it’s OK to beat up homosexuals, or that you need to pay overtime for working more than 40 hours a week, or ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling that teachers may not lead students in prayer. The US not only has the right, it has the obligation, to set immigration policies and enforce them. Aliens who work without proper permission drive down the wages and working conditions for people who work legally. Denying this is like denying gravity. You can see the effects in the building trades and other professions which the lower and middle class have relied on to provide a living. If you want to practice civil disobedience, go ahead; but acknowledge that you are breaking a law and be willing to accept the consequences. I support some sort of amnesty, a guest worker program, and a serious look at our immigration quotas. None of that will work, however, if we don’t crack down on the border. The AZ law is stupid, because it will end up harassing citizens who don’t look white enough. It was inevitable, however, because of the lack of substantive changes to immigration policy. If you want to know who to blame look in the mirror. Playing stupid games about what you call people who are here without proper visas, or denying that we have a problem does not help anyone. It makes you and your cause look ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/155 "2010-04-25T16:37:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What crimes have the committed (being undocumented is not a crime. Just FYI)? Is it really not? Certainly there’s some law, code, statute or ordnance that’s being broken…? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/156 "2010-04-25T16:43:20Z")
Not a criminal statute. They can be deported, but they can’t be charged with a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/157 "2010-04-25T18:08:14Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > A word to the left if I may. People who are in the country without a valid visa are breaking the law. Aliens who work with a valid work visa are breaking the law. Employing an undocumented worker is breaking the law. How do you think such criminals should be punished? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/158 "2010-04-25T18:35:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Employing an undocumented worker is breaking the law. How do you think such criminals should be punished? By lowering their taxes: DUH! ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/159 "2010-04-25T18:48:40Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Employing an undocumented worker is breaking the law. How do you think such criminals should be punished? For crying out loud, what do you think? They should be prosecuted within an inch of their life. The companies should be fined and they should forfeit any government contracts. I’m not sure if there are criminal penalties for hiring illegal workers, but I’d support it. I’m not sure why cracking down on illegal immigrants doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also punish firms hiring them. It is even more important to go after the employers. You are making a false dichotomy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/160 "2010-04-25T18:56:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not a criminal statute. They can be deported, but they can’t be charged with a crime. Is this a civil code issue? I can’t really tell: > [@](#): > > [8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325) > > (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; > misrepresentation and concealment of facts > Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States > at any time or place other than as designated by immigration > officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration > officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United > States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the > willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first > commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or > imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent > commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or > imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. > (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties > Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to > enter) the United States at a time or place other than as > designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil > penalty of - > (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or > attempted entry); or > (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of > an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under > this subsection. > Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not > in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be > imposed. Emphasis added. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171.md?page=9)