Back when most of my ancestors came over, they just showed up at Ellis Island–or maybe Boston. They did queue up–for minimal processing & physical exams. Since they were healthy, they got processed through pretty quickly & sent out to find work. Which they did.
Some ancestors came a bit earlier–when it was even easier. (Of course, many Americans are descended from folks who met the boats. Or who came over chained up as “property.”)
As you’ve noted, the process is now much longer & more expensive. I’ve known highly educated professionals needing to hire immigration lawyers.
By the way, the Governor of Texas–hardly a “leftist”–has said the Arizona law would not work here. Apparently he’s got a few functioning brain cells.
The umbrage with the law isn’t that people want to get all cuddly-wuddly with the illegals (or whatever you want to call them). It’s that there’s something repugnant and unAmerican (as in the Hollywood version of ‘American’) about *citizens *being asked to demonstrate citizenship because the look suspicious. This runs from the generalized principle-based loathing to merely whip out an ID to the nightmarish consequences of not having it on you for that day’s walk and what a night or two (or three or four) could mean to a citizen of limited resources (financial, intelligence, social, etc.).
ETA: oops. Didn’t refresh before reading/posting, so there were only two or three replies I was looking at. Sorry if this is redundant or better addressed upthread.
I have no problem with this being a federal law. I don’t see this as an invasion of my privacy. I was born here, and have a right to be here. Providing this information once or twice in my lifetime would not cause me stress.
It wouldn’t cause me stress if it were once a week. If I had nothing to hide, it wouldn’t be an issue. I show an ID to get a book at the library. So, if it turns out that there is a requirement for a federal ID, I’d be ok with it.
Do you think that takes away your civil liberties in some way?
Just out of curiosity, what if they wanted to search you? If you have nothing to hide, is that okay? What about your car? You have nothing to hide, so that’s okay? Your house? How about if they could scan your brain? I’m just curious where it goes from being okay because you have nothing to hide to not okay because it’s an invasion of your privacy and your right to go about your life unharassed. There’s a line somewhere, right?
Whine, whine, whine. We aren’t being being “burdened” by them, we are profiting off of them, exploiting them. This is classic blaming the victim; we use them as near-slaves, then demonize them so we don’t feel guilty about it.
Except that we won’t, because the motive behind this is bigotry and nothing else. It’s not a serious attempt to deal with illegal immigration. The goal is to harass brown people, citizens as well as immigrants.
Which as said typically means never getting in at all. We don’t WANT brown skinned people coming here legally. We want them here illegally, because illegal immigrants are easier to exploit, more profitable.
Of course they will, they’ll go around harassing anyone with brown skin. That’s the point.
Except that they often DO pay such taxes; without ever expecting any services in return. We suck billions of dollars out of them in return for nothing. Again, this is an example of blaming the victim.
Now that you know a drivers license isn’t proof of citizenship, let me ask you this question.
You’re driving down the street in Tucson and get pulled over for rolling through a stop sign. As you’re exchanging papers with the police officer, you say, “It’s a hot day out today, eh?”
The police officer suspects that you may be an illegal Canadian immigrant with a legally obtained drivers license.
What? You didn’t know that foreigners can legally reside in the U.S.? Or am I just supposed to use my Australian driver’s license for 10 years or more?
If you are Mexican have a citizen spouse in the US or are the minor child of a US citizen, you can get a visa, I think. Other relatives who are citizens in the US might put you in queue to get a visa after a certain number of years.
You are never, as I understand it, able to join a lottery for visas. There are other countries for whom that is true as well. I think China is one.
For what it’s worth, we have a very similar law here in Prince William County. The results have been mixed. An article in the WaPo, certainly no friend to laws like this, believes a combo of both our similar law and the economy probably drove out many of the immigrants from our county, both legal and illegal.
Still, most people here wanted this law, if only for emotional/fairness/psychological reasons:
Clearly, Arizona and US voters feel the same way, with a whopping 69% favoring checking immigration ‘papers’ (nice Nazi reference, give me a break) and/or a green card if they think the perp snuck in without signing the guest book.
I don’t believe this law is racist - but I’m sure that it is a favorite of racists.
That being said, it seems clear to me that we need to make sure we know who’s coming and going, and I’m all for basically returning to the days of Ellis Island.
Say, you give 90 days notice of intention to immigrate. Then on the 91st day, you line up at a handy border crossing station, confirm your identity and you’re good to go. Or not, depending on the results of the medical check, and the background/terror check performed by the US in the prior 90 day period. You get whatever ID/SSN you need, and you’re on your way to rock in the free world.
If you’re a true “American” and you believe that all humans are entitled to the rights we’ve put in the Constitution, then I can’t see how you’d justify leaving out anyone else - after all, they’re humans, right? Who cares what country they were born in.
There will be debates about immigrants receiving “too much” government support, but that is an issue with the support programs. And we believe all humans deserve X amount of support, no matter their country of origin, so that’s not an immigration problem. Some jerks will complain that America is getting “too ethnic” - too bad, racist. Some people will worry about new immigrants getting taken advantage of - that is a problem with corporations, or a debate about free labor markets. Not a problem with immigrants.
It just seems to me that the “Immigration Problem” is just a lazy, short-hand way of dodging this and many other underlying issues. Arizona is doing its best to deal with not only the financial catastrophe that exists, but also the unbelievable murder, kidnapping and other felony rates that illegals have caused.
This. This is the problem. America’s persistent cognitive dissonance about the exploitation of undocumented workers is the problem. The U.S. government’s consistent unwillingness to trace the immigration boom back to its roots – the neoliberalization of trade policy – is the problem. The refusal of people to understand the ethical difference between jacking a car and breaking the law to ensure the survival of your family is the problem.
You want to fix the problem? Get real about what the problem is.
Like the OP, nearly every defense of this law at least starts out with a strawman.
The people against this law are not against it because they want to ignore illegal immigration, or they like illegal immigration, or think illegal immigrants aren’t breaking any laws.
The real reasons people are against are the civil liberty concerns already stated in this thread, so I will not repeat them.
But it’s very telling to me that I never seem to hear any defense of this law that actually addresses the real concerns, at least until the strawman is countered. And when the real concerns are addressed it’s often countered with the old
He’s referring to the Supremacy Clause in Art. VI:
The states cannot simply spend their tax money on anything they please. A state law cannot conflict with federal law.
There are several ways to analyze conflicts, and my view is that the Arizona law is not in fact preempted by any federal law, but you cannot argue that the states may make any law they wish because they can spend their tax money any way they please. In areas where Congress has power, and they choose to legislate, the states may not override Congress.
You might call it a logical offshoot of this gibberish:
Apparently they’re doing much better at inflating their crime statistics than they are at actually dealing with “the problem”.
Arizona’s murder, kidnapping and other crime rates are pretty much in the middle of the table, relative to other states. You’re more likely to get murdered in South Carolina. You’re more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault in Delaware. You’re more likely to be forcibly raped in Iowa.
They’re second only to Nevada in motor vehicle theft, though.
I think the issue is not so much state-wide numbers, since Arizona is a big state with many areas that are next to unpopulated, unlike Delaware. The issue is the concentration on violent crime at the border regions, and the subsequent police work that leads to illegals.
FWIW, I think the real answer to the drug crime is to legalize the use, possession and sale of drugs, but again, that’s another issue that’s being deflected by the froth over immigration.
I see this as a supply-and-demand issue, really. Lots of companies and individuals are willing – eager, even – to hire illegal immigrants as cheap off-the-books labor. There are existing laws against this, but apparently they are seldom enforced, and therein lies the problem. Illegals will keep coming as long as they know there’s plenty of work here for them. Cracking down on employers would help dry up the demand, making it much less attractive for someone to cross the border illegally.
I freely admit I don’t know who is responsible for enforcing the existing laws, or why they are not. But I can understand the frustration and desperation which led Arizona to pass this law. Nothing else is working; this is a Hail-Mary pass.
The Arizona law is deeply flawed and possibly unconstitutional, but I understand why it exists.
