Do not do this again in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
I see a problem here, at least with many of the “get 'em out” people. They are generally, in my experience at least, the very same people who go ballistic over any possibility of amnesty.
I was born in the US, and I do have a problem with it. I shouldn’t have to show papers or prove citizenship or “verify” my right to be in my own country. It has not a thing to do with having anything to hide, none at all. “Nothing to hide” is the lazy man’s excuse for this sort of crap. Whether I have something to hide or not, does not justify the idea that I have to prove my “status” in any way. It implies an assumption of guilt. It is insulting. I may have nothing to hide, but damn it, I don’t need to prove that to ANYONE.
P.S. Being a federal employee, I already have federal ID. But, I don’t have to produce it for every jerk who might have a bug up his ass.
There was plenty of indignation. I’m still against that damn thing, as are/were many others.
Now that you mentioned it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/us/20immig.html
http://www.kpho.com/news/23623047/detail.html
So, the man is against the 14th amendment and categorizes a deportation program as Operation Wetback but it’s a stretch to think he wants to go around harassing brown people?
I mean, if the law said something silly like legal status is required to obtain a state ID and showing a valid state/federal ID of some sort is required to be provided whenever in any legal stop by a police officer, then it wouldn’t be about harassing brown people and I’d be for it but of course the thought never crossed their minds. Articles like the one above seem a fairly possible reason that it didn’t.
My favorite news story about ole Russell:
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/10/09/daily22.html?surround=lfn
Absolutely no reason at all to wonder about harassing brown people that I can see. He does always seem to get reelected though so will of the people and all that.
I was born in America too and I’ve had to prove who I am every time I’m pulled over.
No, you’ve had to prove that you are legally authorized to operate a motor vehicle. A driver’s license proves that, and that’s its primary purpose, and the reason you have to display it in such an instance. That it serves to personally identify you, “prove” who you are, is a secondary issue.
And again, a driver’s license is no guarantee of citizenship nor current legal residency. And you don’t have to have your driver’s license with you (or have a driver’s license to begin with) if you’re not driving a car, and yet there can be instances when you’d have a legally permissible and appropriate interaction with a police officer outside of a car, and under SB 1070, a police officer would be authorized to inquire as to your status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” about it at in one of those instances as well as in traffic stops.
So again I ask the question: what beyond mere fact of existence qualifies as a “reasonable suspicion?”
And if a person is suspected of being in the country illegally, how do they prove otherwise in a reasonable fashion?
As I remember it, I produced my Australian passport (which included my employment visa), and my Social Security card (issued about a month earlier).
And, back more than 40 years, when I first got a driver’s license in Australia, I used my passport rather than my birth certificate to prove my age. (Of course, you need a birth certificate to get a passport …)
This law does not require anyone to prove their citizenship. It doesn’t. The actual words of the law–they do not require anyone to prove their citizenship. There is no assumption of guilt; in fact, the law specifically eliminates that possibility by requiring reasonable suspicion.
That’s what it does cover, instances where reasonable suspicion exists that the person may be here illegally. “Reasonable suspicion” is a well-established legal standard that does NOT equate with “anyone with brown skin.” So, the law may well end up being a pointless exercise that accomplishes nothing, but it does not create some new standard or grant some power to the police that did not previously exist.
This straw man just will not die–“our concern is not about coddling illegals, it’s about the fact that this will force citizens to carry papers, prove their citizenship, etc.” It is offered as a given, even from supposedly reliable news sources. It is false.
Bricker offered an example several times. A cop asks someone if he’s a citizen. The person answers, “No, I’m a legal alien.” The cop asks for his green card (which prior law requires him to carry) and is told he left it at home. Reasonable suspicion.
How about at a traffic stop, the cop asks the person if he’s a citizen. The driver gets a look of terror on his face and floors it, leading the cop on a chase. Reasonable suspicion.
How about the person being questioned starts contradicting himself, first he’s a legal alien, then he’s a citizen, that sort of thing.
As it occurs with many other laws, reasonable suspicion is very often generously supplied by the criminal. The critical point here, though, is that reasonable suspicion is a requirement of the law. The cop can’t have a hunch. He must base his suspicion on “specific and articulable facts and inferences.” “He looks Mexican” did not pass that test prior to this law, and nothing in the law changes the standard.
If (and the law requires this!) reasonable suspicion exists, there are all kinds of ways to show that someone is a citizen. Seriously, do you think this is an unanswerable question for some reason?
A man gets cited for peeing behind a Home Depot. He speaks poor English, and doesn’t have a drivers license. The cop asks him if he is here legally, and the person produces a Social Security card.
Knowing that there is no way for the police officer to verify the number on the card as being real or fake, unless a written request is made from the head of the law enforcement agency to the Social Security Administration, does the fact that the man possesses a Social Security card sufficient to end the cop’s inquiries?
Thought I provide some more news. Might add my opinion to this thread later:
**Three year old law in Virginia targets illegal immigrants much like Arizona’s SB 1070
**
http://www.kold.com/global/Story.asp?s=12524931
I hope I’m not the only one who hears Sting saying “I’m an Englishman in New York …”
Why would that be reasonable suspicion of the man being an illegal alien? The cop is acting inappropriately if “peeing behind the Home Depot, and speaking poor English” are the “specific and articulable facts” he based his suspicion on. At that point, based on those facts alone, whether or not a Social Security card is “proof” is irrelevant.
I don’t know that I agree with this statement. E-Verify is an electronic, instant-response service that at least shows employers if an SSN is valid, so at a minimum it seems that could be checked.
In addition, police agencies that have signed an agreement with the feds under the 287(g) program can presumably check with some method less cumbersome than you describe.
What am I missing?
Well, this is kind of an arrogant statement to make, since you don’t obviously understand how the immigration law works.
Assuming any amnesty would be similar to the Reagan-era amnesty, immigrants wanting to change their status (become legal) would still have to apply, be approved, pass a background check, pay a fine, meet the financial/income regulations and THEN, and most importanty:
Wait in line for a visa. There are only a certain amount of visas available every year for Mexico. The length of this wait (generally years) depends on the nature your relationship to a US citizen or permanent legal resident. Explain, please, how any current undocumented immigrant is going to jump to the head of this line.
If you have no relationship that fits under the law, then you get no visa. None. If you’re just some guy or the brother of a permanent legal resident (for example), no visa. None. You jump to the head of no line. There is no provision for you at at all. There is no line. Explain, please, how this line will be created under an amnesty.
Are you saying that if someone is loitering in a place known to be a place where illegal aliens look for day labor, he speaks poor English, is Latino, has work gloves on him, that doesn’t qualify as reasonable suspicion of not being here legally?
Tell me if that isn’t reasonable suspicion. I’d like to know why.
(FYI, I thought my reference to Home Depot would have been sufficient to imply a connection to day laborers.)
It is my understanding that e-Verify is not available for use by law enforcement, it is intended for employers. Correct me if I am wrong. Now, could the system be modified for law enforcement use? I suppose that’s possible, but given the President’s views on the topic, it doesn’t seem likely at the moment.
As far as I am aware, the 287(g) program generally means that a person has been arrested and is in jail, and there is time to run the process. AFAIK, there is no “instant check” that one can run on someone’s immigration status, in the same way that one can quickly check the validity of a drivers license.
If you have a different understanding of the process, please let me know. I just don’t think that there is any way to resolve citizenship issues on the spot unless someone happens to be carrying a birth certificate, green card, or passport. I think subjecting anyone to an investigation process on the street that is as unreliable as I believe it to be is patently unfair.
I have no objection whatsoever to checking the immigration status of someone in jail, which is what the linked article to the law in Prince William County, Virginia, actually said.
I’m not an expert, so I don’t know conclusively that this would or wouldn’t constitute reasonable suspicion. Work gloves and looking for day labor, ISTM, does not equate with “reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.” But what do I know?
The point is that reasonable suspicion is a well-established standard, generally applied by people who do understand such distinctions way better than I; and if they abuse that power, there are process that deal with such abuses (just as with any other law). If reasonable suspicion exists, then it’s prudent (and now obligatory) for cops to explore that concern. And just as important, the horrors being predicted are not associated with some new power or some change in definition or legal standard. If a cop could abuse the application of “reasonable standard” now, he could have previously. This law does not attempt to shift the constitutionally protected boundaries–as if it could!
So what does it equate, if it doesn’t equate “anyone with brown skin” then? No one seems to answer that question.
Why are cops asking this question to begin with? Have you ever been asked this question when you’re pulled over? What would lead a cop to even think to ask?
That’s the million dollar question.
That short news summary is… not a very complete summary. For the true story take a look at the actual University of Virginia study of the law that the story is ostensibly about. Some quick points:
[ul]
[li]Unlike AZ SB 1070, the VA law mandates immigration status inquiry for all arrestees and gives discretion for inquiry during lawful detentions, but not during other police interactions. This was a change in direct response to public complaint.[/li][li]The news story suggests that racial profiling did not occur. The study actually says “initial fear of lawsuits about racial profiling was not realized.” That’s a far different thing. Racial profiling may very well have occurred, there just haven’t been lawsuits about it.[/li][li]The study notes “the implementation had high budget costs and occupied large amounts of senior staff time.” How are cash-strapped jurisdictions going to cover the additional expense of implementing this law? We’re told that this is going to save taxpayer dollars in the long run but that’s not been evidenced in Prince William.[/li][li]We’re told that undocumented people commit a lot of crimes, and the crime rate in that county did drop, but the study notes numerous factors that could account for a decline in crime rates, and “illegal immigrants are a small percentage of those arrested for violent crimes, so it seems unlikely that the policy was a primary cause of the county’s drop in serious violence.” and “Most of the illegal immigrant arrestees referred to ICE have committed only minor crimes. If the objective of the County’s immigration enforcement effort is to reduce serious crime, then the current policy does not provide a very efficient means of achieving it.” Big cost for small gains, at least where crime control is concerned.[/li][li]The policy had a direct and negative impact on police-community relations thusly: “Most county residents are satisfied with the Police Department’s implementation of the policy, but Hispanics’ levels of satisfaction with the police have declined.” Hmm, should we wonder why that might be? And on the whole: “On the community survey, they reported large drops in satisfaction with police performance, from a high of 97 percent reporting satisfaction in 2005 to 73 percent in 2008.”[/li][li]And as for those social factors, fewer ESL students, fewer uninsured births: “the policy’s public debate and implementation coincided with the mortgage crisis and the severe economic downturn, resulting in the loss of jobs, such as construction, often filled by immigrants.” So this policy alone didn’t cause undocumented workers and their families to flee the county, they went to where there was still work for them to do.[/li][li]But people feel safer, right? No. “The policy has not increased residents’ sense of safety in the county. Instead, it appears to have created an ethnic divide in people’s perceptions of the county.” Hispanic people overall are less happy in Prince William County and large numbers reported that they hoped to live elsewhere within five years. “(Responses from Hispanic residents) are in marked contrast to the responses of other county residents, which tended to be fairly stable over time. And they suggest that the policy was probably affecting legal as well as illegal immigrants.” And not just immigrants, as the study also notes: “One of the unintended consequences of the policy appears to be a large reduction—about 15 percent for each group—in blacks’ and Hispanics’ trust that the government will do what is right most or all of the time.”[/li][/ul]
So what have we got? KOLD’s 8 sentences would like to portray the Prince William policy as having no negative effects, and in truth, that’s not the case at all. There’s a huge social cost, a huge change in public perception of the police and government at large, and a huge price tag as well, with little directly attributable change in crime rates and some of the supposed “positive” results can be more accurately pinned on the changing economy.