Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, and other defenders of the recent Arizona immigration law often justify it by arguing that it does nothing more than use state law enforcement agencies to enforce a federal law. As Goldberg puts it, “[l]egal immigrants have been required under federal law to carry their papers for generations.” Unfortunately, the state law is indeed much more dangerous than the federal one. And the latter is itself problematic.
I. Why the Arizona Law Poses a Much Greater Risk to Civil Liberties.
There is, however, a big difference between the federal law and the Arizona law: most people rarely if ever encounter federal law enforcement officials except at the border, while the same can’t be said for state and local police. My parents and I were green card holders from 1979 to 1986. As far as I know, they rarely if ever carried proof of legal residency with them except when entering and leaving the country. I suspect that most other legal immigrants behave the same way. Why? Because the chance of running into a federal law enforcement officer in everyday life is infinitesmally small. In practice, the federal law creates little if any risk of either racial profiling or the kind of “papers please” regime that critics of the Arizona law fear.
By contrast, even in my relatively low-crime neighborhood, I see state and local police officers almost every day. If, as the Arizona law allows, these officers can demand papers of anyone “reasonably suspected” of being an illegal immigrant, that will indeed create far worse risks than the federal law. Effectively, it means that anyone who looks Asian or Hispanic or speaks English with an accent is at risk of profiling (see this article for a good short explanation of why). It also means that such people will have to be very careful to carry documentary proof of citizenship or legal residency with them every time they leave the house. If they forget, they could end up spending hours or days in detention as the authorities sort things out.
To be sure, the law has been amended to require that police can only demand papers in case of a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” of the suspect, which may be interpreted to mean that the person in question must first be stopped because of a suspicion that he is engaged in some other illegal activity. But this isn’t much protection. Police stop people all the time for minor traffic offenses, jaywalking and the like. This is particularly true in a time of recession when many local governments are stepping up enforcement of minor traffic violations in order to increase revenue. Even reasonably careful drivers and pedestrians can expect to get pulled over by police occasionally. In practice, just about everyone routinely drives above the speed limit or jaywalks. Most people engage in these or other minor violations of local and state law virtually every day. How many people usually drive under the speed limit? In practice, therefore, police armed with the authority of the Arizona law can find justification for stopping and demanding papers of almost anyone whom they think might potentially be an illegal alien; certainly anyone going anywhere in a car driving above the speed limit.
II. Why the Federal Law is Also Bad.
Defenders of the Arizona law often argue that you can’t consistently oppose it unless you oppose the federal law too. I think the above shows why that isn’t correct. However, I’m willing to take up their gauntlet anyway: the federal law is also harmful and should be repealed. The principal reason is that it creates a slippery slope that can then be exploited to justify much more serious intrusions on freedom such as the Arizona law. If not for the federal law, the Arizona statute might never have been enacted. Senior Conspirator Eugene Volokh’s excellent article on “The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope” is relevant here.
In addition, it’s important to recognize that the federal law seems like it does not threaten freedom only because it is so rarely enforced except at border crossings. If encounters with federal law enforcement officials were as common as those with state and local police, the federal law would pose just as grave a danger as the Arizona law. Indeed, it would be far worse, since it would apply to the entire country and not just one state.
In sum, a “papers please” regime is dangerous whether created by federal law or state law. It may be tolerable if it is almost never enforced. But the best approach is to get rid of it entirely.
Tweets that mention Why the Arizona Law is Much Worse than the Federal Law It is Supposedly Based On: (Ilya Somin… -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Volokh Conspirac. The Volokh Conspirac said: Why the Arizona Law is Much Worse than the Federal Law It is Supposedly Based On: (Ilya Somin… http://goo.gl/fb/Z6Og0 [...]
May 8, 2010, 3:29 amAnonymous in Texous says:
So what would be a good way to:
1. Not infringe on rights
May 8, 2010, 4:00 am2. Deport Illegal Immigrants
3. Keep Illegal Immigrants out
4. Be enforced by Federal Law Enforcement?
Mark N. says:
This part is particularly problematic I think, especially since it effectively imposes a requirement that is not present in federal law: that citizens carry proof of citizenship with them at all times. Indeed, citizens need not even have proof of citizenship. If you’ve never gotten a driver’s license, didn’t apply for the non-driver’s-license state ID, never applied for a passport, never registered to vote, and don’t know where your birth certificate is, you aren’t committing any crime, yet you have no way of satisfying the Arizona law if an officer stops you.
And if you did make it mandatory for citizens to carry ID (which I doubt the federal government can constitutionally do, but maybe the states can), that’d be a much worse example than the healthcare mandate of putting mandates on people simply for existing!
May 8, 2010, 4:11 amJ. Aldridge says:
What makes anyone think the states ever surrendered their authority over immigration to the Feds? Seems to me most who speak on this subject merely pretend the Constitution invested such authority with congress. It didn’t.
If you go back and look at the early treaties congress made that touched on immigrants made clear the condition and treatment of immigrants was subject to state laws and not by any authority of congress.
Section 10 of Article 1 does not take the authority over immigration away from the states. It is strange to listen to scholars who should know better arguing how federal immigration laws preempts state law.
May 8, 2010, 4:27 ampoul says:
so the only real problem you find with arizona law is that it will require all non-citizens to carry green card or passport all the time? well, first, it is already a requirement in federal law. and second, why shouldn’t it be a requirement?
i had my green card in my wallet with credit cards and such all the time, and didn’t see it as anything but a very reasonable and small price to pay for living in america. why is it not? what’s the problem really? a tiny space in the wallet? half gramm of additional weight? what?
May 8, 2010, 4:40 ampoul says:
no it doesn’t. it should be sufficient to state your name and date of birth to the police officer. let them figure it out, they all have portable laptops now.
May 8, 2010, 4:43 amGuy says:
Liberalize immigration policy, implement a work visa program, foment economic stability in Mexico, strengthen border security to your heart’s content, and forget about deporting illegal immigrants because it simply is not practicable no matter how many resources you devote to that purpose.
May 8, 2010, 4:49 amGuy says:
“The Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (the Naturalization Clause) is, I think, the official source of Congress’ power to regulate immigration.
May 8, 2010, 5:00 amPinandpuller says:
Why don’t we privatize ICE like, you know, the Federal Reserve.
May 8, 2010, 5:27 ampoul says:
not at all. we could outsource it to bounty hunters, paid by deportees and their employers. free and effective.
May 8, 2010, 5:33 amRobbie says:
For the past seventy years federal law has required resident aliens to carry their green cards on their persons at all times.
Apparently Mr. Somin is concerned that aliens will now have to be “careful” not to violate federal law while in this particular one of the fifty states.
Except for a homeless guy living under a bridge, which American citizen leaves home without “papers” for driving, writing or cashing a check, using a credit card, entering many government buildings etc.
Maybe what opponents really fear about the Arizona law is that it will prove to be effective.
May 8, 2010, 5:41 amGuy says:
That might be effective, but I think it would run into problems with the Due Process Clause or maybe the Excessive Fines Clause. Also it’s not a good way to protect civil liberties generally.
May 8, 2010, 5:53 amRobbie says:
So? Nothing prevents state and local officials from assisting in the enforcment of existing federal law.
Counterfeiting and bank robbery are federal crimes. Do you expect local police to ignore them because it’s a “federal responsibility”?
May 8, 2010, 5:54 amChaim Mahoney says:
Is there any sort of a “papers please” regime that will be acceptable in certain circumstances? Something like this is enforced quite harshly I must say in Israel. Authorities say they have an illegal immigration problem but I suppose that is another story altogether.
May 8, 2010, 5:54 ambrubaker says:
I wonder if the Arizona law is going to spur a race to the bottom along the lines of what happened when local governments started restricting where convicted pedophiles could live. If a neighboring city is inhospitable to pedophiles due to severe restrictions on where they can live, work, etc., then your city better enact restrictions that are similarly severe or there will be an influx of undesirables. I can see a similar problem developing between the states if the Arizona law is actually successful. The problem of course is that, unlike with pedophiles, a “papers please” regime inherently intrudes on everyones freedom (at least everyone who speaks with an accent).
May 8, 2010, 5:54 amGuy says:
You’re right, homeless people have no rights that anyone should care about… also, you’ve never left your home without your wallet?
May 8, 2010, 5:56 amRobbie says:
I only mentioned the homeless guy ’cause that is about the only American lifestyle that doesn’t require carrying papers on a daily basis.
Homeless Americans have the same rights as homeful Americans!
Homeless resident aliens are still required to carry a green card.
Homeless illegal aliens should be sent back home.
Yeah I’ve left home without my wallet. If I’d been pulled over while driving or arrested for some reason I expect the police would hold me until they determined who I was. If they believed I had violated ANY federal law OTHER than immigration law, I think they’d keep me.
May 8, 2010, 6:28 amBrett Bellmore says:
To join in the pile on, my wife, a legal immigrant, carries her green card with her whenever she leaves the house. Why?
Because she’s already legally required to.
So this complaint boils down to, legal immigrants would have to actually comply with existing federal law? Yeah, that’s kind of the point of the Arizona law, to start enforcing federal laws on immigration which the federal government is deliberately leaving unenforced.
May 8, 2010, 6:28 amRicardo says:
No, the complaint is that U.S. citizens would have to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times. Do Arizona cops consider a California driver’s license adequate proof of legal presence (the law does not spell out precisely which IDs are acceptable — and how are local police to know)? If not, the law amounts to a requirement that non-Arizona residents carry their passports with them at all times while in Arizona. Americans have a right to travel to Arizona without any undue burden being placed on that right and the state has a consequent obligation to spell out precisely what non-Arizonans must carry with them to satisfy the law.
First, we’re talking about the real world, not an episode of CSI. Perhaps the police could rely on the SSA but they would need a Social Security Number to do this and it’s not clear they can look this information up on those fancy laptops they all have. Second, how is the cop going to make a “reasonable attempt” to verify that the name, dob and SSN are, in fact, accurate if you don’t have reasonably tamper-proof photo ID and your SS card with you?
Children and college students don’t always carry ID on them all the time (the law apparently makes no exception for children — that’s a whole can of worms there). If you have your wallet stolen with all your IDs in it in Phoenix, you’re in quite a catch-22 if you want to file a police report, aren’t you? Additionally, it is true you will be greatly inconvenienced in the ways you describe without some form of photo ID. But, as has been pointed out, “inconvenience” is a long way from being detained or jailed for several hours and Arizona’s requirements (that the ID establish legal presence and not simply identity) are more stringent than your local bank’s.
May 8, 2010, 7:15 amRobbie says:
The Arizona law doesn’t require citizens to carry ID. You might CHOOSE to carry ID for the convenience of settling any question quickly, much as you would choose if you wished to drive, bank, use credit, vote, buy beer, enter a federal court house, rent an apartment, get on an airplane or engage in any of the other activities known as living in the 21st century USA.
May 8, 2010, 7:16 amRicardo says:
Yes, it doesn’t “require” the carrying of ID. It merely says you risk being detained or jailed for several hours while police make a “reasonable attempt” to establish your citizenship. Just what exactly constitutes a “reasonable attempt” and exactly how long police can detain you and under what conditions are mysteries under the text of the law. Your claim that it doesn’t “require” citizens to carry ID is semantic quibbling more than anything else. Moreover, the ID must establish not only identity but also legal presence in the U.S. Arizona driver’s licenses evidently qualify but not necessarily out-of-state driver’s licenses or other IDs.
As I pointed out above, it’s one thing if the restaurant makes me pay in cash because I don’t have ID with me and the restaurant won’t take my credit card without it. It’s another to cool my heals at the police station while relatives try to locate my passport and fax the cover page in to the police station.
This law is just asking for trouble without a tamper-proof national ID card. It doesn’t appear to provide police with anything approaching explicit rules or procedures for establishing one’s legal presence in the country.
May 8, 2010, 7:28 amTC says:
How about a nat’l ID card w/ photo & fingerprint?
May 8, 2010, 7:30 amSorry about #1.
Brett Bellmore says:
No, a major part of Ilya’s complaint really is that legal resident aliens would have to start carrying around with him ID that they’re already legally required to carry with them, but don’t:
See? He’s complaining that legal resident aliens might have to start complying with existing law, which they don’t currently because of lack of enforcement.
But, you know, a lot of them already DO comply, because they’re law abiding sorts of people. So, driving through Arizona, my wife, if pulled over for a traffic stop, would have to show her Green card along with her driver’s license. Big hairy deal.
The complaint that citizens might have to start carrying proof of citizenship carries more weight. But, you know what? That’s the sort of thing you get when your government spends decades deliberately not enforcing your borders, so that a significant fraction of the population is present illegally.
Place the blame where it belongs: It wouldn’t be necessary if the feds hadn’t deliberately not enforced the law for so long.
May 8, 2010, 7:35 amRobbie says:
Ricardo;
If you lose your wallet and drivers license I’m certain once given your name and birthdate, Phoenix PD can view your ID online, photo included, in less time than it takes you to read this post.
If the police have reason to believe you are someone who is wanted for breaking the law, they will hold you unless and until it is determined you are not that person. If you choose to carry ID it’s easier for all concerned. If you’d rather make the cops spend a few hours finding out who you are that is your choice as well.
May 8, 2010, 7:47 amRobbie says:
Might not be necessary if “libertarians” spent half as much energy on dismantling the welfare state they claim to abhor as they do cheerleading the importation of millions of new welfare state “clients”.
May 8, 2010, 7:56 amPersonFromPorlock says:
This, at least, is easily prevented by the state’s seizing all locally-imposed fines. Not that that’ll happen, of course.
May 8, 2010, 8:11 amThe Unbeliever says:
So because illegals (or citizens) are more likely to encounter state/local law enforcement agents than federal agents, then the problem with the state law is… um… it increases the odds that laws get enforced? That seems like a pretty clear “feature not bug”.
Hypothetical: let’s say Arizona never passed that law, but the President commissioned 50,000 brand new ICE agents and sent them to hang out in Arizona for a year. Suddenly the odds of encountering a federal agent are much higher than encountering a police officer, and everyone starts carrying papers just in case. Would that similarly be illegal, risky, infringing civil liberties, etc? What if he only set 100 ICE agents?
It sounds like you’re saying right now, people in AZ are fine going about their business without fear of needing papers. So somewhere between current numbers and a hypothetical 50,000 agent surge, there would be enough of an enforcement presence to tip the scale into this worrisome area where papers matter.
Are you saying that no law or government action should ever reach the tipping point where people anticipate effective enforcement?
I tend to drive 10 mph over the limit, with one very important exception. My current office building is across the street from the county sheriff’s office; there is literally a 100% chance I’ll see a law enforcement official every time I arrive at or leave the office. You can bet everyone drives safely, politely, and under the speed limit for two blocks both ways.
Are my co-workers and my civil liberties at “greater risk” because we are in daily proximity to law enforcement agents? I double-check that I have my wallet before leaving the house specifically because I know I’ll be driving by cops; am I being unfairly put out, or subjected to a “papers please” regime?
May 8, 2010, 8:34 amMark N. says:
Ah, the typical excuse of police states everywhere: we don’t want to have police asking for your papers and harassing you, but it’s necessary for the security of the state and society. Believe us, we’ll be happy to relinquish any powers we’ve acquired just as soon as the threat dissipates!
May 8, 2010, 8:48 amJoe says:
I only mentioned the homeless guy ’cause that is about the only American lifestyle that doesn’t require carrying papers on a daily basis.
If you don’t drive, what “papers” do you have to carry on a daily basis? In fact, even if you do drive, if you aren’t driving, what papers? Maybe, work id, but that wouldn’t work here. Of course, if you were retired …
May 8, 2010, 8:48 amDuracomm says:
The immigration system is a disaster.
A good example of why this is the case is to look at the amount of time and energy advocates and media have spent on the arizona law (lots) compared to the time and energy advocates and media have spent on the poor treatment of folks going through the legal immigration process (crickets chirping).
May 8, 2010, 8:50 amcecil kirksey says:
If I choose not to drive that day I do need “papers”. If I pay cash I do not need “papers”. If I go for a walk in my neighborhood I do not need “papers”. If I walk into any governement building that does not require a pass I do not need “papers”. Giving my name if stopped legally by LEO is all that is required constitutionally as the SCOUS has stated.
May 8, 2010, 8:51 amThe Unbeliever says:
OK… but is there anything in the Arizona law that actually changes that fact? Admittedly I only skimmed the text, but I don’t see anything that says you get a higher penalty for failure to show proof of citizenship, than you would if you gave your name without ID.
May 8, 2010, 8:58 amCornellian says:
One concern I have about this law is that it effectively imposes a requirement on a subset of citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times, if that citizen speaks with a non-American accent, especially if that citizen has a Spanish accent and looks Hispanic. No white guy with an American accent is ever going to have his citizenship questioned under this law.
May 8, 2010, 9:03 amRobbie says:
Again, I wasn’t claiming you must carry papers and the Az. law doesn’t either. For a whole lot of reasons, including the possibility of being stopped by the police, I think it’s silly not to.
Being silly isn’t illegal but can lead to some inconvenience. Especially if the cops think you’re somebody else and you’re unwilling to show them an ID which proves them wrong.
May 8, 2010, 9:12 amRich says:
But as stated earlier that subset has been required to carry proof for over 70 years. The fact that they have not does not change the requirement.
May 8, 2010, 9:15 amcecil kirksey says:
It seems to me that this issue puts the burden of proof on the person suspected of doing something illegal as opposed to the government proving the case. If a person is arrested for say jaywalking by a LEO in Arizona and the LEO suspects the person of being in the US illegal, who has the burden of proof? The suspect doesn’t have to say anything. The government must prove that the person is here illegally. As far as having to carry a green card is concerned the person risks the chance of being deported if the card is not presented. Not carrying the card is not a crime.
May 8, 2010, 9:16 amaggie esq says:
So the state law is more troublesome than a like federal law because individuals come in contact with state law enforcement officers more frequently than federal law enforcement officers? Seriously? How can that rationale not be applied to every state criminal law?
May 8, 2010, 9:20 amBobC says:
I would be concerned about that, but twice the law states it has to comply with all Federal immigration, and federal rights on profiling. So if what you say happens does happen, that is a violation of the state law you dislike so much.
May 8, 2010, 9:23 amStogie says:
This article’s argument is unbelievably weak. We shouldn’t have any enforceable immigration laws because people might have to carry I.D.??
Ilya sounds like a liberal: open borders for everyone. Let in, freely, the drug traffickers, car thieves, illegal voters, kidnappers, and raiders of free public services.
Arizona is overwhelmed with 460,000 illegals, a soaring crime rate and bankrupt social services (free hospital services and schools). But they can do nothing about it, because Ilya is worried about “profiling” and people having to show their I.D. I would say Ilya’s priorities are highly misplaced.
May 8, 2010, 9:34 amValentino Rossi says:
“This law is just asking for trouble without a tamper-proof national ID card. It doesn’t appear to provide police with anything approaching explicit rules or procedures for establishing one’s legal presence in the country.”
May 8, 2010, 9:41 amSo pass the law requiring an I.D. card and get control of the illegal immigrant problem. For my money an I.D. card would be no problem at all compared to the illegal immigrant problem.
Robbie says:
Regardless of race,why would cops suspect someone with an American accent of being an illegal alien? Would you feel better if they promised to question the status of lots of white guys with American accents?
Will most of those questioned have a heavy Spanish accent if they speak English at all?
Sure. Maybe because somewhere between 90% and 99% of illegals in Az. have Spanish accents or speak only Spanish?
May 8, 2010, 9:46 amPatrick says:
Lame. Really lame. You got me at “a slippery slope” … this is nothing but sophistry wrapped around the slippery slope argument.
Something bad MIGHT happen makes it bad? A law no more onerous than a plethora of other laws is somehow ‘different’?
I suppose you also drive without your driver’s license, since – how often do you get stopped anyway, and it would be an intrusion to get THAT demanded by a cop.
“To join in the pile on, my wife, a legal immigrant, carries her green card with her whenever she leaves the house. Why?
Because she’s already legally required to.”
So an added bonus to AZ law – we train up immigrants to be law-abiders instead of law-shirkers. Might come in handy later on when they fill out the 1040, or decide how seriously to take DWI laws.
May 8, 2010, 9:47 amBrianMac says:
I’m intruiged by your use of scare quotes. Are you saying that the law, in practice, will not systematically discriminate against US citizens based on skin colour/accent? Or just that it’s not a big deal?
May 8, 2010, 9:48 amPatrick says:
“One concern I have about this law is that it effectively imposes a requirement on a subset of citizens”
That would be the citizens who cant speak English.
How many US citizens cant speak English? And if not, WHY NOT?
May 8, 2010, 9:48 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
For years, libertarians, not liberals, advocated opening the borders.
The point that illegal immigration causes different sorts of problems for Arizona (and other states as well) and imposes additional costs upon the taxpayers during tough economic times is well-taken.
My two serious concerns about the Arizona law are (a) it invites racial profiling (a “reasonable suspicion” is just about anything that comes into the officer’s mind, including the fact that the person stopped, say, for a minor traffic violation isn’t white (as in looks latino/a) and (speaks English w/ an accent) (b) related to (a) imposes costs on those who are stopped and detained but are here legally (c) would discourage anyone here illegally from reporting a crime to the authorities, as a victim or as a witness(d) feeds into racist sentiments about who “real” Americans are and polarizes an issue that doesn’t need to be any more partisan than it already is.
And, btw, it’s probably unconstitutional. On more personal note, my wife is a green card holder and she doesn’t usually carry her green card w/ her when she drives in town (we live in California) and I would be horrified if we were anywhere is the U.S. and she was detained because she didn’t have her papers with her. Obviously, if we’re in Arizona, she has better bring them, but the mere thought of that happening to anyone disturbs me deeply.
In sum, is this law the right way to address the problem of illegal immigration? Are there no other (and better) alternatives?
May 8, 2010, 9:54 amVisitor Again says:
Late one evening in 1964 I took a bus from Santa Barbara, where I attended UCSB, to Fresno, where my parents lived, for my citizenship swearing ceremony the next day. The bus went south to Los Angeles, where, in the wee hours, I transferred to a bus going north with a stop in Bakersfield. At that stop a federal immigration officer boarded the bus, and asked me whether I was a citizen. I was a British subject with an American accent and had very dark brown hair, almost black, but my skin color was fair. I told him I was not a citizen but would be later that morning, and he asked for my green card. I had never been asked for it before in the six and a half years I had had it, but fortunately I had it on me and produced it. I wondered what would have happened had I been unable to produce that green card.
When I applied for social security last October, I had to produce proof of my citizenship. Again, fortunately, I was able to find the citizenship papers issued to me in 1964. I was told it would have taken months for me to get proof of citizenship had I not had those papers.
It’s a miracle I had both my green card and my citizenship papers when they were needed, given that I had moved so many times and had my wallet lost or stolen a few times.
May 8, 2010, 9:57 amGlenn Bowen says:
This is really left-handed logic. Yes, less physical presence of those vested to enforce the federal law results in less detainments and arrests.
Agreed, but I’m reminded of the “startling” comparison of prison populations increasing as crime is reduced.
A knack for the obvious is cited here, and nothing more.
May 8, 2010, 10:00 amCornellian says:
One concern I have about this law is that it effectively imposes a requirement on a subset of citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times, if that citizen speaks with a non-American accent, especially if that citizen has a Spanish accent and looks Hispanic. No white guy with an American accent is ever going to have his citizenship questioned under this law.
Rich says:
But as stated earlier that subset has been required to carry proof for over 70 years.
Really? What law requires a citizen to carry proof of citizenship at all times?
May 8, 2010, 10:04 amgrog says:
I only mentioned the homeless guy ’cause that is about the only American lifestyle that doesn’t require carrying papers on a daily basis.
This is patently untrue. I, like many millions of people, live in a large urban environment, and drive maybe 4 times a year. I almost never carry my wallet – it is usually completely unnessessary. I carry my MTA card, keys, cash and phone. Why would I carry ID? I’m old enough that I don’t get carded if I’m meeting someone at a bar or restaurant, I only use credit on online purchases, purchases where I want to have the protection provided by the bank, or certain expensive purchases where I wouldn’t want to carry the cash. I don’t use checks aside from mailing them to utilities. Carrying a wallet is just one more thing to worry about, something I learned when I was mugged ~15 years ago – if you don’t carry it, you don’t worry about wasting unpleasant time at the DMV getting a new license. This extends generally to what I carry – no more cash than I can afford to lose, keys that neighbors have copies of, the MTA card which is at most $91 out of pocket, and a phone which is backed up nightly, can be remotely bricked, and, admittedly, costs enough to replace to notice.
About the only time I carry ID/plastic is when flying, something I do more than driving.
May 8, 2010, 10:04 amCornellian says:
Regardless of race,why would cops suspect someone with an American accent of being an illegal alien?
Exactly my point. No cop will question the status of a guy who looks and sounds like Jim Carrey, Mike Meyers or Seth Rogen, even though they’re all Canadians.
Would you feel better if they promised to question the status of lots of white guys with American accents?
No, I would not.
May 8, 2010, 10:07 amCornellian says:
I only mentioned the homeless guy ’cause that is about the only American lifestyle that doesn’t require carrying papers on a daily basis.
No one carries a passport when they’re not traveling and lots of people don’t have driver’s licenses, including children, people too old to drive, people with various disabilities (like epilepsy) and people who just never learned to drive. Plus there are a few states where getting a driver’s license doesn’t require proof of citizenship. What other ID do people typically have besides those two?
May 8, 2010, 10:10 amcecil kirksey says:
Anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Speaking English is not a requirement for citizenship.
May 8, 2010, 10:11 amMithras says:
I have a modest proposal. Instead of spending all this time and effort on deportation (when they just come back again and again), why don’t we just repeal the 13th amendment with regard to illegal aliens? They would get a hearing and if they’re found to be here illegally, then they get sold at auction. Cheap-labor conservatives would be happy because they won’t have to pay wages. National-security conservatives would be happy because it would effectively deter almost anyone else from entering the U.S. illegally. And the sale proceeds could more than cover the government’s cost of administering the program and maybe even pay a bounty to whomever turned the illegal in. It’s a free market solution!
May 8, 2010, 10:12 amCornellian says:
“One concern I have about this law is that it effectively imposes a requirement on a subset of citizens”
That would be the citizens who cant speak English.
No, that would be the citizens who speak English with non-American accents, of whom there are many, including virtually every naturalized citizen who didn’t come here from Canada.
May 8, 2010, 10:12 amBob from Ohio says:
Of course, he is a libertarian. Distinction without a difference except for taxes or guns.
May 8, 2010, 10:22 amgeokstr says:
Especially since that same ID card could be used to ensure that only genuine human, non-deceased, actual citizens get to vote, and only once each.
May 8, 2010, 10:22 amFrank Drackman says:
Somehow my Mom who immigrated from the German Democratic Republic in 1961 and who’s own mom had an ID number tatooed on her arm doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with the law at all…
May 8, 2010, 10:24 amImmigrants should become citizens the old fashioned way, marry an American..
sashal says:
next step will be to link and to tell us about actual cases when the dead VOTED or some people voted multiple times (and Ann Coulter case of voter fraud does not count ).
May 8, 2010, 10:32 ammay be the death panels and rampant voter frauds exist in your Neanderthal alternate reality, would you like to share it with us?
ConservativeWanderer says:
Ronald C. Den Otter:
Congratulations! You’re married to a criminal.
As has been stated many times in this thread, legal immigrants are required by law of 7 decades’ standing to have their green card on their person.
But, no, we can’t enforce existing law because doing so might inconvenience some people… certain Beltway Bigwigs might have to find new nannies or gardeners.
May 8, 2010, 10:32 amRobbie says:
Exactly what point? That the people most likely to be questioned are the ones most likely to be illegal aliens?
We shouldn’t deal with the tens of millions of Illegals from Mexico and points south because some Canadian dudes can pass as Americans?
May 8, 2010, 10:33 amgeokstr says:
That was before liberals realized what a wonderful opportunity the illegals presented for giving them another huge bloc of 98% reliable votes that they could easily buy with all those free taxpayer dollars.
I wouldn’t doubt one bit that those same liberals so ardently opposed to any attempt to curb illegal immigration would have no problem whatsoever with passing a law forcing all conservatives to have a big “C” tattooed on their foreheads.
May 8, 2010, 10:36 amCornellian says:
Somehow my Mom who immigrated from the German Democratic Republic in 1961 and who’s own mom had an ID number tatooed on her arm doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with the law at all…
Hopefully Germany circa 1961 doesn’t become the benchmark for civil liberties in this country.
May 8, 2010, 10:39 amRobbie says:
In theory there is a big difference between the two. In practical effect virtually none.
Libertarians claim to oppose the big government welfare state.
Most of those same libertarians champion essentially unlimited immigration from the poor, uneducated, unskilled welfare ready of the third world. With a “path” to citizenship and the right to vote for the party of redistribution, big intrusive government, racial group “rights” and an ever expanding list of social programs and benefits.
It’s called cognitive dissonance. I call it Libertopian Syndrome.
May 8, 2010, 10:52 amChrisTS says:
Let’s see if I have all of this straight:
1) Real citizens always carry lots of IDs (I’ve already failed)
2) Real citizens have ‘American’ accents
3) Real citizens speak American English
4) If there are some real citizens (but not real Americans) who do not meet these criteria, then it is ok for them to be detained by police because that is needed to deal with illegal immigrants.
Guess I (2 out of 3) and my family members are all safe; those others will just have to suck it up for the greater good.
May 8, 2010, 10:52 amMark Field says:
Millions. In LA Unified, over 85% of the non-English proficient students were born in the US. The reason we have Sec. 203 of the VRA is that lots of people come here unable to speak English (think of, say, the Hmong).
I think people underestimate how often citizens leave the home without ID. My wife walks the dog every morning with no ID. If we go to dinner, she doesn’t like carrying a purse, so no ID; if I run a red light, does she go to jail? People who rely on public transportation and don’t have a bank account rarely have driver’s licenses. Etc.
May 8, 2010, 10:55 amPooblicus says:
Non-lawyer here, so forgive if these are silly questions.
How will the Arizona law dovetail with the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court decisions limiting police interaction in Terry stops and traffic stops?
Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of law violations, can a person he held more than the 20 minutes or so in a Terry stop, or at the conclusion of a traffic stop’s basic business to investigate immigration status? What if the subject refuses to discuss the situation or produce documents not required by the traffic stop? If he asks if he is free to go at the end of the traffic business, what is the correct answer for the cop?
We do have the right to not answer police questions with the possible exception of acknowledging that we understand we must go to the justice court to deal with traffic violations when we are released after a traffic stop. I don’t know of any other situation where we are required to even respond to police questions. If a person subject to a Terry stop refused to do more than verbally identify himself, and refuses to produce ID, can the police detain him for the immigration investigation without triggering the time limits of the Terry stop? Can they even look inside his wallet for documents during a pat-down looking for weapons?
Is refusing to answer status questions or not having an ID a basis for reasonable suspicion?
It seems to me that police pursuing this line of investigation are at great risk to their qualified immunity if they make an issue of this. Our right to go about our business free from police interference is pretty well established.
May 8, 2010, 11:07 amRobbie says:
There are tens of millions of foreign national illegal aliens in the U.S.
Illegal aliens are committing crimes, overwhelming schools, emergency rooms and social services in may areas of the country.
I have yet to see any opponent of the Arizona law post a single suggestion of how to deal with it.
Do any of you even want to deal with it?
Do you consider America to be a sovereign nation? A people? A culture?
Or do you simply regard The U.S. as an open border flop house and welfare agency for the third world?
May 8, 2010, 11:12 amgeokstr says:
Easily found with google search for “morial vote fraud”:
A nice summary of vote fraud cases easily found with google:
The Stunning Reality of Voter Fraud
You might also choose to do your own research for a change. Try googling “dead voters” and take a look at the 16 million hits.
What is readily apparent from all these cases is the fact that in nearly every cite, it’s a very close election won by a Democrat. What a coincidence, eh?
No wonder that leftists hate the idea of producing ID to vote, or doing away with the fraud-facilitating practices of same-day and motor voter registration, and the vast expansion of absentee balloting without any reason, and the blatant attempts to disenfranchise military ballots.
And exactly how does Coulter figure into vote fraud, being she is alive, homo sapiens, a citizen and voted only once? The only accusation was that she voted in the wrong precinct, and she was never charged with anything. Typical dishonest moral equivalency, a hallmark of the left.
May 8, 2010, 11:20 amLargo says:
Indeed. Say I’m a middle school teacher–or a shipping clerk–or manage a small software company–and I take the subway to work each morning. Certainly plausible in parts of NYC. And I only bank and shop on Tuesdays and Saturdays, and certainly hate to lose my credit card (I’m a clutz with my wallet sometimes).
Having to make sure I keep a document on my person whenever I am out would be a minor inconvenience. Nothing major, certainly. And I can appreciate the need to suffer minor inconveniences in one’s life. But this, given that there was never such a requirement before? To hell with that, I would say. [I am not saying I would be legally required. But if being profiled should prove over time to be even a greater inconvenience (and I don’t dismiss a place for profiling), then I would be mildly pissed.
I have no pertinent connection to the US*, but I can put myself in the mind of a citizen. I would not object to having to carry papers as a condition of my own stay, but that’s another story. The freedom to go teach middle school without having to give a rat’s ass about papers is one of the things I love about the US — one of the things that makes me think fantasize about immigrating.
May 8, 2010, 11:38 am–
*I sometimes tell people that I’m American. Sometimes I’ll be even more precise, and say I’m North American. I’ll occasionally admit to being Canadian, but I’m more likely to call myself a Newfoundlander! ;-)
Michelle Dulak Thomson says:
Cornellian,
No one carries a passport when they’re not traveling and lots of people don’t have driver’s licenses, including children, people too old to drive, people with various disabilities (like epilepsy) and people who just never learned to drive. Plus there are a few states where getting a driver’s license doesn’t require proof of citizenship. What other ID do people typically have besides those two?
State ID cards? I didn’t realize they were so obscure. I have one; CA’s, at least, is essentially identical in appearance (and necessary documentation) to a DL except that, obviously, it doesn’t authorize you to drive nor require proof that you know how.
May 8, 2010, 11:39 amBobC says:
These quotes from the law may help.
K. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
May 8, 2010, 11:42 am1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED
STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
1373(c).
TNeloms says:
Robbie, I don’t think you’ve adequately answered the concerns about citizens affected by this law. It sounds like you’re saying it will only be an imposition on a small amount of homeless people and on “silly” people.
But several people have explained why a normal, non-silly person might not have their ID on them. I’ll add to that: I lost my license recently and am waiting for a new one to arrive in the mail.
I bike to work every day, as do many people where I live, and every once in a while the cops decide to step up their enforcement of bike laws and tons of people get pulled over. Are you okay if those without driver’s licenses are brought in to the police station? Or if it’s just those with accents and/or dark skin? Even if you’re okay with this, do you at least understand why others aren’t?
If this is all that will happen, then I’m okay with it. But of course, proponents of the law probably aren’t okay with it: an illegal immigrant can just memorize the name and basic details of a citizen friend, and he’s free to go.
May 8, 2010, 11:55 ampdxnag says:
You need to distinguish the nature of the risk from the likelihood of getting caught. Your point appears isolated to the risk of getting caught.
Arizona need not “illegally profile” or risk being accused of “illegal profiling” if they set up a checkpoint at their border with Mexico . . . and with adjoining states. They can demand the papers from everybody seeking to enter Arizona.
A Blue Eyed Blond that carries a Wisconsin drivers license, but who talks funny to me, can cross the Utah border into Arizona because Wisconsin demands proof of citizenship (lawful residence) as a condition to getting a drivers license.
The profile can be “everyone” that looks old enough to get a drivers license in any state and it would be OK, at the border, at all their borders. They could even check everyone leaving Arizona. They don’t even need to engage in the semantics of what is or is not reasonable suspicion of anything.
Any of the six Mexican states with a border to the United States can petition the US Congress to become a US state. If the residents of such state want genuine open-borders, both ways, then this is an option that is available to them. The right to travel as recognized by our Supreme Court is a mutual right that is uniformly applicable. I would prefer to envision the citizens of a bordering Mexican state trying to clean up their act so as to plea with Congress to become another US State. Such application, if accepted, would moot a whole panoply of issues. These people need freedom, not an opportunity to escape (or to extend Cortes’ conquest on behalf of the present Republic of Mexico).
May 8, 2010, 11:55 amSteverino says:
I’ve got to second this. I married a foreign spouse also.
When I hear people say that a “papers please” society is un-American, I realize I am dealing with someone who doesn’t have a clue about legal immigration.
A Green Card has to be in the possession of the holder at all times.
Is a “papers please” society dangerous?
I’ll believe those on the left think that when they demand a halt to Barack Obama’s plan to have me demonstrate to the IRS that I have sufficient health insurance.
May 8, 2010, 11:55 amSk says:
I don’t want to pile on-its been said about 74 times already. but this is one of the worst arguments I have ever seen on this blog.
Sk
May 8, 2010, 12:04 pmpublic_defender says:
People coming across the border illegally aren’t looking for “welfare state” benefits. With very few exceptions (my job being one of them), illegal immigrants can’t get government benefits. For the most part, they come here to do cheap labor under the table to support their families.
Most illegal immigrants are about as close to pure libertarians as we have–desperate to avoid entanglement to the government, often working outside of any regulatory scheme that would protect them or others, and moving to wherever someone is willing to pay enough to justify the move.
May 8, 2010, 12:11 pmThe Unbeliever says:
Well, per Ilya’s reasoning, that is a huge breach of your civil liberties because you are in contact with so many law enforcement agents. If only your city let the feds handle bike laws, and kept all the Bicycle Crime Squad agents holed up in a skyscraper in DC! It’s the only way to ensure a fair outcome.
May 8, 2010, 12:12 pmPooblicus says:
BobC
I understand the wording of the law. The question is whether the lack of documents or an accent or brown skin or the lack of ability to speak English can be used as reasonable suspicion to hold a person beyond the limits specified by the SCOTUS parameters for Terry stops or traffic stops.
Could refusal to answer LEO questions be used to prolong an investigation?
I would think a US citizen who is detained in these circumstances beyond the existing limits will have a very good cause of action against the jurisdiction and the officers involved in the seizure. I do not think there are many arguable distinctions between a US citizen who meets the parameters I outlined above and a non-US citizen with the same characteristics.
May 8, 2010, 12:16 pmLongCat says:
People seem to think that this law would create a strict presumption of illegal status based on a lack of documentation. That you have no ID and don’t speak English in rural Arizona would be a reasonable suspicion to inquire further, but it still wouldn’t be probable cause for arrest. Having your ID will save you the hassle of the cop asking you questions, but it won’t be the only thing keeping you out of jail.
People seem to have forgotten what the totality of the circumstances means.
May 8, 2010, 12:24 pmTNeloms says:
Can you at least address the points that Ilya made? He specifically mentioned the ones you made, and based his arguments around them.
Specifically: existing law is only not problematic in practice because it is only enforced by federal agents that are encountered extremely rarely, and almost always when you intentionally encounter them (on borders). If federal agents went around enforcing the law, which would necessarily mean that they would end up detaining many legal citizens (and probably in a discriminatory fashion), then it would be more problematic in practice, and Ilya is against the law for that reason. The people you’re “dealing with” don’t have a clue about legal immigration because the law currently doesn’t affect them. If they lived under Arizona’s law, then it would begin to affect them, and then they would have a clue and still be against it.
May 8, 2010, 12:27 pmMark Field says:
Obscure enough that I didn’t know CA issued them and wouldn’t have a clue how to get one.
May 8, 2010, 12:28 pmPHil says:
Well, I agree with much of what you said but drop this reason. Most school districts, especially large urban ones do require you to have your school ID (although not the other forms of ID and it is probably not extensively enforced).
May 8, 2010, 12:29 pmepluribus says:
The DMV issues them. I helped my mother get one for check-cashing and similar purposes after her physical condition prevented her from driving a car.
May 8, 2010, 12:31 pmepluribus says:
Those defending the Arizona law don’t seem to care much about its impact on American citizens. A person born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen yet may still look like a Mexican and speak with an accent. People like that will be required to prove their citizenship or be detained while the local police investigate. I was born in the U.S. but don’t carry proof of my citizenship with me. What would it be? I don’t have a green card, because I don’t need one. I don’t carry a passport, because I am in my own country. My birth certificate is kept with my legal papers in a secure place at home. Should I be required to carry proof with me at all times? If so, then every American citizen would be required to do that. PS, I live in Arizona.
May 8, 2010, 12:37 pmgaryp says:
So, the only way we can enforce any controls on immigration is if the person wanting to enter the US voluntarily complies?
May 8, 2010, 12:37 pmSo, a police officer shouldn’t be able to ask for your driver’s license (or your insurance card, or ….)
I carry ID every time I leave the house. This is only a problem for those people who don’t have ID because they are here “illegally”, duh.
Maybe we should conclude that the police have no right to ask for my permit to carry a gun in public. After all we have 2nd Amendment rights.
CONCLUSION: The author is an “useful idiot” for the “Americans have no more right to live in America than anyone else.”
PHil says:
It is interesting how this talk of ID seems culturally conditioned. Americans of earlier generations would have abhorred any ID laws but today, probably most see no issue.
May 8, 2010, 12:37 pmTNeloms says:
I’m not sure what Ilya would say, but I don’t think he’d necessarily have a problem with it. It depends on implementation. Bike accidents are pretty common, and are curbed when people follow traffic laws. If they’re really just pulling over cyclists who are violating traffic laws (which they generally are), then it’s fine. If they’re pulling people over for rolling stops (which they sometimes do), then that’s more problematic, but not a “huge breach.” If they use some or all stops to detain you while they try to find ways to bring you in, like demanding ID that you might not have, then yes that’s a bigger breach. And if it’s applied in a discriminatory manner, then it’s a huge breach.
May 8, 2010, 12:37 pmThe Unbeliever says:
And I’m surprised no one has said it yet, but why does everyone assume the worst will happen if an Arizona LEO questions one of those unencumbered, bike-riding, wallet forgetting lawful citizens who don’t carry ID? No cop is going to ask a jaywalker for papers, then immediately handcuff them to the next bus heading for the Mexican border as soon as he hears “Oops, left it in my other pants”.
If you prefer to just give your name and clam up, that doesn’t trigger a deportation or even an automatic investigation. But if they care enough to process you to the extent it requires official paperwork, then they start confirming your name, address, Social Security number, etc. Probably while you sit around waiting for the now-pissed cop to run your name through the system. Except now he has to check out your residency status on top of all the other stuff.
If I missed something in the AZ law text, please correct me. But I’m having a hard time believing that this law adds any additional burden on legitimate citizens who don’t carry ID.
May 8, 2010, 12:38 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Mark Field,
Obscure enough that I didn’t know CA issued them and wouldn’t have a clue how to get one.
epluribus beat me to it, but, yes, the DMV issues them. As I said, they are identical in appearance to driver’s licenses, and require the same identity documentation; they just don’t allow you to drive (or require you to demonstrate that you can.)
I think most states have such IDs. Not sure if all do, but frankly it would surprise me if any do not.
And there are CA citizens without cars. I am one. You may even know some yourself ;-)
“How the Other Half Lives,” vol. 85.
May 8, 2010, 12:41 pmGeneral DeWitt says:
Phil: “Americans of earlier generations would have abhorred any ID laws but today, probably most see no issue.” Americans of earlier generations, on the other hand, would have had no problem with racial profiling. Your point?
May 8, 2010, 12:43 pmRobbie says:
I’m not sure what you imagine needs further explanation, but I’ll take a shot at it anyway.
1) Nothing in federal law requires an American citizen to carry ID while merely being in a public place. Nothing in the new Az. law does either.
The percentage of US citizens who choose to go out in public without ID is certainly very small. The percentage of Americans who actually have no ID is statistically nil.
I fully respect the right of you or any other citizen to wander around in public without ID. I also think it silly to do so for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the possibility of contact with law enforcement.
Why? Imagine the police are searching for a rapist who fits your physical description. Who rides the same bike as you. Wears the same helmet, spandex and shoes as you.
His name is “Joe Blow”. The cops pull you over.
If you produce a valid state ID showing you are actually “Armando Stilleto”, You’ll be on your way in a matter of minutes.
If you refuse to cooperate, the cops will hold you until they find out you aren’t “Joe Blow”. Your choice.
I’d chose to show them ID. Since such things actually occur, why wouldn’t you CHOOSE to carry ID? Is it too heavy? Are you afraid someone will grab it out of your pocket and poke you in the eye with it?
If the cops are acting in good faith (most are most of the time)why not take 30 seconds to rule yourself out and send them on their way instead of being a prick and wasting their time?
May 8, 2010, 12:43 pmBrett Bellmore says:
I thought Ilya was quite clear: He’s upset with the thought that people who are already legally obligated to carry their ID with them might have to actually start doing so, if somebody started enforcing the law. But all the legal immigrants I know already DO carry their green cards with them. It’s literally no added inconvenience to them at all, because they’re already in compliance with the law.
The argument that, if you’re going to enforce the requirement that legal immigrants have their green cards on them, then citizens will have to carry about proof that they’re citizens, or be inconvenienced if they’re mistaken for immigrants, does carry some weight with me. The problem is, we’ve got OVER TEN MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN THE COUNTRY.
If we’re ever going to fix that, it’s going to involve some inconvenience. I suspect that most people, who want that problem resolved, would not mind the inconvenience.
People who don’t WANT that problem solved? I’m sure the inconvenience is all pain, no gain, so far as they’re concerned…
May 8, 2010, 12:48 pmThe Unbeliever says:
Ilya’s argument wasn’t about the infractions themselves, it was about how frequently potential offenders come into contact with LEO’s who would enforce the law in question. The AZ state law, quote, “Poses a Much Greater Risk to Civil Liberties” because of the “big difference” that more officers would be around to enforce it.
Call me crazy, but I can’t take seriously an argument against a law based on the idea that there may be too many people around who could enforce it. If you wanted to limit the situations or manner in which it could be enforced, that’s all well and good; as such, I think the amended AZ language was a good clarification.
Uh, yes, police officers abusing police power is a Bad Thing(tm). But that’s a problem with your officers, not your laws.
(Preaching to the choir on a libertarian blog, but… if that was really a concern, then you should be too worried with repealing all kinds of public safety and paternalistic protection laws, like bike helmet laws and regulations about lights and reflectors, to even bother with law-and-order type immigration things.)
May 8, 2010, 12:53 pmTNeloms says:
No, you can enforce at the borders. I would be in favor of increasing border security to the point that new illegal immigration is minimal.
Just read the numerous comments explaining how many people don’t have ID and yet are here completely legally. (I am one of them for the next week or two.)
This is an interesting point given Ilya’s 2nd Amendment beliefs. I wonder what he thinks about it. Presumably it’s something like, “Police asking for permits from gun-carryers is less of an imposition than asking for ID from everyone.” But it’s a good point.
May 8, 2010, 12:54 pmPHil says:
The point, General, was in the sentence you did not quote. A little tip in reading comprehension for you.
May 8, 2010, 12:54 pmPooblicus says:
Robbie
Maintaining our freedoms may well require the sacrifice of the chattels of a few LEOs to sustain.
May 8, 2010, 12:54 pmrls says:
If we really wanted to deter illegal immigration, we could adopt the policies of the Mexican Government.
If caught illegally in Mexico, 2 year prison sentence. Deportation after serving said sentence.
If caught a second time after deportation, a 10 year prison sentence, then Deportation.
Papers on your person at all times, subject to any inquiry, any time, by any official.
Subject to deportation if you do not have proof of adequate funds to support yourself.
There is much more that applies and these laws are strictly enforced. Hell, even legal aliens are restricted from purchasing real property in most instances.
May 8, 2010, 12:55 pmSteverino says:
I think I have addressed them. They are not based upon anything approaching reality.
May 8, 2010, 12:56 pmAdam Sullivan says:
I am of mixed opinion on the Arizona law.
But I am taking issue with the line of argument that any law is made “more dangerous” when it is more likely to be enforced.
Should we now oppose all laws that are more likely to be enforced?
May 8, 2010, 1:03 pmBrett Bellmore says:
The terrifying possibility, for people who are outraged by Arizona’s law, is that most people wouldn’t/i> end up against it, if they had to live under it. That they’d instead consider it a reasonable cost of dealing with an illegal immigration crisis that was decades in the making.
Maybe we could add a clause that it automatically expired when the percentage of illegal aliens in the country fell below a half percent?
May 8, 2010, 1:05 pmAdam Sullivan says:
Spot on.
May 8, 2010, 1:08 pmChris Travers says:
Also, in cases where naturalization is not at issue, commerce with foreign states would be.
May 8, 2010, 1:09 pmHan Solo says:
Since some people want to make it impossible to arrest them once they make if for some reason, we should put all effort on stopping them at the border.
So basically the best solution is a mile wide strip of LAND MINES on the border, and anyone who tries to come across… BOOM!
May 8, 2010, 1:15 pmFrank Drackman says:
Moe-Hammed Atta was an Ill-legal(at Bushwood) Alien.
May 8, 2010, 1:17 pmElian Gonzalez was an Ill-legal Elian. Both had encounters with Law Enforcement, Atta when he was pulled over by a Maryland State Trooper and cited but not arrested (Oops) for driving with an expired license, Elian when REAL Jackbooted Thugs toting German Maschinenpistolen busted down his door and put him on a slow boat to Havana…
OK, as a military brat who had to carry my ID from age 10 to get in the Movies/Store/on the base where I lived, and imagined the agonies of the damned I’d undergo if I ever lost that brown and white laminated treasure, the law seems a little trivial…
TBS, if a certain Maryland State Trooper had been a little more State-Trooperish, the World Trade Center might still be standing, but then Sodom Hussein would still be alive, so maybe y’all are right.
Robbie says:
Yeah. Last time I checked the Ca. state photo ID cost a whopping $10 for 5 years. Unless you claim you don’t have $10 in which case it’s free.
If I want exercise my Constitutionally enumerated right to buy a handgun here in Ca., I have to present ID, fill out and sign under penalty of perjury both state and federal paperwork, give a thumb print, pass a written test, pass a background check, pay fees and wait 10 days before I can take delivery.
I wonder. How many of our resident leftist “civil libertarians” object to that?
May 8, 2010, 1:17 pmAdam Sullivan says:
I used to do consulting work in Europe and Asia.
I always carried an ID and dealt with authorities who checked work status regularly. I found it bothersome. Even got detained in Canada despite clear language in NAFTA that allowed me to provide services there.
Economically we are better off to have a flexible labor supply. But that is in the macro sense. I can remember being lectured by the Canadian Immigration lackey about the Canadian jobs I was stealing and her disgust when she learned that it was a Canadian government owned business that had contracted with me. As I got to know her during my detention I learned she had an unemployed brother in a similar field.
May 8, 2010, 1:17 pmgrog says:
Robbie: Illegal aliens are committing crimes, overwhelming schools, emergency rooms and social services in may areas of the country.
[Citation needed].
May 8, 2010, 1:18 pmlucia says:
Is this question meant as rhetorical? The answer is me.
I leave the house without identity papers rather frequently. I often take walks, why would I carry my wallet and purse? I’ve seen neighbors talking walks without carrying their purses. I often go to dinner with my husband, and don’t plan to drive. My grocery store, pharmacy and hair dresser are all within walking distance. The first two don’t require me to show ID when I pay with cash or a credit card. The credit card slips into a pocket in my shopping bag. Sometimes I just take that– why not? My hairdresser never asks for ID when I pay by check– so why would I carry my full wallet with driver’s license and worry about watching it while my hair is being cut? I can enter many government buildings without ID– for example, I can enter the post office and mail packages. Argonne National Lab does require an ID– so I carry it when I go there.
That said, losing the right to walk around without proof of id, or worse, citizenship, would be somewhat burdensome.
By the way: I don’t live under a bridge. I live in a 5 bedroom house, which we own. I suspect I’m not the only American homeowner who occasionally steps out of the house without carrying official ID or proof of American citizenship.
May 8, 2010, 1:19 pmAdam Sullivan says:
It sounds to me that you are required to carry proof of citizenship because your representatives and Governor decided that for you.
That doesn’t require every American citizen to do so unless they happen to be in Arizona.
When I did business in places like South Korea and France I was required to carry identification that proved nationality (I carried my US passport). The locals also were required to carry ID that proved their nationality. It is quite common for people to have national identity cards outside of the United States.
May 8, 2010, 1:24 pmsol vason says:
Border states need to enforce immigration laws because they are border states. States with no foreign countries on their borders have no need to look for illegal immigrants. Therefore Arizona law sets a precedent only for states with a land border with a foreign country — (Mexico, Canada or Russia).
Asking for papers in a border state is perfectly normal – anywhere else esta muy malo.
May 8, 2010, 1:30 pmAdam Sullivan says:
You’ve got to be kidding.
All of us in the US live under so many laws that we cannot hope to know that, on any day, we are apt to break a few of them. Wittingly or unwittingly.
Have you ever driven past a posted speed limit? Changed lanes without properly signaling? Fed a stray animal? I am pretty sure that it is still illegal to “wiggle” when you dance in California. And it is still illegal to make an animal sound while in Miami, Florida.
May 8, 2010, 1:31 pmSteveMG says:
Anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Allow me to be pedantic: Not true.
Children born in the US of foreign diplomats or anyone in an official capacity of a foreign power do not get citizenship.
Nice trivia-type question.
May 8, 2010, 1:31 pmThe Unbeliever says:
On a completely different line of argument:
I’ll add my vote in favor of the “let 50 laboratories of democracy flourish” policy. Given the abject failure of the federal government to enforce its own laws and borders, let AZ try this out for a few years and let the rest of us know how it goes.
May 8, 2010, 1:31 pmRobbie says:
Just in case you’re not joking, start here;
google search for “illegal alien convicted” about 236,000 results
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=illegal+alien+convicted&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=6cc71230ada67292
Next?
Illegal alien public schools 985,000 results
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=illegal+alien+public+schools&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=illegal+alien+public+schools&gs_rfai=&fp=6cc71230ada67292
Illegal alien emergency rooms 124,000 results
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=illegal+alien+emergency+rooms&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=illegal+alien+emergency+rooms&gs_rfai=&fp=6cc71230ada67292
May 8, 2010, 1:36 pmJoseph S says:
This is obviously written by someone who has never lived near the border. What you fail to understand is that Arizona is the border.
“La Migra” has always had the power to pull you over and demand proof of citizenship, even if you are a US citizen. I have always been able to get by simply giving a vocal declaration of that citizenship even when crossing the border. Now I have to provide proof of that citizenship if i elect to cross that imaginary line, but I still am not required to do so when passing through immigration check points that are set up on the roads out many border cities.
Will there be occasions when someone is stopped and detained by police for not providing proof of residency when they ate actually citizens? Almost definitely. At least they will be able to use the courts to seek redress, unlike anyone who is actually stopped by ICE.
May 8, 2010, 1:37 pmMark Field says:
Handy to know. Thanks.
Not in LA — it’s a metaphysical impossibility.
You must be new here. It’s unAmerican to cite foreign law.
May 8, 2010, 1:41 pmRobbie says:
One MORE time. Federal law doesn’t require Americans to carry ID. Arizona law doesn’t require Americans to carry ID. I don’t care if you do or you don’t.
If you want to understand why I think it a good idea that you do, you should probably read the whole thread.
May 8, 2010, 1:45 pmAdam Sullivan says:
Just looked at the California State Code on line and it looks like we Californians are now free to “wiggle”. As an extra bonus, we can now be justifiably proud that our Legislature spent the time, resources and energy to declare that “San Joaquin Soil is the official soil of California”. Certainly a reason to do an extra “wiggle” in a celebratory dance.
May 8, 2010, 1:47 pmMichael Eisenberg says:
Ilya:
The state law can be repealed after this very important problem gets reduced significantly or goes away entirely. Therefore, I think the threat to freedom is balanced by the law’s temporary need. It’s not like the law is being enacted for kicks. There is a serious problem. We have to at least try something. Seems like a reasonable trade off until the problem is corrected. Further, the government already tracks us in much more serious ways I believ with taxes, social security numbers, etc. It just wound’t add that much more burden to liberties.
May 8, 2010, 1:55 pmRobbie says:
I’m new here but would guess it is actually citing foreign law as precedent for U.S. court decisions that is considered unAmerican.
Reciprocity on trade (ie; tariffs commensurate with the disparity in worker rights, pay, environmental regulation etc.) and immigration law might be a slightly different story.
May 8, 2010, 1:58 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Mark Field,
Not in LA — it’s a metaphysical impossibility.
No offense, but there are other parts of this state.
My transit tale:
I came here from NY to study at UC/Berkeley. If you lived in Berkeley dorms you obviously could do without a car. Then moved out of dorms and into what Brits would call a bedsit. Took the bus.
Spent a year in London. I imagine it’s handy to have a car in London, but the only place I can think of where you’d be less likely to need one is Manhattan.
Came back to Cal for grad school; lived for several years in a tiny cottage in Emeryville, then for several years in a slightly bigger cottage in Rockridge. Walked or took the bus. Got job in SF; involved walk to BART, BART through the Transbay Tube to 16th St. Mission station, 10-min. walk from there.
Moved to San Rafael. Commute to my job then involved bus to ferry to BART
at Embarcadero, then the BART join and the 10-minute walk after.
It’s almost fortunate for me that the company in question died before I moved to Novato, because if you live here and commute to SF by bus, you need to add 30 mins. to transit time vs. coming from San Rafael.
May 8, 2010, 2:04 pmdcp says:
You would be surprised. A few months ago I drove cross-country to San Diego and back again (using two different routes) and both times I was stopped and questioned at Border Patrol checkpoints (I wasn’t at the actual border of course). The return trip I was actually stopped twice. Oh and they actually grilled me for a few minutes about my citizenship, place of residence, purpose and duration of visit and all sorts of other things too, in other words it was beyond a mere formality.
Now here’s the odd part. I have red hair, fair skin, a pronounced southern accent and everything about me, my car, etc. screams American. And in each occurrence the car in front of me was waived through with just a cursory glance. Maybe they have some sort of objective policy about questioning every fifth car or something. Who knows.
Oh, and if anyone is wondering if these little interruptions in my journey irritated or offended me….nope, not a damn bit.
May 8, 2010, 2:05 pmReilly says:
I would like to put this law into the broader context of Arizona’s attempt to fight illegal immigration. Arizona law already prohibits illegal aliens from recieving welfare, so illegal aliens are not new “clients” of the welfare state in Arizona. In addition, there is another Arizona law that prohbits employers from hiring illegal aliens, and imposes a lose of license and a heft fine, if they are caught doing so. Yet, Arizona is still filled with illegal aliens. If those laws haven’t work, it’s doubtful this law will do any better. What is not doubtful is it will cost a lot of money to enforce (and money in losing business, such as business conventions) and result in unjustified stops of a lot of people, including American citizens and legal residents.
May 8, 2010, 2:32 pmgrog says:
Just in case you’re not joking, start here;
google search for “illegal alien convicted” about 236,000 results [etc.]
I know there are stories about it, I know undocumented immigrants exist. I was asking for a cite about “overwhelming schools, emergency rooms and social services” in ‘ma[n]y parts of the country’.
This implies that, but for the undocumented immigrants, ‘we’ would be able to handle the demand for such services.
Can you demonstrate that the delta between demand and supply is caused by the swarthy?
California can’t count in any rational analysis – not only is it a complete outlier on basically every economic metric, but also competing political interests have made such a hash of the law governing social services and schools that the only thing everyone can agree on is that it is completely dysfunctional.
May 8, 2010, 2:33 pmReilly says:
I would also point out that there are over 4,500 federal crimes. Yet, no one would advocate prosecuting every single violation of every single offense. It would be too expensive, violate too many rights, and result in a huge proporition of us being in jail and/or owing huge fines (e.g. incorrectly filling out your taxes, illegally downloading music or movies, etc). Thus, it’s inconsistent for people to advocate doing this for illegal immigration and then claim it’s on the principle of enforcing federal law.
May 8, 2010, 2:35 pmthe_observer says:
“One MORE time. Federal law doesn’t require Americans to carry ID. Arizona law doesn’t require Americans to carry ID. I don’t care if you do or you don’t.”
Despite what the law says, it’s practical effect will be that those who wish, despite being here legally, to avoid arousing “reasonable suspicion” that they are unlawfully present in the US will have to carry ID. This is seen by some as a minor inconvenience, but it is much more than that if you risk being stopped frequently. American citizens have the right to have the laws applied to them equally, it is doubtful that this law will be applied equally to all citizens.
The law claims not to permit racial profiling, but how can one determine, in the absence of suspicious behavior, such as fleeing or acting demonstrably nervous whether someone has entered the country without documentation and beyond that, how can one determine that after doing so, one continues to remain in the US without proper documentation?
Most people, citizens and legal residents alike, don’t have a problem with the federal law because it is not that onerous. If the federal law were as onerous as the AZ state law is, and potentially “inconvenienced” American citizens as much as the state law will, much more people would find it problematic.
No one, despite how nice it is to say otherwise, carries ID with them all the time. At the very least, no one can GUARANTEE that they will have it with them all the time. (I run nearly every day and I don’t even carry cash or a t-shirt, and have to struggle just to find somewhere to carry my key and I sweat profusely, which makes carrying money or any paper impractical). Even if you plan to carry ID all the time, you may forget or have it stolen or lost.
I don’t think it’s ok for some laws to fall more heavily on some citizens than on others just because we’re upset with immigration enforcement. Even if the law were enforced equally against all citizens, it would still be problematic for me because we have, for generations, relied on our ability to move about freely without the need to carry ID. It’s a freedom that may be uniquely American, but I don’t think that we should jettison it overnight. I for one am not prepared to give up this freedom.
May 8, 2010, 2:43 pmMaureen001 says:
Professor Somin:
How exactly does your “yes, but” argument juxtapose with justice to the family of Robert Krentz? The shocking ongoing and outrageous failure of the federal government to secure the border, after claiming exclusive right to do so, compels the citizens and the state of Arizona to seek solutions. This problem exists in all the southern border states. There are murdered ranchers in California, New Mexico, and Texas as well. Go live in El Paso, San Diego and surrounds, Las Crusas (and see how close White Sands is!) for even just a week and tell me this is wrong.
The state of California put up a freaking road sign along Interstate 5 showing a family, mother, father and children, to indicate an illegal alien crossing! Government is completely complicit in this problem, government on both sides of the border and at all levels. Kudos to Arizona for responding to the well-being and safety concerns of its citizens. I fervently wish my state would do the same.
I’m not sure of your concern for legal immigrants. If I am stopped by police, I must produce a photo ID of myself, and it conveys to them that I am in this country legally. Legal immigrants, with or without accents, are under no more burden than I am to produce identification.
Enough already!
May 8, 2010, 2:45 pmMike Rudolph says:
Not to change the subject, but word from an obscure blog reads that Lyle Sweatman will be the next SCOTUS justice.
http://unitedstatessupremecourtblog.blogspot.com/
May 8, 2010, 2:53 pmMaureen001 says:
How about 23 of California’s hospitals that closed down between 1995 and 2000 because of nonreimbursed expenses generated by caring for patients without coverage as mandated by EMTALA? And remember that Medi-Cal and Medicare covers citizens who cannot pay otherwise, so don’t start talking about the phantom “uninsured”. Is that a concrete enough statistic for you?
May 8, 2010, 2:55 pmthe_observer says:
“If I am stopped by police, I must produce a photo ID of myself, and it conveys to them that I am in this country legally. Legal immigrants, with or without accents, are under no more burden than I am to produce identification.”
1) This isn’t necessarily true. I was involved in an accident and to my horror, realized that I left my license at home where I’d placed it prior to leaving my apartment. Of course, I was upset and panicked when I realized I had to speak to the police, having left my license at home because I did not have it and I did not have another ID. I explained to the offer what had happened and while I could not produce the ID, I was not detained. I was given a ticket, but nothing else happened.
2)ID does not convey to law enforcement anything about one’s ability to be here legally. (Some forms of ID may, such as the “green card” or a passport with your I-94 attached, but not ID generally–as has been pointed out already, some states allow undocumented individuals to obtain driver’s licenses).
3)I am not white, but I came to this country when I was 9 months old. I seem American and most people express surprise to learn I wasn’t born here. It’s not likely that law enforcement would suspect otherwise. Had I immigrated more recently or acquired my parent’s accent, it’s likely that this law would be more of a burden for me. The point is that it is more burdensome for some legal residents than it is for others. If you have no problem with that, that’s one thing, but to state otherwise is just not true.
4)The concern with the law isn’t merely that it will be more of a burden for some legal immigrants, but also that it will sweep up American citizens into its ambit and will lead to their harassment when they have done nothing wrong.
May 8, 2010, 3:03 pmSteven Appelget says:
My sister in law is a natural born citizen of the United States. She has no immigration documents.
However, she was born in Puerto Rico and speaks English with an accent. She is a person some of the folks posting here refer to as a “beaner” or a “spic” when they hang out with their buddies. If she goes to Arizona, she will have to provide documents she does not have to avoid detention.
But, hey, I guess that’s a small price to pay so Robbie and geokster can get a few illegals deported.
May 8, 2010, 3:09 pmSimon Jester says:
Reagan knew how to solve this problem in 1986. Amnesty. It’s a dirty word these days, but remember how the world didn’t end? Unemployment dropped too.
Funny. The only thing wrong with being an “illegal alien” is that the government refuses to acknowledge your liberty of contract.
May 8, 2010, 3:10 pmRB says:
In this country when a police officer suspects a crime his evidence is submitted to his superiors, then to a prosecutor. At this time the suspect does not have to defend himself or give any testimony or even show ID (5th amendment). The prosecutor then presents the evidence to the Grand Jury, yet another check and balance the people have toward the government gone wild. Still the suspect/accused does not have to supply any testimony or evidence. The if the charges appear to be reasonable the case goes back for prosecution and perhaps before a Judge and Jury. At trial the Prosecutor presents evidence. If the accused thinks it is in his best interest he may provide defending evidence if he likes. But he does NOT have to do so. This new law bypasses all that. It makes the police officer into a Prosecutor, Grand Jury,Judge and Jury AND still requires you, stopped while walking on the street, to present evidence to defend yourself. If that is not unconstitutional then I don’t know what is anymore!!
May 8, 2010, 3:17 pmMaureen001 says:
Reagan was extremely reluctant to go with amnesty, but followed the recommendations of his advisers after being assured that it would be a one-time thing to deal with the (then) approximately 3 million illegals in the country. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
The only thing wrong with being an illegal alien (no quotes; it’s a legal term, not a slur) is that you broke the law to get here. Whether or not you are one of the horde that continues to break the law as part of your gang’s operations or you are a hard-working individual, you began your stay in this country illegally, while so many others followed immigration laws and procedures. Those procedures are not arbitrary; at least up until Senator Kennedy began mucking things up, those procedures involve protection of the citizens of this country.
One of the reasons we now have so much of the exotic ailments spreading through our population is because illegal aliens bring them along when they hop the border. One of the reasons government documents are now printed in over 100 languages is because illegal aliens can’t read them. One of the big reasons our government has been trending toward socialism is because so many illegal aliens are ignorant of our form of government and are supporting the more familiar form of government they fled in the first place. The impacts are changing the country, and it is to our detriment. Requirements for naturalization include health clearance and immunization, rudimentary understanding of English, and a working knowledge of our government. There are also requirements for financial sustenance. All of these requirements serve to make the addition of naturalized citizens an enhancement to our society. The absence of this process has been deleterious.
May 8, 2010, 3:34 pmepluribus says:
No, but you’re getting closer. It’s actually un-American to cite foreign law as precedent for U.S. court decisions when you disagree with the foreign law. When you agree with it, it’s peachy keen.
May 8, 2010, 3:39 pmMark Field says:
If I were back in NoCal, I’d probably try to get by without one too; I had no problem while I was there. Here, though…
May 8, 2010, 3:51 pmepluribus says:
Maureen001 says:
Despite tons of speculation that Krentz was killed by an illegal alien, there is no proof.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/05/03/arizona-was-rancher-krentz-killed-by-an-american-and-will-controversial-sheriff-joe-arpaio-run-for-governor.aspx
You are aware, I presume, that American citizens sometimes commit murder, aren’t you?
May 8, 2010, 3:51 pmlibertariansoldier says:
steveMG:
May 8, 2010, 4:01 pmNot true. Children born here of foreign military personnel on official orders attending schools that authorize their family to accompany them are eligible for citizenship. Not surprised about diplomats as they fall under a global convention that treats them uniquely–immunity, etc.
LN says:
One of the big reasons our government has been trending toward socialism is because so many illegal aliens are ignorant of our form of government and are supporting the more familiar form of government they fled in the first place.
This seems like a remarkably ignorant statement; it’s hard to believe you were educated in a first-world country.
May 8, 2010, 4:23 pmSwan Trumpet says:
The only reason I see for describing the Arizona law as worse than the federal law is that the Arizonians have included a mechanism empowering their citizens with legal recourse for failure to enforce the law.
Illegal aliens have long known and taken full advantage of the knowledge that the federal government doesn’t enforce its own immigration laws. The new Arizona law has already created unease among potential alien invaders as well as those who illegaly entered the US years ago.
May 8, 2010, 4:23 pmSteveMG says:
Children born here of foreign military personnel on official orders attending schools that authorize their family to accompany them are eligible for citizenship
Yes, but they’re not here as official representatives or in a official capacity of their home country.
A US soldier, for example, studying in, let’s say France, is not there in any official capacity of the US government.
I guess we can debate what “official capacity” means. But then we’re way off the topic (and I started it).
May 8, 2010, 4:25 pmThe Unbeliever says:
Spiffy. Except it didn’t work.
May 8, 2010, 4:32 pmJustin Levine says:
I read Ilya’s critique as essentially saying that he simply doesn’t want immigration laws enforced in the U.S. Am I wrong on that? If not, then I’d have more respect for him if he explicitly said as much.
If that is not his position, then I wish he would spell out a practical way of enforcement that did not involve asking for “papers”.
One can legitimately argue that they believe the costs of immigration enforcement don’t outweigh the dangers of a “police state” via a slippery slope, but you then have to accept the practical consequences of your argument – an effective open-borders policy with no practical immigration enforcement whatsoever. Ilya seems unwilling to explicitly admit as much, which is a shame.
May 8, 2010, 4:33 pmTbagurface says:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the governor of Arizona sign in a change to the law so that the “reasonable suspicion” isn’t the only criteria to check citizenship papers? I thought she signed a change that would only allow police officers to question them if they had already stopped them for another crime?
May 8, 2010, 4:33 pmlucia says:
Robbie–
My reply to you did not suggest in any way that you either said Federal law requires American’s carry id, nor that the law requires it nor that you might care. I merely answered your question which was:
The answer is: Me. I am not homeless and leave home without papers often.
I’ve read many of your comments– you’ve gone back to the silly claim that only homeless people leave the house without papers, posted many unpersuasive opinions, and respond to people by changing the subject.
May 8, 2010, 4:36 pmpc says:
I’m not sure what is more amusing: the idea that the US should be more like Mexico, or the idea that Mexico’s immigration penalties have stopped illegal immigrants from coming into Mexico.
May 8, 2010, 4:47 pmepluribus says:
Justin Levine says:
No, you should read it again.
Yes.
Immigration laws are typically enforced at the point of entry–i.e., the borders. They are not typically enforced when a pedestrian is caught jaywalking, or driving 35 mph in a 25 mph zone, or driving the wrong way on a one-say street. I was recently stopped by a Phoenix police officer for doing the latter–I didn’t see the one-way sign. My fair complexion and blue eyes helped me evade a request for “papers, please.” Lucky me, for I had no proof on me that I was born in the U.S. If I had brown skin and a Puerto Rican or New Mexican accdent, the fact that I was a natural-born citizen (as people born in Puerto Rico and New Mexico are) wouldn’t have saved me from being detained long enough (maybe a few hours, maybe longer) for the officer to satisfy himself that I wasn’t in violation of the Arizona law. And if the officer had let me off with a warning without conducting the necessary check, he could have been sued by a private citizen for not enforcing the Arizona law. Federal law gives no right to such lawsuits.
May 8, 2010, 4:48 pmepluribus says:
Correction. You are wrong. She signed a bill saying that race could not be a basis for reasonable suspicion. But of course everybody knows that that is a charade. Take out race (brown hair, brown eyes, brown skin, a Mexican look on your face), and what is left to form a basis for reasonable suspicion?
May 8, 2010, 4:52 pmDuracomm says:
Simon Jester said,
I was a strong supporter of the original amnesty.
Unfortunately the feds did not follow through on the increased security that was supposed to be put in place to prevent a ballooning population of new illegal immigrants waiting for the next amnesty.
If the feds had shown some responsibility earlier frustrated states like Arizona would not be passing the law everyone is talking about.
My thumbnail sketch of libertarian philosophy is do want you want as long as you don’t force others to do what you want.
Thanks to the ballooning welfare state employing illegal immigrants has turned into another case of private profit and public cost. The public subsidizes your cheap labor through the various taxpayer funded programs illegal immigrants use to support themselves because your wages are so cheap.
You are forcing third parties to subsidize the cost of your cheap labor.
If reciprocity was in place you might have a point. If a US citizen could go to mexico and start or business or work freely in mexico the system would probably fix itself.
Guess what, the mexican government won’t allow reciprocity.
Since amnesty first and security second has already failed lets try something different this time.
Security first, amnesty second.
May 8, 2010, 4:56 pmRobbie says:
My comment about libertarians cheering for new welfare clients was not limited to illegals. Most of the million plus legal immigrants admitted each year are poor, uneducated, unskilled and eligible for welfare benefits the day they receive their green card.
According to Robert Rector’s research at Heritage the average “low wage immigrant” consumes $20,000 per year more in social services than they contribute in taxes.
When they’ve become citizens and vote, do they vote Libertarian or for the party of the welfare state?
Arizona’s illegals are barred from welfare unless and until they give birth to a ‘citizen” on U.S. soil. Good for an 18 year free ride for the entire family.
Employer sanctions don’t have much effect on people in the underground economy. Or people whose business is people smuggling, drug smuggling and dealing, kidnapping for ransom, armed robbery, burglary, pimping and pandering etc.
May 8, 2010, 4:59 pmepluribus says:
Robbie says:
Victor Hugo said:
May 8, 2010, 5:06 pmJSinAZ says:
In Arizona, it will soon be the case that a citizen won’t require a license for concealed carry of weapons, and open carry is already legal. This is a hypothetical that does not apply with respect to the situation in Arizona.
May 8, 2010, 5:19 pmPatrick says:
“it invites racial profiling”
Frankly, this is an insult to the law enforcement profession. the bill explicitly forbids racial profiling and so, the only way to advance this argument is to assume the police are corrupt and biased. Now, if 95% of the illegal aliens in Arizona are non-English-speaking Mexicans, how would it be nefarious if 95% of the ‘reasonable suspicion’ requests be for non-English-speaking Mexicans?
In order to avoid the ‘profiling’ charge, we disarm the ability to do anything except over-the-top impact-everyone policies. It is through such politically correct stupidities that grandmas are searched in airports, law-abiding citizens are forced to take their shoes off in airports … yet terrorists with a history of visits to Pakistan are taken off of watch lists and made into citizens. The mind boggles.
May 8, 2010, 5:39 pmChris Travers says:
Would you, as a citizen, understand why some US citizens might feel pressured to carry passports when travelling to Arizona?
May 8, 2010, 5:44 pmRoscoe says:
With respect both to the folks who go wandering around without ID, and Ilya’s claims of how burdensome it would be to have to show IDs to local cops all the time, I am just not buying it. I honestly cannot think of the last time I had to show ID to a cop (local or otherwise, not counting TSA), but it hasn’t been in the last couple of years. On the other hand, I am constantly being asked to show ID when I enter the local courthouse or many office buildings, or when I buy stuff or rent videos.
Just a couple minutes ago I bought a new laptop for the wife for pickup at the local Best Buy (hey, tomorrow is Mother’s Day and her’s is on its last legs, so I am killing two birds with one stone). Anyway, this was in the confirming email:
So for you no ID guys, what do you do when you want to pick up a six pack on the way home from work (assuming you aren’t as old as me) or rent a video? And there is no increased authority in the Az law to engage in investigatory stops, so if you don’t feel the need to carry ID now to avoid hassle from the cops, that isn’t going to change.
May 8, 2010, 5:51 pmChris Travers says:
I will tell you this, if I am ever stopped by border patrol while in the US, the first words out of my mouth are going to be “Good morning, officer, what can I do for you today?” Followed, on the first question with “Are you detaining me? Or am I free to go?”
May 8, 2010, 5:52 pmDtennessee says:
It’s easy to say some proposed police action violates this or that nebulous constitutional right; however, “reasonableness is the touchstone of the fourth amendment.” How bad does our present sitution have to get before this or that constitutional right hangs high in the balance.
May 8, 2010, 5:52 pmbailey says:
So, epluribus, is it your position that illegals don’t commit murders, rapes, robberies, etc. in the US? That’s about the only way your post makes any sense. By the way, does everyone realize that the Nazis marched folks into ovens? They didn’t deport people, they killed them. I don’t think being asked for papers was the big concern at the time.
May 8, 2010, 5:52 pmBrianMac says:
So, just to recap, racial profiling is a swell idea, but let’s not insult the police by presuming that they’ll engae in it.
May 8, 2010, 6:01 pmmariner says:
The AZ law may indeed have some bad effects, but AZ also has some bad problems that require immediate solution.
It is not enough to complain that this law isn’t perfect. Show me another law that would give police the power to identify and arrest illegal immigrants without compromising citizens’ rights and I’ll support it.
Until then all the carping is nothing more than demanding that we continue to do nothing until the perfect solution is found, which will of course be on the twelfth of never.
May 8, 2010, 6:19 pmMark Field says:
Historical nitpick: it was Anatole France.
I think this reinforces Prof. Somin’s point. We tolerate procedures at the border and at TSA precisely because they are limited in scope and place, and because we understand the important justifications (and even then we complain if they go overboard). But nobody would think it ok to submit to TSA screening every time they went to the grocery store, nor to border screening when driving to work. The fact that we allow more intrusive measures in limited cases is NOT an argument for expanding them.
May 8, 2010, 6:20 pmFiftycal says:
Doesn’t the new socialized healthcare plan REQUIRE people to have ID? Unless of course they are ILLEGAL immigrants?
May 8, 2010, 6:20 pmCornellian says:
And there are CA citizens without cars.
Not in LA — it’s a metaphysical impossibility.
And yet I see clusters of sorry-looking people clustered around bus stops as I drive home from work every day, so clearly there are people without cars in LA. I just don’t know how they manage to get around. Public transportation here really sucks in all kinds of ways.
May 8, 2010, 6:28 pmCornellian says:
You would be surprised. A few months ago I drove cross-country to San Diego and back again (using two different routes) and both times I was stopped and questioned at Border Patrol checkpoints (I wasn’t at the actual border of course). The return trip I was actually stopped twice. Oh and they actually grilled me for a few minutes about my citizenship, place of residence, purpose and duration of visit and all sorts of other things too, in other words it was beyond a mere formality.
Now here’s the odd part. I have red hair, fair skin, a pronounced southern accent and everything about me, my car, etc. screams American.
Treated like a red-headed stepchild?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
May 8, 2010, 6:32 pmbailey says:
So, is the libertarian position “tough luck”. I think I have greater respect for the real libertarians who just want to get their marijuana legalized.
May 8, 2010, 6:37 pmShanne says:
I was born in and am a lifelong resident of Michigan. I have a friend in upper New York State that I visit a few times a year. It is shorter in both time and distance for me to drive across Ontario, Canada than to drive the entire trip in the States. On returning from New York today and crossing back into Michigan, I was stopped, asked to come into the U.S. Customs office and questioned about where I had been, how long I had been there, who I had seen, how long I have known my friend, and how many times a year I make this trip. This was a longer detention than most people will experience in a traffic stop in Arizona.
Under the Arizona law, a person is “presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States” if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.
So if an officer makes a traffic stop and the person produces a valid driver’s license from Arizona, or any other state, the person is presumed to be there legally and nothing more will come of it. This entire argument about “papers, please” is a demagogic canard.
May 8, 2010, 6:37 pmPatrick says:
Jester, you are well named. What a joke! We remember how ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION didn’t end, but exploded. Amnesty is the anti-solution to illegal immigration – the ONE policy assured of making the problem much worse. Amnesty for 3-4 million led to 20-30 illegal aliens since then, so one dreads to think what a 20 million illegal alien amnesty would do, other than hamstringing and destroying effective legal immigration for a decade or so.
The elites who push amnesty as a ‘solution’ are pro-open-borders liars. They know amnesty won’t work, but they push it anyway, since amnesty willl break the system and that means open borders for another generation and the end of control over our borders and immigration. The pro-amnesty folks need to have the intellectual honesty to say they are REALLY for an end to border control. If they wont admit it, they are lying – either to themselves or others.
May 8, 2010, 6:38 pmbyomtov says:
Frankly, this is an insult to the law enforcement profession.
Considering it’s Arizona, where folks think Joe Arpaio is the very model of a law enforcement officer, it’s really not that much of an insult.
May 8, 2010, 6:41 pmbailey says:
I was asked to show my ID when buying a coffee maker for my wife at Bed Bath & Beyond today. My God, I now realize how close to the Nazi abyss we are.
May 8, 2010, 6:45 pmPatrick says:
“We tolerate procedures at the border and at TSA precisely because they are limited in scope and place, and because we understand the important justifications (and even then we complain if they go overboard).”
I find taking my shoes off at the airport a far more intolerable imposition than showing my ID to a cop at a traffic stop. There is ZERO ‘reasonable suspicion’ applied to that imposition moreover.
Conclusion: TSA airport checking is worse than the Arizona Law and the Arizona Law is more justified than TSA.
May 8, 2010, 7:03 pmSwan Trumpet says:
People forget – or more likely, never had the facts in the first place – that President Reagan struck a deal with Congress. The deal was he would agree to amnesty and they would have a bill ready for him to sign closing off the border except for checkpoints. The immigration reform act Reagan signed made it illegal to hire illegal aliens. As a man of his word, Reagan expected the US Congress to keep up their end of the deal. Congress would have except the November 1986 elections gave Democrats control of both the House and the Senate. As usually is the case when Democrats are elected to control Congress, any sense of honor, duty, and patriotism from that body evaporated.
May 8, 2010, 7:09 pmPatrick says:
“So, just to recap, racial profiling is a swell idea, but let’s not insult the police by presuming that they’ll engae in it.”
Just to recap for the hard of reading an those who want to throw down the race card prematurely:
A law that FORBIDS racial profiling cannot be presumed to require it in its application by a police force that will be trained in avoiding such behavior. To presume as much a priori is an insult to law enforcement.
the intellectual dishonesty of those opposed to Arizona’s Law, includng the racial profiling canard, is good sign that the REAL problem is that it will be a fair yet effective deterrent to illegal immigration – thereby exposing the lies of the ‘you-cant-enfoce-it’ open-borders advocates.
May 8, 2010, 7:10 pmRobbie says:
I’m native born American and have no “immigration” papers. I do have a driver license. If every once in a while a cop asks to see it, I’ll take a moment to show it to him even though I don’t have to.
Maybe your sister in law has one too. Maybe she’d be willing to spend 30 seconds producing it when asked. As an American maybe she’d consider THAT a small price to pay for safeguarding the national sovereignty and preventing thousands more Americans from being stabbed, raped, shot, run over by drunk driving etc. Illegal aliens.
May 8, 2010, 7:14 pmClark E Myers says:
Surprised to notice no mention of a Federal requirement that stood for a very long time demanding that millions of people carry a unique Federal identifier at all times to be produced on demand. It was challenged and sustained though it might not be in today’s changed times.
I refer of course to the Draft Card. Murph the Surf (google alleged movie style jewel thief) was unique in being arrested in his bathing suit on the beach in South Florida for failure to produce his own draft card though surrounded by many other men who probably kept their own cards dry. I may have been guilty of leaving my own draft card with my clothes myself.
I’ve been known to parade around with no ID myself – long ago in a small town I could sign for books at the library – nobody at all needed a library card and I could cash a check no ID – I could cash an IOU no ID. The local gas station took anybody’s check no ID no questions – the bad check loss was well below the credit card rake-off so the owner was happy to do it.
Seems to me the alternatives to something like the Arizona law include enforcement by the ICE, a payment under the takings clause for open immigration easements over private property or the violence of self help combined with really adverse possession by the coyote people smugglers. Pick one or more.
May 8, 2010, 7:15 pmPatrick says:
More arrogance from armchair wizards. In Houston, several police officers have been killed by illegal aliens, and the Houston police union has begged to end their sanctuary city policy in order to make the cops able to deal with it better (Mayor White and Co said no go to that). Unless you have been on the front lines, it is presumptuous to denigrate their abilities to carry out the law fairly under very DIFFICULT conditions. Those conditions are made more dangerous and more difficult by the very armchair wizard know-it-alls who concoct sophisticated excuses for failed policies, denigrate good men and women, and dont have to pay the price for their elitist folly.
May 8, 2010, 7:17 pmlucia says:
Your questions are easy enough to answer.
If you look at my plentiful list of examples of when I don’t carry ID, they don’t involve buying wine. I buy wine, not six packs. When I do buy wine, I bring my id. I never need to show an ID to rent videos. I rent movies from Netflix. When I subscribed, I supplied a credit card number, but never provided an honest to goodness ID like a driver’s license or a passport.
I don’t see how or why the fact that I do carry my purse and ID when I decide to buy wine means that I should be legally compelled to carry my purse and ID when I decide to take a brisk early morning walk around the neighborhood. If during my early morning walk, I suddenly felt the need to buy wine, I would go home, get my ID, go to the store and buy wine. (That is, I would do that, provided it was not Sunday morning, when ID or no ID, the local stores do not sell wine.)
May 8, 2010, 7:19 pmbadlaw says:
Completely agree.
May 8, 2010, 7:37 pmBrianMac says:
It’s the height of irony that, in the sentence that follows, you harp on about intellectual dishonesty.
May 8, 2010, 7:46 pmChris Travers says:
If I’m a passenger at a traffic stop, why should I have to show ID?
May 8, 2010, 8:09 pmLanse says:
I guess we can do nothing at all except welcome them to our country. States cannot enforce the borders and the feds refuse to. We cannot even determine if someone is here illegally without being profiling racists. This is Orwellian. Now a certain group of people are allowed to break the law without question from authorities. No, its even worse than that. We are being infiltrated by a foreign country slowly and gradually and we have determined that although it is illegal, it is more illegal to try to stop them. And, why do we make the walk through the desert to get here. Lets send buses down to pick them up, it would be much more humane. Letting them die in the heat of the desert isn’t racist but pulling their car over is?
May 8, 2010, 8:11 pmChris Travers says:
I flex my rights. I won’t show my ID unless required by law.
May 8, 2010, 8:11 pmRobbie says:
Yeah. Do they not see that the policies they support make their stated goals increasingly more difficult to attain?
I think what this brand of so called libertarian really objects to is the nation-state itself. A people and culture surrounded by a secure border, exercising their sovereign power to decide who does and who doesn’t gain entry.
They see the U.S.A. as a mere “place” and “market” that anyone, or any tens of millions should feel free to wander into regardless of what the 300+ million already here think about it.
May 8, 2010, 8:13 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Cornellian,
And yet I see clusters of sorry-looking people clustered around bus stops as I drive home from work every day, so clearly there are people without cars in LA. I just don’t know how they manage to get around. Public transportation here really sucks in all kinds of ways.
You and Mark Field live in LA? Whatever for?
I’m ever so slightly irritated at your assumption that people use buses only when they don’t have cars, though. There are a zillion possible reasons for taking the bus; the most common one here (Marin County) is “I work in downtown SF and have to be there early,” followed by “I need to be at [insert location of day-worker pickup point here].” The first group could drive, but (a) you just don’t want to be on 101 going south in the morning; (b) parking in downtown SF is damned expensive; (c) the Golden Gate Transit bus fare is barely higher than the toll for a car passing over the Golden Gate Bridge …
The second group is more or less the reason that the first group’s buses stop only so many places, and are taller, nicer, and better appointed than the buses serving other routes. I mean, this is Marin, and everyone believes in human equality and all that; but if you work in the Financial District, you don’t necessarily want “human equality” in the seat next to you, right?
Of course, on weekends there aren’t any commuter buses, and so on, say, a Saturday morning, the people busing to Corte Madera to shop and the other people busing to Corte Madera to mow the lawns of other Corte Madera shoppers are, Heaven forfend, in the same vehicle. I rode that route Saturdays for a few years. Let’s just say that Marinites are polite and tolerant only in theory.
May 8, 2010, 8:18 pmsbron says:
Robbie nails it.
I’ve personally seen the changes in the Arlington neighborhood where Prof. Somin’s institution is located. Today it looks more like an international airport than a Virginia suburb of even the 1980s. The problem is not the different skin colors. The problem is that Arlington is no longer a community, but instead a collection of squabbling nationalities, with many immigrants of dubious legality and quite a few (e.g. MS-13) downright terroristic. While immigrants like Prof. Somin learn English and the basics of our constitutional government, many of the Central American and Middle Eastern immigrants are downright hostile to democratic values and linguistic assimilation.
May 8, 2010, 8:22 pmRobbie says:
Fine by me. I exercise many of my rights every day, including some not recognized by the state and city I live in.
In most situations refusing to identifying myself to a cop, when I could do so and be on my way in 30 or 45 seconds, isn’t high on my list of lines in the sand.
May 8, 2010, 8:28 pmmariner says:
But the screening at the border is only a small part of the solution. The rest of it (a secure fence and keeping illegals from being hired here) was not done for decades. So now we have a much bigger problem that will take more intrusive enforcement to fix.
We weren’t serious about applying the ounce of prevention; here is the pound of cure.
May 8, 2010, 8:34 pmChris O. says:
Your explanations on why the Arizona and federal immigration laws are “bad” are, well, interesting to say the least. Your first point that your parents “rarely, if ever” carried their green cards with them doesn’t seem like an appropriate reason to flout current federal or any state’s law. That smacks of, “well, I was raised a democrat, therefore I’m a democrat”. Your contention that limited exposure to federal law enforcement justifies not carrying a card that weighs less than an ounce is quite odd as well. I don’t see how that is a valid reason for risking sanctions from law enforcement. Also, if you check your wallet/purse/pocket, I’m sure you’ll find a driver’s license and in your car will be an insurance card and vehicle registration. You suggest that “people will have to be very careful to carry documentary proof of citizenship or legal residency with them every time they leave the house”. The horror!
I believe in strong civil liberties protected by the governments of the countries in which a person is a citizen, but come on. Asking a “visitor” to carry some sort of document to show they are here legally is not exactly a burdensome request. Can you walk the streets of China, Israel, Saudi Arabia or France without your passport and feel entirely secure? No, so you carry them, just in case. What’s the difference here?
Your line of reasoning seems to be: get rid of Arizona’s immigration law, then federal immigration laws (without which there are no need for borders), then what? Merge with Mexico and take on their economic troubles? Will Mexico be the 51st state? What would that solve?
Identifying those who break the law is what law enforcement is supposed to do. Why, when a crime/description actually has the word “illegal” in it, is everyone so motivated to cry about end-of-the-world outcomes when government tries to stop it? This crime is the only one with such an adjective, yet so many use kid-gloves when addressing solutions. I’m sure you have no problem if a thief is caught with stolen goods or a rapist is captured after traumatizing a victim. Why are you so concerned about people who clearly break the law and are stealing funds, facilities and jobs from you and your neighbors?
May 8, 2010, 8:44 pmMark Field says:
They pay me.
May 8, 2010, 8:47 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Naturalization and immigration are two totally different things. I think in Boston v. Norris the court pointed that out.
May 8, 2010, 8:50 pmRob K says:
Mr. Somin appears to be an open borders advocate. Whining that the Arizona law might just help enforce a federal law speaks volumes about Mr. Somin.
We are all required to use some form of ID on a daily basis. Try telling a police officer not to fine you because you chose not to bring you drivers license and insurance card that day.
Mr. Somin whines a lot but he doesn’t seem to have a solution, so we should take it that his solution is if you get past the border you are home free.
A simple solution to the entire mess is a bio metric social security card. If you don’t have one you can’t get a job. We don’t have to deport illegals or inconvenience anyone here legally that way. The majority of illegals would have to leave on their own because they simply can’t afford to stay here.
May 8, 2010, 9:06 pmAD says:
Much is made that AZ’s requirement that resident-aliens be able to prove their bona fides is a new imposition upon them, since the average person has little anticipation of being contacted by Federal LE.
May 8, 2010, 9:06 pmI think that most of these comments are made by people who do not live along the South-West Border, and do not have to pass through CBP internal check-points on a regular basis.
Resident alients in the South-West know that they have to be prepared to show their “papers” at these check-points, or face detention until their status is clarified; so, it is not a new requirement (or inconvenience) for them, as they are already so inconvenienced.
jmtasu says:
I wish people would stop using the term “papers”, it’s defined in the law as any state, city, federal or tribal ID… Have you ever been stopped by a cop and not asked for your ID? If you have a problem with police asking for your ID, that is totally a valid argument, but then fight when cops can ask for ID and stop trying to use scary terminology.
My sister and mother were both legal immigrants as is my sister in-law, they never leave the house without their greencard, they generally have to show it with their DL when pulled over. I’ve been asked my immigration status a couple dozen times growing up in Phoenix, really, it’s not a big deal. And that’s all it takes, people don’t lie about their immigration status, every immigrant knows what a serious crime that is.
It doesn’t make any sense at all to me to have a system that rewards illegal immigration while putting burdens on legal immigrants. If we want to fix our immigration system – I personally believe it should be much easier to get into this country legally… We have to first fix this disparity. I know so many people in Asia who are trying so hard to get into this country, college educations, learning the language and they can’t… Whereas if you just cross in illegally you are free and clear. That doesn’t make sense.
May 8, 2010, 9:08 pmDenver says:
Letters of Marque and Reprisal should cover it.
May 8, 2010, 9:22 pmSDN says:
Well, I get asked for ID every time I use a credit card, write a check, pick up prescriptions….
May 8, 2010, 9:24 pmmiriam says:
My grandson, when he had just gotten his license, was driving without his license (His wallet had been stolen) and was stopped by a policeman in Passaic, NJ. He was issued a ticket which required a court appearance. Now we all know that New Jersey policemen have instant access to motor vehicle department databases and could have looked him up in a New York minute.
Apparently not having your driver’s license in your possession while driving in New Jersey–especially if you are 17 years old–is a crime.
May 8, 2010, 9:32 pmthe_observer says:
“I’ve personally seen the changes in the Arlington neighborhood where Prof. Somin’s institution is located. Today it looks more like an international airport than a Virginia suburb of even the 1980s. The problem is not the different skin colors. The problem is that Arlington is no longer a community, but instead a collection of squabbling nationalities, with many immigrants of dubious legality and quite a few (e.g. MS-13) downright terroristic. While immigrants like Prof. Somin learn English and the basics of our constitutional government, many of the Central American and Middle Eastern immigrants are downright hostile to democratic values and linguistic assimilation.”
“a collection of squabbling nationalities, with many immigrants of dubious legality and quite a few (e.g. MS-13) downright terroristic.”
How precisely does one determine that immigrants are of dubious legality? Or that they are hostile (and downright hostile!) to democratic and linguistic assimilation? Because they feel comfortable speaking their native languages around those who hail from their countries does not mean they are hostile to linguistic assimilation. Or are you suggesting that they should drop their native tongue and speak only English, even in their own homes? (I don’t want so assume that’s what you mean, so I’m asking you to explain your thinking). I think your observations are unsound. Unless you quiz them on their desire to adopt English, democratic values (perhaps their understanding of this may be different from yours) and verify their legals status, I don’t see how you can make the statement you made above. Even if it were true, do not natural-born (and naturalized) Americans engage in squabbles, reject “democratic values,” speak in foreign languages and engage in terrorism? And how do we quantify “many” does it matter if the vast majority of the immigrants you paint with a broad brush in your observation don’t possess the qualities and beliefs you ascribe to them?
“We tolerate procedures at the border and at TSA precisely because they are limited in scope and place, and because we understand the important justifications (and even then we complain if they go overboard).”
I find taking my shoes off at the airport a far more intolerable imposition than showing my ID to a cop at a traffic stop. There is ZERO ‘reasonable suspicion’ applied to that imposition moreover.”
At the border there is a reasonable suspicion that you may be entering the country illegally because it is a port of entry and most people who enter that way do so. Also as there is no one type of so called “illegal immigrant” it is reasonable that you be subjected to a “search.” The same applies to taking off your shoes–there is no one type of terrorist so it is reasonable that you be requested to submit to this type of search. Additionally, you are consenting to it.
“Maybe she’d be willing to spend 30 seconds producing it when asked. As an American maybe she’d consider THAT a small price to pay for safeguarding the national sovereignty and preventing thousands more Americans from being stabbed, raped, shot, run over by drunk driving etc. Illegal aliens.”
While you may be willing to permit the government to needlessly intrude into your life in the name of security, some people find that distasteful and chilling. It’s akin to allowing the government to listen in on citizens’ phone calls in the hope of catching terrorists. Some people said “bring it on” and “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,” but because some (or even most) are willing to accept this level of government intrusion does not mean that all should be subjected to it. And it begs the question of how far is too far? (For example, if we wanted to stop undocumented immigration we could submit to far more intrusive measures than simply having to carry our papers, perhaps we could only move about at certain times of the day or drive certain vehicles, but I think most would agree that’s going to far.) And why do we assume that it will take “30 seconds” only to produce documentation? Do we really want to give the government that much power over our lives? What about the officer who has a bad day or is under pressure to meet his quota of arrests for “undocumented aliens”? We tend to assign honorable motives to our law enforcement officers and assume that they act without bias or ill motives, but that’s not the case and if it happens once that someone’s rights are infringed, it’s one time too many. We should limit, not expand police discretion.
See http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=126386819 and http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct
May 8, 2010, 9:34 pmJames says:
I “have to be very careful to carry documentary proof of” my license to drive and my ownership of liability insurance almost (sometimes my wife drives) every time I leave the house. So, the notion that legal immigrants might need “to be very careful to carry documentary proof of citizenship or legal residency with them every time they leave the house” doesn’t seem like a big deal.
May 8, 2010, 9:36 pmIn addition, deny illegal aliens the privilege of having a driver’s license and 95% of your profiling concern will be addressed. If the speeding driver has a license, then reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien is foreclosed.
Patrick says:
“Would you, as a citizen, understand why some US citizens might feel pressured to carry passports when travelling to Arizona?”
We are not pressured, we are REQUIRED … if we fly.
Flying to Arizona, you will need either a passport or driver’s license to get through the airport security. Those anti-civil-libertarians at TSA wont let any of us fly anonymously. That same ID will suffice to keep the local yokels off your backs.
Now, you might say “Ah ha! I am not flying!” Okay, if driving, then you have your drivers license. Same story.
And if you are not driving or flying, but piling into the back of someone else’s van with 12 other well-tanned citizens going to the Phoenix Landscapers Convention … then carry some ID anyway and dont take your meeting with a gendarme as an opportunity to try out your Spanish.
This imposes no real burden on any practical traveller to Arizona.
May 8, 2010, 9:38 pmFat Man says:
You can have a welfare state or a libertarian state. If you want a libertarian state, no cops asking for your papers, etc., you can’t give welfare benefits, e.g. schools, medical care, etc. to all and sundry. If you do you will go broke.
OTOH, if you want to run a welfare state, well there is a level of bureaucracy and paper work associated with that, and you will all have to carry your government issued ID with you at all times.
Your choice.
Capish?
May 8, 2010, 9:42 pmPatrick says:
“Take out race (brown hair, brown eyes, brown skin, a Mexican look on your face), and what is left to form a basis for reasonable suspicion?”
The ability to speak English and the ability to present a valid ID when asked.
May 8, 2010, 9:43 pmthe_observer says:
The key point is that they have to show them at “these check-points” not everywhere in the city. It is reasonable that you have to show it the border, but it less reasonable that you would have to show documents everywhere in Arizona and every time you’re in a public place. Your observation does not address the main point of the post.
May 8, 2010, 9:46 pmCMartin says:
This is a feature of the law, not a bug. Most people never encounter federal law enforcement officials. That would include most illegal aliens. That’s the problem. Once they make it safely inside the borders they are effectively home-free.
We need interior enforcement. We don’t have it. Aside from workplace enforcement, deputization of local law enforcement officers is the most effective way of getting it.
May 8, 2010, 9:50 pmXrlq says:
Really? I’m a natural born citizen with ancestry going back to the Mayflower, I almost never leave home without my driver’s license.
May 8, 2010, 9:50 pmHarmon says:
Don’t come to Chicago, Sashal. You might bump your head on that “alternate reality” you think “Neanderthals” live in. Heck, the unofficial motto of the city is “vote early and often.”
May 8, 2010, 9:52 pmCMartin says:
The liberal gets up in the morning and says: “I think I’ll get naked and take a shower.”
The conservative gets up in the morning and says: “I think I’ll get dressed and go jogging.”
The moderate hears both suggestions and says: “I think I’ll get naked and go jogging.”
Some policies can only work if they’re implemented with other policies.
May 8, 2010, 9:54 pmmilwaukie guy says:
For Americans without ID, they will be able to convince an LEO of their probable citizenship way past the 99th percentile with a 60 second conversation, a bit longer than a password sequence on a military front, but not much.
I’d probably start with saying I was old enough to remember the Brooklyn Dodgers. If I was Puerto Rican, I might start by asking the cop if he shared my love for Tito Puente. As a young African-American I might show off a bit of schooling by bringing up Harriet Tubman. For naturalized citizens like my ex-wife, she would go with telling how she learned English from watching Felix the Cat cartoons.
The completely unassimilated might have some problems. If you can’t bring up any interesting American trivia to pass yourself off as a citizen, then carry your effin green card or a state ID and don’t, as someone said above, be a complete prick to the LEOs who are trying to protect us.
May 8, 2010, 9:55 pmthe_observer says:
You do not have to carry it every time you leave the house. You may choose to, but it’s not required (you don’t drive every time you leave the house) and you don’t plan every time you leave the house either. If an emergency comes up you may not have time to grab your ID. Further, the law affects more than legal immigrants, it affects citizens. Is it okay that they are mistakenly taken for an “illegal alien” when they are not and they have done nothing wrong? Is it feasible for the high school cross-country team to carry this with them at all times? What if you’re swimming, will you keep it with you at the beach? The Arizona law seems unreasonable because it doesn’t appear to allow for these occurrences. It’s not possible for someone to carry this with them all the time regardless of what the federal law says.
The solution isn’t do nothing. But if we cannot define what reasonable suspicion of being an undocumented alien is, we may want to look at the law or reform our immigration laws generally. It’s one thing to state that the law should be scrapped as Somin does, and quite another to conclude that he’s for open borders, as some are saying he is. That’s just not supported by what he’s written.
May 8, 2010, 9:57 pmKen Royall says:
This notion that it is a hardship to carry and occasionally produce your ID is nonsense. I always have my ID with me, I just picked up a pizza and showed it to verify my credit card.
I am sorry that millions of Mexican nationals have chosen to violate our laws and that countless politicians in Wash DC have refused to live up to their constitutionally mandated obligations to secure the border. However, here we are. Steps need to be taken.
Some Hispanic Americans will be inconvenienced and that is too bad. Perhaps more of them should speak out against illegal immigration and convince their cohorts to obey our laws. The outrage should be directed at the lawbreakers, not the state and local agencies that are left to mop up the mess created by our incompetent and corrupt federal government.
Any law enforcement officer worth his salt knows his area. They know where the illegals congregate and who the legal residents are generally speaking. I see no other way to address the problem other than asking for proof of citizenship. This should also be done at the workplace and any government agencies providing services. Make it useless for illegals to come here and many will leave on their own.
May 8, 2010, 10:06 pmElliot says:
In a number of areas, I’d suggest we have reached the point where law has become a danger rather than an asset to society. What we are seeing is practical people taking control back from the theorists and fixing the law. This is one of those areas. The theorists have failed miserably, now they want even more time and trust. People are saying “No.”
May 8, 2010, 10:06 pmLyle says:
Obviously you wouldn’t have much of a problem proving your citizenship. At best you would get hasseled. Enforcing immigration laws simply burdens certain people more than others, how can it not?
May 8, 2010, 10:13 pmHarvey says:
Those who write that strict border controls will solve our problem fail to understand that many cross legally but overstay their visas. And now we have 30 million already inside. Interior enforcement is necessary.
Those who advocate a requirement for a secure mandatory ID are also misguided. Why? Because the central authority which issues it can also refuse or revoke it administratively. The person so denied then becomes a “non-person” and cannot function in society. This is a severe threat to our liberty.
As has been stated, Americans long accepted “profiling.” It is what we individually do every day of our lives in every social situation. Let the LEO do it, too; it is just common sense. Yes, both positive and negative errors will occur but it is the solution that achieves the most good with the least danger to liberty. The law which prohibits it is an ass.
May 8, 2010, 10:14 pmArizonan says:
Your premise that encounters with federal officials are virtually all at the border is simply false. Federal border patrol checkpoints are common on highways throughout southern Arizona. Some are permanent, some are moved around. On certain business trips I take, encounters with federal officials are a guarantee. I have lived in Arizona for more than a decade, and I have at least 10-20 such encounters per year–and I don’t even live particularly close to the checkpoints. For some, I am quite certain the frequency is 2-3 times a day, or more.
At these checkpoints, you are essentially racially-profiled. If they suspect you are not a citizen, you are pulled over to the side to prove it. And you are stopped without reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc. This has been going on for years and years.
May 8, 2010, 10:29 pmChris Travers says:
Not by my reading of hte law at all. It just means one cannot use race ALONE to make a determination. That hardly means that racial profiling is forbidden by the law.
May 8, 2010, 10:30 pmFederalist Paupers » Blog Archive » Debating the Arizona Immigration Law says:
[...] a break from the ignorance, I recommend this Ilya Somin post. The post itself is fairly weak. Mainly, Somin complains that using state and local police to [...]
May 8, 2010, 10:31 pmChris Travers says:
How about the ability to say “Sir, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” when asked for ID?
May 8, 2010, 10:32 pmMontjoie says:
Somehow worrying about threats to the freedom of people who are breaking the law to be here isn’t high on my “things to worry about” list. I think the author’s argument is specious.
May 8, 2010, 10:38 pmCornellian says:
You and Mark Field live in LA? Whatever for?
I’m ever so slightly irritated at your assumption that people use buses only when they don’t have cars, though. There are a zillion possible reasons for taking the bus; the most common one here (Marin County) is “I work in downtown SF and have to be there early,” followed by “I need to be at [insert location of day-worker pickup point here].”
LA and SF are completely different situations when it comes to public transportation. SF is far more compact and there is a certain logic to using public transportation if you live there.
In LA everything is so far apart that relying on public transportation means it will take you forever to get anywhere. Parking is also quite a bit more affordable. LA is so car-centric that we even have IHOPs with valet parking. I don’t see how people who live in LA manage to get by without a car.
May 8, 2010, 10:40 pmPatrick says:
“While you may be willing to permit the government to needlessly intrude into your life in the name of security, some people find that distasteful and chilling.”
Is maintaining rule of law in immigration ‘needless’ now?
May 8, 2010, 10:42 pmM. Report says:
Everybody carries biometric ID with them
May 8, 2010, 10:45 pmat all times; Issue a wireless phone/
fingerprint scanner to each LEO, with
instructions to choose wisely when using it.
Note that invasion of privacy need not be
an issue; The computer only needs to match
print to person and return status, and it
need not make any record of the inquiry.
That answers the technical question, leaving
the other,harder ones open:
Should the US deport illegal aliens ?
Should the US be trusted with that power ?
Patrick says:
That would probably suffice … or you might be detained if there is a reasonable suspicion that you are breaking Federal law and you refuse to, when asked, provide the simple ID necessary to let you go on your way. Your choice and your risk, but not the fault of law enforcement if you end up unnecessarily detained for being a butt-head.
May 8, 2010, 10:52 pmPatrick says:
Your reading is wrong. First, the provision forbidding racial profiling is separate from the provision forbidding race as determination, and second, because it was deemed that ‘sole requirement’ did not suffice, it was amended so that one cannot use race AT ALL to make a determination. Bottom line: Racial profiling in any form is EXPLICITLY forbidden by the law. Any claims to the contrary are dishonest.
May 8, 2010, 10:55 pmUrchin Barren says:
This is the same argument I hear from everyone else criticizing the law. It’s bad and worse than the federal law because it’s more likely to be effective. We don’t want states and LEA enforcing these laws because, unlike the federal government, they cannot be trusted to fail.
Local agencies actually represent real people who have a real stake in whether these laws get enforced. The feds represent politicians who either want to (a) woo a racial group for votes; or (b) see poor illegal immigrants as potential voting bases (who will in that future scenario, of course, be reliant on public assistance. IN other words … democrats).
This Arizonan and minority is behind the law 100%
May 8, 2010, 10:57 pmDruid says:
You argue that a ‘tolerable’ law is one applied occasionally.
I argue that the only ‘tolerable’ law is a ‘just’ law. The ‘just’ law is one which is tolerated by the people when enforced with 100% efficiency (and no statue of limitations).
May 8, 2010, 11:06 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
Don’t carry any form of proper ID?
Can’t buy beer.
Can’t buy hard liquor.
Can’t buy a firearm.
In some states you can’t buy ammunition.
Can’t open a bank account.
Can’t get cable.
Can’t get satellite service.
Can’t get phone service.
Can’t change your address at the bank.
Can’t get electricity, gas or utility services like water.
Can’t get a job.
Can’t buy prescription medication.
Can’t cash a check.
… Anybody else want to add to the list?
May 8, 2010, 11:07 pmPatrick says:
Yes, that is the only logical explanation there is a stuck-pigs-squealing opposition to such common sense.
It works.
The impact on American citizens, at least in Arizona, is to make their communities safer.
May 8, 2010, 11:08 pmAll the civil libertarians need to stand down and quit fearing hobgoblins and shadows that havent occured, and remember the REAL violations of rights that are occurring every day due to lawless status quo – crime by deportable criminal aliens, drug cartels, violation of workplace rules and abuse of illegal alien workers, human trafficking, etc. These are being swept under the rug and ignored while we obsess over the ‘oppression’ of being asked for your driver’s license. BizarroWorld.
Patrick says:
Can’t fly, Can’t drive, Can’t take a train. Can’t buy anything with credit card.
May 8, 2010, 11:11 pmDruid says:
… Anybody else want to add to the list?
Cannot buy psuedophed
May 8, 2010, 11:13 pmJeremyR says:
Not to be a smart ass, but if you ever get stopped by police, whether driving or just walking down the road minding your own business, you are asked for ID. It’s not academic, it probably happens to thousands of citizens a day.
When I lived in Florida, it used to happen to me all the time. I am not Hispanic, but was sort of scuzzy looking. Is it annoying? Yes. But it’s already a fact of life for many people.
May 8, 2010, 11:19 pmastonerii says:
I just have to say WOW. I was always under the impression that Volokh was like a respectable place to read up on legal matters. After reading about a third the way in it was already apparent that this person never even remotely attempted to actually read the law, find out from a respectable party what the law read and more or less accepted in total everything that the liberal progressive fruitcakes have stated about the law.
If Volokh wants to keep a respectable reputation I would suggest not allowing this kind of trash to appear on this site very frequently, preferably not at all.
The law does not “If, as the Arizona law allows, these officers can demand papers of anyone “reasonably suspected” of being an illegal immigrant, that will indeed create far worse risks than the federal law.” It actually requires that the person suspected must already be lawfully detained in some level. That means there must already be a reasonable suspicion that the person actually has already broken the law. Pulled over for speeding, swerving in traffic, not stopping at a stop sign, fleeing the scene of a crime, stopped for dealing drugs or some other possible infraction of the law. This means that not one person who would not have already been confronted by the police will be subject to the “papers please” demand.
So once again. WOW. What a bunch of total garbage from an otherwise well respected place to find out information about legal matters. Great job genius.
May 8, 2010, 11:23 pmpc says:
So any American that has Hispanic heritage is a cohort of illegal aliens from Central and South America? That’s awesome.
May 8, 2010, 11:26 pmjsallison says:
Oh, Oh, I don’t carry ID because it’s inconvenient! It %U#(@ up my panty line! curse the (likely republican) JBT’s that force me to carry my driver’s license!
Everywhere I was stationed as a member of the military required, yes, REQUIRED that I have something on my person that established my bonafides. Without my .mil ID I’d have had a pretty rough time in Saudi facing down a certain scared 17 yr old with a a rifle levelled at my chest during dustup in the desert I. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have been real concerned about the inconvenience to me of having to haul it around in my PT gear.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn if you think so little of your country that you can’t be bothered to pay the least bit of lip service in furtherance of looking out for your own legitimacy. Haul your leftist @$$ to venezuela. I’m sure Hugo will help you out.
May 8, 2010, 11:26 pmPatrick says:
None are so ignorant as the educated fool. There is no ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a traveller by plane at an international port of entry is an illegal alien – because you have to go through PASSPORT control! If you dont have a valid visa, you are not let in. How offensive that you claim I ‘consented’ to the stupidity of the TSA’s airport rules. I would vote them down if I could and replace them with smarter policies based on WHO is travelling; I only ‘consent’ to the folly because I cant get to loved ones in other US cities any other way. Yet it remains folly. There have been no native-born US citizen shoe bombers, so this ‘anti-profiling’ policy inconveniences millions of innocent Americans unnecessarily while our incompetent Obama admin DHS takes real terrorists off of watch lists and gives them citizenship. The mind boggles that you actually think this is logical, when in fact it is law enforcement malpractice, all in the name of pleading ignorance to the real profiles of illegal aliens and terrorists. None are so ignorant as the educated fool.
May 8, 2010, 11:34 pmpoul says:
do elaborate.
May 8, 2010, 11:54 pmChris Travers says:
But the officer can only require you to show ID if there is already reasonable suspicion you are violating the law. Refusing to show ID can never amount to reasonable suspicion. Clarifying that the stop is involuntary seems reasonable.
May 9, 2010, 12:00 ampoul says:
I don’t know about you, but I am actually talking about real world. Happened to me. Name and birth date is enough, according to law. Google it up, would ya? Practically, it’s enough for them to pull your driver license with the photo. I saw it working this way.
won’t work – cops will pull on their computer the driver license of the person and see that the photo doesn’t match.
May 9, 2010, 12:04 ampoul says:
in other words, things that actually matter :)
May 9, 2010, 12:19 amthe_observer says:
Let’s take what you’ve stated above and look at it: “checkpoints are common on highways throughout southern Arizona”. What about Northern Arizona? How about throughout Arizona as a whole? Again, the key is reasonableness. I don’t think even the most ardent supporters of the law would state that it is reasonable to search Arizonians everywhere within the state’s borders simply because it borders Mexico. I may be wrong but that would seem to be wasteful and unreasonable. My guess is that the reason the checkpoints are “checkpoints are common on highways throughout southern Arizona” has to do with the routes where it would be most reasonable to encounter undocumented immigrants. If the law didn’t enact a change in law enforcement strategy it wouldn’t have needed to be passed. It seems that a strategy that was applied in the South (based on what you’ve said above) and along the border is now being expanded through out the state and to anyone (citizen, resident, non-resident, undocumented citizen) which stretches the argument that is reasonable to the breaking point.
May 9, 2010, 12:46 amAntimedia says:
Is it safe to assume that some people commenting here would have no objection to total strangers camping out on their lawn, pissing on their flower beds and leaving trash in their yard every day? Or are they hypocrites who want to impose their idea of “justice” only when the imposition is on some other citizen they consider stupid or racist or retarded? And I suspect these hypocrites are the same ones who are outraged that illegal invaders might have to show ID but see nothing wrong with forcing every American citizen to purchase insurance.
Essentially, the argument boils down to, “My God! You can’t be serious? You’re actually going to enforce the law?”
I suppose that’s why they find it so easy to lie about the Arizona law, stating that it only requires reasonable suspicion when that is clearly not the case. The idea that, should you be suspected of having committed a crime, it is an imposition to then have to produce identification is laughable. What planet do these people live on?
May 9, 2010, 12:52 amthe_observer says:
1) the posts you are reacting to mention “borders.” Not traveling by plane at an international port of entry, this is but one type of border. Arizona, Texas, CA, VT, have other borders which are land borders.
2) even if you lacked a visa, it would still, as it is a border you are referring to (international port of entry) be reasonable to suspect that undocumented individuals are entering through it, which is why everyone is checked–again there is no way to profile an undocumented individual, which is why everyone is checked. The context here matters and contributes to the reasonable suspicion.
3)It’s irrelevant whether or not you are happy with DHS or not. Congress in conjunction with the executive branch created it. You didn’t have to consent to its creation anymore than you’d have to consent to the creation of the Justice Department. You can criticize its creation, but consent is irrelevant. No one will ever be entirely happy with the actions of their government.
4) You state “I only ‘consent’ to the folly because I cant get to loved ones in other US cities any other way. Yet it remains folly” and by doing so, you admit that you consent to the search when traveling via the airport. You may not be happy with the search, but you are still consenting. The “‘anti-profiling’ policy” you refer to as being an inconvenience to “millions of innocent Americans unnecessarily” is still consented to by those Americans. You can’t complain if you’ve consented to the inconvenience. If you feel otherwise, you can certainly bring a challenge under the Fourth Amendment, but it’s not likely you’d have much success.
5) Taking terrorists off watch lists and giving them citizenship? That certainly is mind boggling and were it true, I would not find it logical, but I am unaware of that occurring. Please provide some proof of that happening.
May 9, 2010, 1:01 amReilly says:
I found your comment to be very revealing, however: “When they’ve become citizens and vote, do they vote Libertarian or for the party of the welfare state?” Apparently, you’re against hispanic immigrates because they tend to vote Democratic. Apparently, that’s your real reason for you opposing immigration. Darn people voting for liberals.
Lastly, tough immigration law enforcment causes the “business of people smuggling, kidnapping for ransom, armed robbery, burglary, pimping and pandering etc.” It won’t, therefore, be the solution to those problems.
The employer sanctions, by the way, are aimed a legitimate business from hiring illegal immigrants. There are already laws prohibiting the above-mentioned businesses.
It seems like you’re problem with Hispanics is that they vote for democrats.
May 9, 2010, 1:12 amJunk Science Skeptic says:
Let’s forget all the BS hypotheticals and slippery slope arguments, and examine reality for a moment.
As a U.S. born lily-white corn-fed midwesterner, if I get pulled over for speeding in Ohio, where I am not a resident, and can’t produce identification, I’m going to be hauled off to the police station to 1) post bond, and 2) either plead guilty and settle the case, or prove my identity sufficiently to ensure that I show up for court.
If I’m pulled over for speeding in my own state, without ID in my possession, and the officer is having a good day, I might be able to get away with providing my name, D.O.B. and address for them to do a records check, but I’m not going to count on it.
The fact that adult cycle commuters using public roadways aren’t required to meet/follow similar licensing regulations to those imposed on motor vehicle operators, is an inequity in transport regulations, not a legitimate rebuttal to the necessity of carrying adequate identification.
As for those whose transportation is provided exclusively through the benefit of our massive transit subsidies, I’m going to go waaayyy out on a limb here and suggest that they’re not very likely to get pulled over for speeding or running a red light.
While there are certain privacy protections provided by the Constitution, I’m not aware of any language addressing a right to absolute anonymity in any and all circumstances.
Regardless of skin color, accent, or citizenship status, if you’ve broken a non-immigration law typically enforced by state or local police, you’re required to dispose of the case immediately, or provide “enough” identification to reasonably guarantee your subsequent settlement of the case.
If, the identification you do or don’t provide, and other facts in place give the arresting officer reasonable doubt of your citizenship status, then establishing your status is a reasonable condition to gain your release until the disposition of the case.
This isn’t rocket science, nor is it a complex aspect of contract law, it’s simply part of responsible adult life 101.
The fantasy that underlies all of the whining about the AZ law is that somehow by the stroke of the governor’s pen, that state and local law enforcement personnel will suddenly have 24 extra hours in every day to go out and detain otherwise law-biding brown people for the sole purpose of determining their citizenship.
In theory, that risk does exist, but then again, there’s a much higher risk that said brown person and said officer will both be struck by lightning before the citizenship question comes up.
May 9, 2010, 1:50 amChris Travers says:
You know, I favor immigration reform. I also favor general lawfulness INCLUDING the idea that the Constitution matters. What offends me about the Arizona law is not only the bad policy elements but much more the Constitutional angle.
May 9, 2010, 2:02 amManekiNeko says:
The Arizona law provides that when you present an AZ driver’s license, non-driving AZ id, tribal id, or other federal, state, or local id that requires proof of legal presence to get, then you are presumed to be legally present, i.e., the above ids act as proxies for other documents, such as green cards. BTW, adult AZ drivers licenses first expire at age 65, so it is not much of a burden to have a valid one, assuming legal presence.
And right now, before the AZ law has taken effect, I dare say that you would be detained if you did not produce a driver’s license when stopped by traffic police. And not just in AZ.
May 9, 2010, 2:21 amMaureen001 says:
“…Krentz radioed his brother Phil between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. Saturday morning that he had encountered an illegal immigrant, and was supposed to meet Phil on the ranch at noon, according to sheriff’s deputies. When Krentz didn’t show up, the brother called police, and a search team was soon scouring the sprawling desert 15 miles north of the border, near Douglas, Ariz.
At around 11 p.m., a state police helicopter found Krentz slumped over his ATV, the engine and lights still on. Nearby, his dog lay critically wounded, also hit by a bullet. The dog was put down Sunday morning and will be cremated, its ashes spread on the property along with Krentz’s.
Tracker dogs have now followed the tracks of the killer back into Mexico, some 15 miles south…”http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/illegal-immigrant-suspected-murder-arizona-rancher/
“UPDATE: The Arizona Daily Star now reports that the nationality of Robert Krentz’s murder suspect is unknown. An earlier version of the story reported that the suspect was an American…” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/robert-krentz-murder-susp_n_561038.html
*Ahem* It looks like your Newsweek blog source didn’t update their HuffPo source before writing that blog you cited. You might want to consider checking out the Arizona Daily Star itself in the future, instead of relying on bloggers.
Regardless, the situation in border states still reeks, with or without an illegal alien murderer of Robert Krentz (I guess you’re arguing for an “American” murderer who sought refuge in Mexico, leaving tracks behind to show where he/she went?)
May 9, 2010, 3:06 amMaureen001 says:
It was a first-world country when I was educated in it, but at least the part of the country I now live in has very little in common with a first-world country at all. Perhaps your life experience is different. Perhaps it will even remain different for a while. Then again, MS-13 is in most of the 48 states now, so perhaps not.
May 9, 2010, 3:19 amKev says:
Sorry to rain on your parade, but there’s at least someone who carries ID with them all the time: Me. I have never left the house without my wallet, and, while there was a single occasion where I accidentally left my driver’s license at a bowling alley (they require one as collateral so you don’t walk out with the shoes–all the cool kids are wearing them, you know), I still had my faculty picture ID from school with me, so there was something in my possession even at that moment that gave a pretty good idea of who I am.
The only real exception to this when I’m outside the house would be if I were at the gym at school, where my wallet is of course in my pants, which are locked securely in my locker. But even then, I have to present my school ID to the front desk.
Does that make me a weirdo in your world? I can’t imagine going out without my wallet or keys; I’d feel naked without them.
May 9, 2010, 4:11 amRobert says:
It seems to me that the worrywarts who don’t think anybody should be bothered to produce proof of legal residence have failed to advance a coherent argument against the very real consequences of illegal immigration. And those that do present any alternative, well, I get the distinct impression that they are not really in favor of any concrete actions being taken.
That being said, a simple matching of Social Security numbers by employers, along with penalties for all parties, including employers, involved in the hiring of illegal aliens, would go far in reducing the problem.
Employers would have blind access to the SS number database, being that if a number was already in use under another name, or known otherwise by the federal authorities to be invalid, a negative result would be returned to the validation query. No job for the applicant. There would be no actual access to the national Social Security registry.
This would limit a substantial number of illegal hirings, with no additional effects on the general population. No national biometric ID card required.
Significant affect against the problem of illegal immigration could be produced very easily.
May 9, 2010, 4:19 amRicardo says:
I’ve read the text of the law and it specifically requires that identification provide proof of legal presence. If the Arizona Attorney General thinks that all fifty states plus D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and other territorial governments all issue driver’s licenses that will be accepted as proof of legal presence, I haven’t seen any such statement yet.
Additionally, it is the Real ID Act that mandates that all states issue licenses with certain uniform features and standards and that they share their databases with each other. The law still will not be implemented for a few more years. Your experience was probably based on being an in-state resident or a resident of a state that was sharing information already. Several states have opposed implementation of Real ID including… wait for it… Arizona.
May 9, 2010, 5:36 amlonetown says:
They should declare a state of disaster (due to the murders and kidnappings) and require everyone to carry ID until we get this sorted out!
May 9, 2010, 5:56 amjmtasu says:
Here’s the actual text of the law.
…………
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. A valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
May 9, 2010, 6:25 amRicardo says:
Take that up with the Arizona state legislature: that very same august body has passed a resolution opposing the implementation of the Real ID Act, which would mandate uniform requirements for identification cards and information sharing across state lines.
The real question, though, is whether or not you will need to carry your original long-form birth certificate with you to prove citizenship.
May 9, 2010, 6:29 amRicardo says:
No, you (deliberately?) omitted a crucial part from item #4:
4. A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.
This is straight from the Arizona State Legislature’s website. If you have a more authoritative source, please share.
May 9, 2010, 6:34 amRicardo says:
Not true, you simply go through additional secondary security screening on domestic flights. Otherwise, you would be in for a huge amount of hassle if you went on a short trip across the country and had your ID lost or stolen.
May 9, 2010, 7:12 amAlast says:
So, it is OK to violate the law, because of a low likelihood of being caught? That is no different from a hoodrat.
May 9, 2010, 8:07 amepluribus says:
Mark Field says:
Thanks for the correction. I had seen this attributed to Hugo–even googled it before I posted it and found a site that attributed it to Hugo. But it does appear that Anatole France was the correct source. It’s a great observation that many so-called conservatives just can’t (or perhaps refuse to) understand.
May 9, 2010, 8:54 amepluribus says:
Maureen001, your argument is irrelevant. You brought up Krentz’s murder as evidence of the terrible illegal immigrant problem in Arizona. The cited sources show that the sheriff still doesn’t know who committed the crime. Maybe it was a Mexican illegal, maybe it was a white American. Yes, of course Mexicans commit crimes in Arizona. Yes, of course, white Americans do the same. On the basis of the evidence now available, Krentz is irrelevant to the argument.
May 9, 2010, 9:11 amTexas resident says:
Green card holders=no welfare benefits????
Go to ice.gov and under’green cards’ to look at the ‘public charge’ rules. No federal/state (welfare) program (i.e. tax dollars) is prohibited to holders of green cards when considering if they become a ‘public charge.’
Illegal aliens=no welfare benefits?????? What about free schools, free health
May 9, 2010, 9:11 amcare (hospitals, clinics, vaccinations, free prenatal care in Texas. Once they have a child, the child automatically qualifies for all citizen benefits(food stamps, medicaid, state supplemental security income) AND THEY ARE RARELY EVER
DEPORTED FROM ANY STATE once they have a citizen child. Illegal aliens are allowed FEDERAL tax ID numbers if they apply for them. They have to file tax returns AND they qualify for the earned income tax credit refund. They also have an ID to apply for secton 8 housing in Texas and probably other states.
cecil kirksey says:
You are absolutely correct as defined in the 14th amendment. One only needs to prove citizenship to gain some government benefit, i.e., passport, social security, drivers license etc. It is perfect possible for a person (citizen) to live in this country and never see his/her birth certificate which is the primary means of proving citizenship.
It is almost a Catch-22 scenario to try to get a birth certificate. Some form of ID is required but that requires you to have a birth certificate.
May 9, 2010, 9:37 amcecil kirksey says:
How about AZ enforcing hiring of illegals? Suppose AZ passed a very stiff penalty law for any employer hiring an illegal. Now I think to enforce this the SSA and IRS would have to be involved but I would certainly welcome this type of enforcement. Illegals want jobs. Which means someone has to hire them. I am not sure if AZ has an income tax but if it did then I would think that could be used as an effective means of enforcement even if the SSA and IRS were not directly involved.
May 9, 2010, 10:00 amMike says:
forget green card holders, what about the tens of thousands of legal aliens pending adjustment of status? They are not even issued any credible documentation of their statuts to prove their legality even if they are here legally for years!- nor are americans required to have any papers, see kolender v. Lawson – there are many undocumented Americans.
May 9, 2010, 10:17 amBlake says:
Cecily,
Did you read the current bill? That provision is in the bill.
AZ passed an employer sanction bill a while ago, too.
Nice to see how many commenters have obviously not read SB 1070.
Mr. Somin obviously being one of them.
May 9, 2010, 10:26 amORID says:
Someone show me the basis by which dark-skinned people will be racially profiled? No judge is going to allow “he looks Hispanic” to pass the “reasonable suspicion” test.
Yet, I’ve seen no one attempt to debunk this. In spite of the fact that there was a case that went to the Supreme Court where Border Patrol got in trouble for stopping a car on the basis of the fact the drivers “looked Mexican”.
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975)
The Government also contends that the public interest in enforcing conditions on legal alien entry justifies stopping persons who may be aliens for questioning about their citizenship and immigration status. Although we 884*884 may assume for purposes of this case that the broad congressional power over immigration, see Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 765-767 (1972), authorizes Congress to admit aliens on condition that they will submit to reasonable questioning about their right to be and remain in the country, this power cannot diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens who may be mistaken for aliens. For the same reasons that the Fourth Amendment forbids stopping vehicles at random to inquire if they are carrying aliens who are illegally in the country, it also forbids stopping or detaining persons for questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens.
In this case the officers relied on a single factor to justify stopping respondent’s car: the apparent Mexican ancestry of the occupants.[11] We cannot conclude that this furnished reasonable grounds to believe that the three occupants were aliens. At best the officers had only a fleeting glimpse of the persons in the moving car, illuminated by headlights. Even if they saw enough to think that the occupants were of Mexican descent, this factor alone would justify neither a reasonable belief that they were aliens, nor a reasonable belief that the car concealed other aliens who were illegally in the country. Large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Mexican ancestry, and even in the border area a relatively small proportion of them are aliens.[12] The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.
A law blog doesn’t instantly pull up this case to debunk the myth of “papers please”? And I wouldn’t be shocked if any of the 250+ comments failed to mention it as well. This immigration law discussion is so emotionally irrational. Read the freakin’ case law!
I’ve said before, I think there will be limited cases of “reasonable suspicion”. Such as “driver of car doesn’t have license or insurance” or “someone out in the middle of nowhere near the border”. Yet even those who I spoke to supportive of this law think it will allow random stops of Mexican looking people. Do people have such little thought of justice and the Constitution?
May 9, 2010, 11:11 amGuessWho says:
Reasonable suspicion =/= Obvious Proof.
Also, you are only looking for enough reasonable suspicious to request an ID.. (big deal).
A misdemeanor? Wow. Color me unimpressed. If it were a civil violation could they be turned over to INS? It has to be criminal, does it not? Requesting an already required immigrant ID only if associated with another offense is too much for you? So, why would you have the ID be required at all? Why require an ID and have no authority to request it? Why should it be on the person of the immigrant?
Requesting ID is a step we’ve never taken before?
Making no ID a misdemeanor is something we’ve never done before?
By the way, I’ll use your “national health care” logic on you, “all the rest of the western world does it”.
America is so arrogant to think it should be able to control the flow of people into and out of it’s own country? Racists!
May 9, 2010, 11:49 amBlake says:
Orid,
You obviously didn’t read the bill, either. It specifically prohibits profiling.
Just because someone thinks a law may do something like profiling doesn’t mean the law actually does.
Good grief, do you people even stop to think or, perhaps, read the law before you comment?
May 9, 2010, 12:03 pmBill Johnson says:
US citizens ‘inconvenienced’ (OK, the 1 freakin percent who live in big cities and only use cash) by having to show ID?
How about having to strip for the magneto-camera? Haw about travelling IN your shoes? How about having 5 ounces of shampoo?
Hell, everything the government does ostensibly for your good has an inconvenience factor.
It’s highly inconvenient for the government to take my money from my pakcheck. Waah!!!!!
If this is the biggest problem, then play on.
May 9, 2010, 12:10 pmlucia says:
Interesting list. But I’d like to point out that you can get these things by carrying ID occasionally. Unless laws change, those of us who enjoy Sunday morning strolls are not legally required to carry our IDs during the stroll and the fact that we took the stroll does not prevent us from going home and getting our ID and wallet before visiting the liquor store to buy beer. I don’t own a gun and don’t plan to buy one, but I suspect the gun dealer is not required to verify that I always carry ID when I take strolls around the block.
It’s interesting to learn that in some states you can’t get cable tv without showing proper ID. I strongly suspect Comcast must really hate that law since such a law would make difficult for their sales people to sign people up when they market us during dinner time. (I’m now wondering if the call Friday night was a violation of the ‘do not call list’. Is there an exception for former customers? )
May 9, 2010, 12:21 pmGuessWho says:
wow. another post proving the misinformation campaign works…otherwise intelligent people cannot understand that the law clearly states there has to be a reason OTHER than suspicion of being an immigrant to request proof of immigrant status.
Inotherwords, walking downt he street you wont have to carry ID if you are an illegal (if you want to ignore federal law) and have no fear of AZ police asking you for ID UNLESS YOU VIOLATE THE LAW….Unless you violate the law. THEN, if they suspect you could be an immigrant, that request for verification of your status will be forthcoming.
Not if you are walking down the street…but walking down the street…AND violating the law.
Precondition: Violating the law.
May 9, 2010, 12:30 pmAntimedia says:
What Constitutional angle?
May 9, 2010, 12:46 pmAdam Sullivan says:
So having read the thread I have two observations -
1) The only person to use “beaner” and / or “spic” in a comment was the person who condemned others for doing it.
2) There still hasn’t been a substantive defense of Somin’s assertion that enforcing a law makes that law “more dangerous”.
My libertarian leanings make me want to oppose the Arizona law but so far the arguments against it on this thread cluster around
A) declaring those who support and enforce the law as racists who will use the law to stealthily burden the justice system with racially motivated prosecutions (which, if true, should be relatively easy to identify and ferret out – especially in light of methods developed in the civil rights era and creative use of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which I doubt our current USAG would be reluctant to use);
B) invoking a sense of dread that the government is being handed yet more powers with which to harass citizens.
I tend to support “B” while asserting that “A” reveals a bigotry in those making the charge as evidenced by this thread. After all, chastising others for using “spic” and “beaner” when it hasn’t been done, and then using that charge as a cloak of victimhood (or victimhood by association as was done here) wherein one gets to make further racial assertions about “the other” in order to recover one’s dignity is just one contemptible example. It shows great restraint and tolerance when the abuser is not called out on it.
Yes – there are racists in this country. Yes – they express their point of view. Yes – people find it distasteful and harmful at times. Yes – that is their right. But to assume that law enforcement is intrinsically racist in Arizona is to paint with a state wide brush and ignore the recent video taped happenings in the extremely Blue, “progressive” and self-congratulatorily “civilized” metropolitan area of Seattle. It also ignores that the US has been dealing with post 9/11 terror threats effectively without sliding down the “slippery slope” of racial profiling and whatnot.
So the discussion seems to have found a happy cul-de-sac of counter accusations around racial attitudes issues that, candidly, aren’t really at issue.
At issue is (I thought) is the idea that a state enforcing a federal law by making a state version of that law makes government in general more dangerous. Not much discussion on that.
May 9, 2010, 12:54 pmAntimedia says:
The fact that you can’t put two and two together does not negate his argument. The testimony of the man who was killed is that he was dealing with an illegal immigrant. If anybody should know, he would. He helped illegal immigrants all the time by giving them food and water. Their thanks was to kill both him and his dog and then skedaddle back to Mexico, which refuses to hand over murderers to the US until we promise not to mete out the same punishment to them that they meted out to their victims.
If you want to be ignorant, that’s your privilege. But don’t insult our intelligence with such vacuous arguments
May 9, 2010, 1:00 pmAdam Sullivan says:
Having been one who was falsely arrested by an over zealous Sheriff’s deputy while defending my property during a firestorm I can attest that the “unless you violate the law” thing isn’t water tight. When amped up by a stressful situation LEOs can make some stupid arrests even when the person being arrested can calmly explain his right to do what he is doing. Just the same, I don’t see evidence that the AZ law gives LEOs new powers to stop/arrest people – just new options for charges. If someone wants to cite provisions that say otherwise I’d love to see them.
May 9, 2010, 1:09 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Right. All a non-citizen has to do is claim he or she is a citizen – However, if caught lying – well, I think the law is unclear. Claiming to be a citizen when not to a federal official is is grounds for permanently being barred from the United States in a way that even a waiver cannot help. But this might not be considered an immigration benefit.
This whole thing is simply a device to facilitate corruption.
The main feature of the law is the requirement for every locality to detain someone when reasonable suspicion of someone being illegal exists, except when (in whose judgement?) that would interfere with an ongoing investigation or a medical emergency. If a jurisdiction did not act to the satisfaction of somebody with money to spend on a lawsuit in Arizona they could be sued. This interferes with police command and control.
A chief of police for instance maybe could not issue orders NOT to take complaints from the general public that somebody or other is an illegal immigrant (which would be a very logical order to issue because of the potential for corruption, harm to coommunity relations – you do not want most people to fear or avoid the police – and the fact that politicians are elected and in some localities the majority of citizens do not want this, because the citizens have numerous friends and family members who are illegal immigrants – and because of the way taking such complaints, even if roof is submitted – would contribute to revenge or blackmail or be used by criminal gangs, not to mention the diversion of police attention from more serious business) I think some local jurisdictions are tryiong to gte this clarified.
The law pretends that aliens detected will be turned over to ICE. This is absolutely not true. ICE doesn’t want them. It’s OK to take newly arrived border crossers who will not contest deportation but people who will ask for a hardship deferment is something else. Imprisoning them costs money. There is a budget. Sure they sometimes sometimes look they are ready to swoop down on anyone, but this is only for publicity or a result of being bribed by someone. and they be bribed both way of course.
Federal law only allows a person to be detained solely on immigration grounds by local or state police for a maximum of 48 hours. If ICE doesn’t come and go get them, they must be released. Now in practice in some places, particularly prisons, they may not be. The prisoner would then have the alternative of going into court (if he knows how to) and seeking a writ of habeus corpus – except that *that* might get the attention of immigration, or waiting to be released. If ICE takes him after a long time, he has a lawsuit.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/deported-immigrant-gets-$145k-payout-dpgonc-km-20100509_7449428
New York City recently (last year but the New York Post ran the story only today) settled a lawsuit with a 55-year old man since deported to Barbados for $145,000.
The plaintiff was a person with three prior arrests – the type New York will inform immigration.
He was arrested on December 2, 2003 for drinking a bottle of rum in public. They also found some crack cocaine residue in his pocket. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor drug charge (his lawyer probably did not realize the immigration consequences – they know better now) and the judge ordered him released on his own recognizance and the deal probably was something like he would get no jail time if he stayed out of trouble for six months.
But federal immigration agents have space at Rikers Island and they are allowed to interview about 4,000 inmates a year. They put a hold on about 3,200. He was one of them.
Instead of picking him up within 48 hours he stayed there 35 days till they went to come and get him.
He was deported to Barbados in October 2007, meaning there was almost 4 years of legal proceedings. while these proceedings were pending he was released by ICE. But then he was rearrested on a variety of warrants including possession of a forged instrument, and again held at Rikers for a month before ICE came and got him and took him far away from his family to Alabama. The article doesn’t say whether the second time he would have been released on bail or on his own recognizance but for the immigration hold.
After being sent to Barbados he sued the city for holding him illegally. The lawsuit was sponsored by an immigrant rights group.
If, let us say, he was imprisoned for 33 days plus 28 days, or 61 days beyond the period of time the city was entitled to hold him, that works out to $2,377 a day.
I will include two quotations from the New York Post article:
“The Department of Corrections has tightened its procedures to prevent a reoccurrence” – Muriel Goode-Trufant, head of New York City’s federal litigation department.
“We just release them now. It’s ICE’s problem to go find these guys.”
- one high-ranking jail supervisor.
Of course the people arrested in Arizona will be released too after 48 hours when some people want them to be. And sometimes they won’t be and will sue if they are deported for all the extra jail time.
May 9, 2010, 1:17 pmAntimedia says:
This perfectly encapsulates the problem with this issue. The bulk of the people who are opposed to the law or question whether it’s necessary or not have never even bothered to read the law.
The Arizona law penalizes employers severely for hiring illegal aliens. The first offense requires that an affidavit be filed with the county attorney within three days of discovery of the violation asserting that the illegal alien or aliens have been terminated. Failure to do so results in the immediate suspension of all licenses until the aliens are terminated. Then the business is on probation for three years during which time they have to file quarterly reports with the county attorney for each employee hired. A second offense while on probation results in the permanent revocation of all licenses, effectively shutting down the business.
Employees are defined thus
People who oppose this law without ever having read it provide obvious proof that they could care less about what the law actually says. They simply want to scream racism and blather about the civil rights of non-citizens and see the law as an opportunity to importune for their point of view. Nothing could be more hypocritical.
To them I say, read the damn law. Then come back here and make your arguments. Or shut up.
Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
May 9, 2010, 1:25 pm7 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;
8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;
9 classification; license suspension and revocation;
10 affirmative defense
Sammy Finkelman says:
But this exception is not given very much publicity.
In some countries, like Sri Lanka, I think they really do enforce documentation requirements, and people suffer from a lot of trouble if they get lost or destroyed like what happened after the tsunami.
In China, if people’s school records are stolen, and they are – there is market for them – they have extremely great difficulty in establishng their educational credentials as nobody believes the substitute documents provided.
This is the kind of road on which the United States has not gone.
In the end somebody can go into a court and demand the provision of state issued documentation (if the judge is satisfied as to the truth). There is not written about this, but there are lawyers who specialize in this.
And there are people in this kind of situation, particularly long term drug addicts.
May 9, 2010, 1:32 pmSammy Finkelman says:
And you could then impose a $5,000 fee for an ID. You know you could demand proof of health insurance to get an ID, if the idea of requiring it was found constitutional. (Maybe one day if we get too used to this idea of carrying ID things like that will start to happen.)
But they won’t do that here. Congress avoided calling this a tax and tax credit probably just to avoid all the tax evasion and negligence penalties from applying to this. When they realized that how it impacted the constitutional question, it was too late to change it.
Maybe they could have put it into the reconciliation bill but I guess they were in too much of a rush to take the time to write the law so that most normal tax penalties would not apply so they just put the idea it was a tax into the conference report.
May 9, 2010, 1:43 pmepluribus says:
Antimedia says:
If you want to be uncivil and ad hominem, that’s your privilege (though it is a violation of the terms of use of this site). But don’t expect it to persuade anybody. Until the murderer of Robert Krentz is identified, his murder is irrelevant to the argument over illegal immigration.
May 9, 2010, 1:45 pmSammy Finkelman says:
That’s not what the law deals with. That’s what the law pretends to deal with by targeting all sorts of other people. All this thing is because of restrictive immigration laws that try to fight human nature too much.
If somebody proposed doing the same tough enforcement of copyright law tp the point where you would make an argument, now it just won’t happen, would this argument about enforcing the law still appeal to you?
The documentation thing is mostly a dead letter and acknowledged in practice to be so and only a civil offense carrying a fine in any case. It hasn’t been released only because Congress has a very hard time repelaing anything in immigration.
Sometimes when public sentiment completely changes, and even reverses itself, they do after a time lag of about 20 or more years
May 9, 2010, 1:53 pmGuessWho says:
Nothing is water-tight. That some police violate the law is not really a (good) justification for not writing law that police will have to enforce. As you know the same point could be argued about any law enforcement activity.
May 9, 2010, 1:57 pmSammy Finkelman says:
I think there has been only one attempted shoe-bomber period. This is all because of one person, one time, and it didn’t work then! But now they trumped that with underwear. Nobody’s going to make people take that off.
I think you can also safely say there has not been or won’t be any for some time who haven’t traveled to an Al-Qaeda controlled area.
May 9, 2010, 1:58 pmKen Royall says:
One thing I have noticed about the people who oppose this law, is they are very vehement in their opposition and some of them make some good points. What seems to be lacking is any viable alternatives. To simply leave things as they are is not acceptable, providing amnesty for all illegals here now only increases the tide that will come in and we will have the problem all over again within a short time.
So it seems we need to secure the border first, then we can talk about what should be done with the illegals that are already here. No matter what we do, AT SOME POINT we are going to need to identify who is here legally and who isn’t. This notion that the state and federal government have no right to ask whether someone is following our immigration laws (and provide the requisite proof) is absurd.
I UNDERSTAND I AM MAKING SOME GENERALIZATIONS HERE. If some people ant to nitpick that and provide anecdotes of exceptions than have fun. In the main, we all know what the situation is overall.
The America of 2010 is a far different place than it was when we had the last, large waves of immigration. We do not have the ability to create jobs in the quantities we used to, our social services are already overburdened, as is law enforcement and or education system. We do not have the money to build the thousands of schools that will be needed to educate a population that for the most part, will not be paying sufficient taxes to offset the costs of doing so.
Sorry to be blunt, but does the US really have a shortage of unskilled, undereducated people? No, we don’t. These are the very people that are hit hardest by a poor economy and increasing that labor pool only hurts the citizens we have in that category already, including many Hispanics. If someone supports open borders for “social justice” reasons, then unfortunately there are millions of people around the globe that are worse off than Mexicans. If that were the goal we should be bringing over boats from Africa. Nobody would advocate that but why should Mexican and South American immigrants have an advantage over them? Geographical coincidence is the only reason.
Most nations are far more restrictive in their immigration practices (like Mexico). They evaluate the potential new citizens based on their needs and the benefit the new arrivals would bring to their country. If we were to be honest, we hit that plateau with low skilled, manual labor workers long ago. All we are doing now is crowding out Americans at the low end. We are far beyond the notion of “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” PLENTY of Americans will do construction work and in fact they are still the majority. And yet, there are thousands of illegals now doing those jobs. Unscrupulous contractors are using them to undercut their competitors.
I am all for getting a good deal on my home improvement jobs but I also know that by having illegals on the crew I am subsidizing every other facet of their existence through my tax dollars as they are using government and health services that were intended for Americans.
I KNOW I AM MAKING SOME GENERALIZATIONS HERE and fully acknowledge there are exceptions.
May 9, 2010, 2:08 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Of course it makes sense. Stopping people from coming into the country is crushing a dream, but deporting a person already here for some time is possibly ruining their life.
There are all kinds of aspects of law where somebody gets a benefit that ultimately results from a previous violation of law.
Not only is it ingrained in all sorts of places in American law and tradition, it is in the Bible.
The Mosaic law did not free slaves – but it also forbade the return of a slave to his master` (Deuteronomy 23:16-17)
Do you think this was crazy? Moses didn’t think so. He told the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:6) that their laws are such that when the nations will hear of the laws they will say surely a wise and discerning people is his great nation. And he must have been talking particularly about this. Because the last clause in the code of Hammurabi says that a slave who escapes from his master and is recaptured has his bored, while the Mosaic civil codes opens up with (Exodus 21:2-6) a slave who refuses to leave his master when he is supposed to be freed. What happens to him? His ear is bored through.
So now when someone comes from Babylonia as a bounty hunter to recover lost slaves three thousand years ago – what does he see? All the people who look like escaped slaves – they are people who want to stay exactly where they are!
The disparity you talked about can be fixed by almost never giving a flat no to anyone. It may be that’s the only way politically it’s ever going to fixed if it ever is, but when they tried to pass an immigration bill in 2007 the first things they did was agree on a total number for immigrants. BIG MISTAKE.
May 9, 2010, 2:18 pmMac says:
Do you not have to prove a proficiency in English to become an American citizen? So, any American citizen can, by definition, speak English. Please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
May 9, 2010, 2:22 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Not true for credit cards. It’s been true about driving for many years – the ID originally was just a driver’s license – but it has only bene a few years that any kind of proof of legal residence has been required and they didn’t use to issue non-driver’s IDs because they weren’t needed. Its been true for flying since about 1996. It’s been true for some trains for not very long. All this stuff is very recent.
May 9, 2010, 2:29 pmAntimedia says:
If you want to appear intelligent, at least gain an understanding of what ad hominem is. The word ignorant means “unlearned, uninformed”, which you certainly are. That is not the use of ad hominem. If I called you stupid, that would be ad hominem. Furthermore, labeling your argument vacuous is a condemnation of your argument, not of you. It is certainly not a violation of any site rules to call someone who displays ignorance of facts ignorant, nor is it a violation to label and argument as vacuous.
But if you think you have grounds for getting my comments removed, feel free to exercise your blazing intellectual skills to argue for their removal. (That’s not ad hominem either. It’s called sarcasm.)
May 9, 2010, 2:37 pmAntimedia says:
If your argument is that public sentiment is changing in favor of open borders, you might like to read recent polls on the subject. Public sentiment is manifestly in favor of enforcement of the law.
May 9, 2010, 2:39 pmepluribus says:
No, I certainly don’t want to get your comments removed. They are proof of what I said about them.
May 9, 2010, 2:46 pmGuessWho says:
I don’t know about that, you do have to take a citizenship test, I don’t know if it is offered in languages other than english.
However, reasonable suspicion just means it has to be reasonable not 100% true. it is reasonable to presume someone who can’t speak English well that they are immigrants. It is not 100% sure, but it is reasonable enough to ask for ID.
May 9, 2010, 2:47 pmAntimedia says:
I checked. You must be able to read, write and speak English to become a naturalized citizen. There are some exceptions, however.
While looking for that, I found this.
I think that pretty much settles the question of whether or not Obama is a native born American, doesn’t it? Regardless of where he was born, he is a citizen because his mother met the requirements. Somebody please tell the birthers.
May 9, 2010, 3:33 pmAdam Sullivan says:
Agreed
May 9, 2010, 4:06 pmAdam Sullivan says:
So I guess Holder is threatening to file suit against AZ.
From CNN:
So if his justification mirrors Somin’s (with a little Interstate Commerce Clause thrown in) then it seems like the attacks on this law so far are fairly weak. Then again he may only be sharing the arguments that resonate with voters and not jurists.
May 9, 2010, 4:19 pmthe_observer says:
Yeah, we should allow some cops to potentially abuse the rights of others because hey, “nothing is water-tight.” What about equal protection of the laws.
We should be skeptical of law enforcement because we have no way of knowing, short of following them around all the time, which isn’t possible how many times they violate the rights of civilians and because after the fact people tend to take the officer’s word over that of the person arrested or detained. If you are harassed by an officer who had no reason to stop or question you, your rights have been violated, it doesn’t matter if you’re not arrested or detained.
Imagine if the officer had claimed he had reasonable suspicion to detain the individual in the following story. Most people would have believe that and had no problem doing so. Notice the epithets the Officer used and imagine that occurring in Arizona. Until we’re able to ferret out those officers with an animus towards the poor or other disfavored groups, I think we should be reluctant to assume that you should “have no fear of AZ police asking you for ID UNLESS YOU VIOLATE THE LAW….Unless you violate the law.” And arguing that nothing is water-tight is too thin a reed on which to rest the civil liberties of American citizens–no matter how much outrage there is over illegal immigration. We should not allow the government to violate the rights of citizens or anyone else for that matter.
——————————————————————————-
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/seattle-detective-shandy-cobane-apologizes-for-racial-epithet-beating/19469856?ncid=webmaildl1
Seattle Detective Apologizes for Racial Epithet
(May 8) — A Seattle police officer offered
a tearful apology after being caught on
camera kicking an innocent man and using
a racial epithet.
The video shows a group of officers
standing around three men who are lying
on the ground. Seattle Police Detective
Shandy Cobane shouts, “I’m going to beat
the [expletive] Mexican [expletive] out of
you homey! You feel me?”
Cobane later kicks the man in the head
and another cop kicks him in the hand.
The detective sobbed as he gave a news
conference on Friday to apologize to the
Latino community, his colleagues and the
city of Seattle, The Seattle Times reported.
“I know my words cut deep and were very
hurtful,” Cobane said. “Please know that I
am truly, truly sorry.”
The video was shot by a freelance videographer
at around 2 a.m. on April 17.
The incident in question took place as officers
were investigating an armed robbery
in Seattle’s Westlake neighborhood. The
911 call reporting the crime had described
the suspects as Hispanic.
The man attacked was not involved in the
robbery. After officers let him go, the freelance
videographer asked the unidentified
man why he had been beaten.
“I don’t know. They knocked me down
and kicked me in the head,” he responded.
Cobane and another officer have been
placed on administrative leave. The city’s
police department is carrying out an internal
investigation, according to the Times.
Seattle police learned of the event a few
days after the incident, and launched the
investigation soon after, according to the
AP.
Cobane, a 15-year veteran of the police
force, said he never imagined he would “do
anything to bring such notoriety to my department.
Sadly, I did.”
2010 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
May 9, 2010, 4:29 pmAntimedia says:
So let’s not have any laws at all, because someone is bound to be abused by at least one police officer enforcing at least one of those laws? Where’s the sanity in that?
May 9, 2010, 4:36 pmthe_observer says:
Kev, you prove my point. You attempt to state that you carry ID all the time and then cite an exception which proves that even you do not carry ID all the time. Further you also prove that you can’t guarantee that you’ll have it with you all the time. Most of the time does not equal all the time. You are just one unforeseen incident away from being parted with your ID, thus you cannot guarantee that you’ll always have it with you. (Planning to always carry it is not the same as always having it). All it would take is one unplanned instance of being caught without it for you to be in violation of the law. Those who claim to always carry it,of course, can’t fathom that they’d ever be caught without it, but there are thousands of people in a state, without discretion innocent people who have inadvertently left their ID elsewhere will be detained needlessly. The law doesn’t seem to leave any room for officers to take this situations into account.
May 9, 2010, 4:39 pmthe_observer says:
This is why argument should be left to attorneys in courts of law. The argument is not to not have any laws at all. That’s never been argued. The argument would be to limit the discretion of officers (something that the amended version of the law did, but did not go far enough) rather than increase it. We need to balance pursuing crime with upholding the Constitution. I’d rather defer to protecting individuals rather than increasing government power. I think everyone can agree that unlimited government power is not a good thing, so rather than stating that the solution is to do nothing, which is not true, it would be good if you can articulate some limits that you find acceptable, assuming that there are any.
Unless and until we can define what is reasonable suspicion in this context in a race-neutral manner, I would not empower local law enforcement to carry out this law. And unless they have discretion to consider the reasons why a citizen may not have his ID on him, I would not empower law enforcement to carry out this law. I’d err on the side of protecting citizens’ civil liberties and enforcing the Constitution.
It may seem to some like an indefensible policy, but read Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) and you’ll see why it’s necessary to protect citizens from law enforcement and to be set clear guidelines for law enforcement. After Miranda arguments were made that it would handicap law enforcement and all that, but I think that has proven not to be the case. In fact Miranda was retried and convicted and Escobedo is in prison today.
Again the solution is not to do anything, but rather to ensure that we have followed the Constitution when we empower law enforcement. We went through a similar debate post-911. Some are okay with shaving Constitutional protections on the edges, but I think that’s dangerous. (“I know he’s a citizen, but…”; “so some citizens will be affected, but…”; “so law enforcement can violate citizens’ rights, but…” arguments weaken Constitutional protections for all of us. We don’t get to treat some disfavored groups differently under the Constitution, which is why it’s not okay to recognize that citizens who look like they may be undocumented may be harassed needlessly and say that’s okay because most “illegal immigrants” share characteristics with them.
There are a lot of good political arguments in support of the Arizona law, but it’s not clear that they are good legal arguments.
May 9, 2010, 5:08 pmAntimedia says:
At some point you have to give law enforcement officers discretion. It is impossible to write a law that covers every single contingency in a way that is fair to every citizen. (God knows legislatures have tried – and sometimes the results are hilarious.) We have codified ways to deal with unfair or abusive treatment, and on balance I think the system we have works pretty well.
I’d be fascinated to see you present verbiage that you think would pass Constitutional muster for “reasonable suspicion”. I doubt there is space for it here, because it would probably take several pages.
You ask for good legal arguments. You’ve been given some and apparently ignored them. I doubt seriously that the Supreme Court would overturn a case simply because, after stopping a person for speeding and asking for their ID, an officer became suspicious and began questioning the person about their immigration status. The law states that they can only be questioned about their immigration status if they are already suspected of having broken some other law. Asking for ID under those circumstances is routine across America.
May 9, 2010, 5:42 pmArizonan says:
I don’t think you understand. The proposition “most people rarely if ever encounter federal law enforcement officials except at the border” is simply false for many Arizonans. The entire argument depends on this proposition.
I have lived in Tucson for 12 years, and have encountered federal law enforcement more than state law enforcement on something like a 10:1 ratio.
May 9, 2010, 5:43 pmMaureen001 says:
Au contraire, ma petite choux. This legislation did not occur in a vacuum. Krentz’s murder took place immediately before this legislation was signed by Governor Brewer, who signed it right before it would have become law without her signature anyway. This legislation has been in the works for a while; it did not come about overnight. The negative impacts of illegal aliens in the state of Arizona have become too onerous for the Arizonan citizens to want to deal with any longer. They’ve been kissed off by the federal government, so their elected officials have responded to the demands of at least 70% of the citizenry with this legislation (based on current polling in Arizona in favor of it). Krentz’s murder was followed by a plea from his surviving family for federal and state intervention on the border, which is only 15 miles away; a plea that echoes the demands of their neighbors and fellow citizens. You cannot separate Robert Krentz’s murder from the anger Arizonans are feeling when the problems caused by illegal aliens are so clearly entwined in his murder. Whether or not solid evidence is ever produced to bring a culprit, Mexican or American, to justice, the Krentz ranch is intimately involved in the ongoing problem because of its location and its owners believe that to have been contributory to his murder. The people of Arizona are demanding their government deal with this problem and their state government, at least, is responding to them.
May 9, 2010, 5:50 pmChris Travers says:
I see a number of potential Constitutional problems with this law as drafted.
1) 4th Amendment violations, in particular requiring individuals to provide identification documents to law enforcement or be arrested on suspicion of having entered the country illegally. (Also, if a citizen enters the country illegally, and there is reasonable suspicion that, for example, maybe he stepped over the border and back while hiking in the border area, is that a state felony?) While states can require that individuals identify themselves to police, requiring ID is a search in every case I can think of.
2) Pre-emption problems: The US Constitution gives Congress alone the power to set naturalization laws and laws governing the regulation of commerce with foreign states. This means all immigration law is solely within Congress’s enumerated powers. Now, I see no reason why state and local police couldn’t detain people for 48 hours while waiting for ICE to show up if they reasonably suspect a violation of immigration laws, but if the concern is a lack of enforcement, there is a huge set of corner cases where the federal government may deem that a person is here legally even when that person is not.
For example, consider the following example of visa fraud:
An individual comes to the US to visit on a tourist visa and falls in love with a US citizen. They decide to get married. So the individual applies for another tourist visa, comes here, gets married, and adjusts status. The federal government accepts the adjustment and grants temporary residency even though they know or should have known that this involved visa fraud (and in fact the BCIS will usually take notice of such things and bar relatives from visiting, but they won’t prosecute the individual for fraud). Does the law require the state to enforce STRICTLY federal immigration law even if the federal government is willing to recognize the individual as a resident? Similarly if illegal immigrants marry US citizens, this doesn’t erase the fact that the individual entered and remained in the US illegally, but the federal government will often accept an adjustment of status petition and allow the individual to become a legal alien resident (once again, the immigration violation may not be prosecuted, but other measures may be used).
That’s just one example of a form of illegal immigration where the government’s policy is to look the other way. But if the goal is to rectify non-enforcement, doesn’t that mean stepping on the federal government’s toes even in such cases?
Furthermore, in the above cases, does that mean that if I know someone committed visa fraud to enter this country but the federal government considers that person a lawful resident, that I cannot employ that individual? What if I know the individual was formerly an illegal alien who was granted lawful residency through one way or another?
May 9, 2010, 6:03 pmscattergood says:
The basis for rejecting the AZ’s adoption of the law is ridiculous to say the least, and in fact points out the entire problem. As the author states: “most people rarely if ever encounter federal law enforcement officials except at the border, while the same can’t be said for state and local police.” Um, so what? This is an argument against the ENFORCEMENT of a law not the CONTENT of the law.
Let’s propose a hypothetical situation. Let’s say that MURDER was a federal crime but not illegal in AZ. Would AZ’s adoption of MURDER as a state crime be a terrible thing because “most people rarely if ever encounter federal law enforcement officials except at the border, while the same can’t be said for state and local police.” Of course not, it is beyond idiotic to state so.
Would the author have a problem stating that AZ will pay for the Fed’s to have enough staff and resources to enforce the Fed’s laws? If so, what is the functional difference?
May 9, 2010, 6:07 pmepluribus says:
Antimedia says:
Actually none at all, but I haven’t heard anybody but you suggest that we shouldn’t have any laws at all. Is that an original idea with you?
May 9, 2010, 6:26 pmAntimedia says:
You’ve mischaracterized point 1, namely, “in particular requiring individuals to provide identification documents to law enforcement or be arrested on suspicion of having entered the country illegally.” This the law does not do. One must first be suspected of breaking some other law (speeding, burglary, parking in a handicapped zone, etc.) Then one must present ID. Then, and only then, if the LEO suspects an immigration problem, they may pursue that angle if it’s reasonable to do so. There is no language in the law that requires an arrest if ID is not forthcoming. Furthermore, if a person is determined to be illegally in the US, they are not to be arrested but to be transported to federal custody. This speaks to your second point. There is no preemption of federal law in this law. Arizona law enforcement are directed to transfer suspected illegal aliens to the federal government for disposition.
Since, in every case, the state defers to the federal government to make final determination of an individual’s status, I don’t think the preemption issue would be s strong case either.
May 9, 2010, 6:45 pmepluribus says:
Dear Maureen. You are wrong. Do you live in Arizona? I do. Maybe that gives me an unfairness advantage over you. Of course I don’t know where you live. Oh, and your French is wrong too. I am masculine, not feminine.
May 9, 2010, 6:45 pmepluribus says:
Maureen:
Yawn. Yawn. Since I live here, I understand what’s actually happening in the state. The hysteria you describe is largely confined to the state legislature and the governor’s office. There is an election coming up soon, you know. Governor Brewer’s approval ratings jumped sharply after she signed the law. I have an idea she knew they would. Unfortunately, people outside the state might think there is some kind of chaos here. People who live here know otherwise. Unfortunately, many tourists will feel they should stay away. Professional athletes (many of whom are Hispanic) are upset by it. I wonder why? “Los Suns” have expressed their disapproval. There is talk that the Allstate Game may be moved out of Arizona. Conventions are in jeopardy. Since I live in Arizona, I know that much of the feeling here has been hyped for political purposes, and political purposes alone. Not all of it, no–but much of it. If, as you say, the problems caused by illegal aliens are so “clearly entwined” with Krentz’s murder, it will be interesting to learn who actually murdered the man. The sheirff of Cochoise County has been investigating the case for some time and still isn’t ready to announce any conclusions. It would, in my opinion, be supremely ironic if a murder thought to have been committed by an illegal immigrant, and that provoked a drastic state law aimed at illegal immigration, was not committed by an illegal immigrant at all. Stay tuned.
May 9, 2010, 7:23 pmElliot says:
I don’t think anyone thinks a single tactic will solve the entire problem. I’d suggest border control is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. I am unaware of any single tactical proposal that is sufficient to solve the problem.
May 9, 2010, 7:43 pmLeigh says:
On the issue of carrying your documents at all times, I’m a foreigner living in China, where you are required to have your passport and residence permit on you always. Meanwhile, I can’t remember the last time that I wasn’t traveling within China that I actually carried it. Popping down to the corner to get a sandwich? Walking over to the track to run a few miles? Biking to the grocery store to get toothpaste? I never have my actual passport on me (no drinking age, so buying wine without ID is no problem). Often the Chinese police will accept a photocopy as an initial proof of legal residence (you might be required to show up with the real thing later), because they understand that the risk of having your passport lost or stolen is too high, though I know I’ve run errands forgetting to bring even that. I have total sympathy for people who say they do not have their ID on them at all times in violation of the law, because neither do I.
May 9, 2010, 8:00 pmjmtasu says:
That argument would only work if you believed in complete and open borders. Which is a valid opinion, but one that I do not, and most Americans do not agree on.
Slavery is bad, so anything that ended even part of slavery is good. Unless you believe anything short of full liberty of movement between counties is bad, the argument just doesn’t work.
On the other aspect of your quote, we will just have to agree to disagree. Although I would be all for giving amnesty to illegal immigrants who have shown they have learned the language and made a certain amount of efforts to become part of the community – I don’t know what these would be off the top of my head… However if this was done, it would have to be done in conjunction with fixing the overall immigration system, allowing people trying to get in this country legally some of the same benefit.
If I were to steal money, only to do good with the money, I don’t believe I should not be punished. But if someone were to steal then do good, it would probably be fair to make his punishment less then the man who stole and did nothing… I guess really what we are talking about is the dichotomy of justice, punishment and forgiveness.
May 9, 2010, 8:08 pmjmtasu says:
Uhm, no I didn’t.
http://tiny.cc/0i797
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070&image.x=6&image.y=7
the main version has not been updated with adopted amendments, I have no clue the reason for this. probably because it is pretty standard in AZ to amend for 30 days after the bill is passed.
If I am wrong about this, I apologize, I don’t think I am, as I have heard multiple state congressman and senators say the same.
May 9, 2010, 8:31 pmDM says:
Hmm. I have trouble accepting Ilya’s first argument. Seems to be more of an argument against over-criminalization that abuse of police authority. Attack the root disease [the expansive welfare-police state] instead of trying to only treat the symptoms.
May 9, 2010, 8:34 pmChris Travers says:
If that’s all there is to it, why not simply leave it at ensuring that police are empowered to arrest and hand over to ICE? When I read the bill I saw nothing about the federal government determining status (for example in visa fraud areas I mentioned above.
May 9, 2010, 8:40 pmpoul says:
but you haven’t seen any statement to the contrary either. i think it’s safe to presume that arizona law enforcement authorities will be accepting out of state driver licenses, if not for other reason then out of fear of massive lawsuites – they know they’re under microscope and and army of lawyers is kicking earth and breathing steam out of eagerness to be first to sue.
May 10, 2010, 12:14 ampoul says:
not true. they have a relevant visa stamp in their passport.
generally, i am amazed at amount of bad information coming from opponents of the arizona law. it’s almost as if being misinformed is a predicate to opposing it. almost.
May 10, 2010, 12:21 amRicardo says:
Poul, the word “assume” has no place in a legal discussion. If it comes to the point that we have to make assumptions about how the law will be enforced, that’s a sign of a poorly drafted law. Moreover, you miss the fact that police departments will be subject to lawsuits if they don’t enforce the law: the law as written seems to be as unfair to the police as it is to non-Arizona residents.
To be clear, I don’t object to most of the law. What I object to is the apparent requirement (based on 3 separate versions of the law I have read, one of which is the same version that apparently wound up on the Governor’s desk) that American citizens prove their legal presence in the United States in spite of the lack of a uniform ID card that proves citizenship. I have a U.S. passport which is the only true proof of citizenship and legal presence that we have in the U.S. but not every American has one. Many people (especially those under the age of 25), don’t even have driver’s licenses or non-driving ID cards from their state DMV.
Those fancy laptops all Arizona cops supposedly have aren’t going to pull up the picture ID records of these people since no such records exist: what are the police to do under those circumstances then? If your statement above is right, it seems no matter what they do someone has standing to sue them.
May 10, 2010, 12:51 amRicardo says:
Memomachine, some of the items you cite are simply wrong based on my personal experience. I’m young and I get carded when buying alcohol maybe about a third of the time (I live in the Bay Area). As for opening a bank account, I know a professor who ran a project that involved opening up bank accounts for immigrants, some of whom were undoubtedly illegal. I’m sure they needed some form of ID but evidently not the kind of ID that proves legal presence in the U.S. It is actually a widespread misconception (both among Americans as well as illegal immigrants) that one needs to prove legal presence in the U.S. to open a bank account. It simply is not so under the law.
For phone service, you need a SS number, not a picture ID (at least last time I did it). And to change your address with the bank, you only need your mother’s maiden name, your online banking username and password, or some other such secret information. An ID is certainly not required as I have done this entirely online.
May 10, 2010, 1:01 ampoul says:
we have to make assumptions about how the laws will be interpreted. if there was no place for interpretation of the law, there would be no need in lawyers, and subsequently this blog would not exist.
if they are out of state, how did they end up in arizona without a picture ID? hitchhiked all the way from fremont, wa?
if they do live in arizona, it is highly unlikely that there is no record of them in a database accessible from police computer. possible, but highly unlikely.
so the “apparent requirement” for american citizens is reduced to only those out of state and living in a state that gives drivers license to anyone and violated some law serious enough to be reasonably stopped and providing a cop with reasonable suspicion (other than looking or sounding mexican) of being an illegal alien; or those living in arizona but somehow not showing up in any of numerous databases, and violated some law serious enough to be reasonably stopped and providing a cop with reasonable suspicion (other than looking or sounding mexican) of being an illegal alien.
this is quite miniscule subset of american citizens.
May 10, 2010, 1:55 amRicardo says:
We already know, in fact, that poorly drafted laws trip up police quite a bit and wind up with innocent people being arrested. Cops are not lawyers and do not have legal training. The Henry Louis Gates incident provides a perfect example: seemingly every lawyer familiar with Massachusetts state law agrees he did not violate the law yet that did not save him from being arrested and booked. And this was in a jurisdiction with relatively educated and well-trained police officers. I would think in a free country we should work harder to have fewer innocent people arrested or detained for extended periods of time, wouldn’t you agree?
Out-of-state college students, young people road-tripping with friends or family, children (even in-state unless Arizona has a picture ID for all ages), people who took Greyhound (they’re still in business, you know), etc. etc.
The very job description of a police officer is dealing with unusual situations. Suppose what I laid out applies only to 0.1% of all people in the state of Arizona at any one time. By the numbers, that still means there are going to be 100 such cases out of 100,000 Terry stops, or about one every three or four days. I think this is a conservative estimate. I’d like to know what happens in those situations that will inevitably come up.
The law doesn’t provide any obvious answer — that backs up my argument that the law is poorly drafted and the provisions dealing with verifying legal status during Terry stops should not be enforced until these apparently flaws are fixed and both police and members of the public are given clear guidance on what is or is not required of them.
May 10, 2010, 2:27 amRicardo says:
I’m going to hammer away at the fact that this law does not contain any apparent exception for children (again, based on the 3 versions of the law I have read online). Whenever a child goes missing, the police usually post a yearbook picture of the child or a family picture to help the public locate the missing child. Do Arizona police have access to a database containing yearbook photos from every school in the state? It’s possible but I doubt it. I know some counties in other states have a voluntary child registration process exactly to help police pull up information for missing children quickly. I’m not aware if this is mandatory or widespread in Arizona. Plus, it would defeat the purpose of such a database to exclude illegal immigrant children. Illegal immigrants from Mexico are some of the most common kidnap victims in Arizona.
And this is wrong. The law merely requires a Terry stop. Terry stops are based on “reasonable suspicion” and do not require any actual evidence of law breaking. Indeed, many Terry stops do not result in any arrest. The entire point of a Terry stop is to uncover evidence of lawbreaking. That evidence does not always exist because sometimes the person being stopped is not actually breaking any law.
May 10, 2010, 2:44 ampoul says:
agree, i should’ve worded it this way.
as for the rest – are you seriously suggesting that cops will start detaining children left and right, whether they are walking from school alone, or accompanied by adults whose immigration status is not in doubt? that sounds like PR nightmare the size of oil spill.
but if this starts happening, i will join your camp and demand clarification on the status of children in the law.
May 10, 2010, 3:31 amRicardo says:
Look, I’d like to think all police officers have excellent judgment and discretion but reality seems to have a way of reminding me otherwise. There was a case in D.C. where a 12-year-old girl was arrested on the D.C. metro for eating french fries in violation of the no-food policy — that arrest was ruled legal by the Supreme Court. In Texas, in another notorious case, a woman was arrested and booked for not wearing a seat belt as under Texas law, police have the discretion to arrest people for civil violations like traffic offenses. That was also upheld by the Supreme Court. When police are given considerable discretion to detain and arrest citizens some of them tend to use that discretion in ways most people would consider stupid.
My problem is that your entire argument rests on police always and everywhere acting in good faith and using good judgment. I would join your “camp” if I was convinced that Arizona police were a cut above their D.C. and Texas counterparts. I’m not convinced of that fact nor am I convinced that courts or PR nightmares will provide adequate redress for citizens who are harmed by this policy. Indeed, police now have a defense against anyone suing them for a prolonged detention based on this law: they are at risk of being sued if they did not detain an actual illegal immigrant.
May 10, 2010, 3:43 amRobbie says:
Since all of you Libertopians are so concerned about “racial profiling”, how many of you refused to fill out your census form? Did Mister Somin refuse to answer question #9, the racial profile question?
If you are “Asian”, the FedGov wants to know all about it. Which Asian country? If you are “Hispanic” (a non racial phony baloney classification)the FedGov is very interested and wants to know. Tell us all about your Latinoness!
If you’re “White”, you’re just white. They don’t give a rat’s arse about your roots. Screw you, Gabacho!
So how many of you Libertardians submitted to the FedGov edict that you racially profile yourselves?
May 10, 2010, 7:14 amlucia says:
Train? Bus? Parents, relative or friends drove them?
Wrong. You could be hispanic (question 8) and white (question 9); see the census form.
I was born in El Salvador. My grandmother was born in Cuba. My father grew up in Cuba. We are all white; Dad and I are of predominantly Irish extraction. My grandmother was about 1/2 anglo and 1/4 Spanish and 1/4 who knows? Quite a few other people being born and living in Latin America are of European extraction which most define as white. Some of these people immigrate to the US and get counted in the census.
May 10, 2010, 9:30 amJohn says:
I am confused as to why the Arizona law is a problem. If the police pull ANYONE over for a violation, the very first thing they do is ask for ID. If this is not a problem, then WHY does it suddenly become one when illegal immigrants might actually be detained because they are here illegally? And I am even less understanding of the claim that somehow the “fact” that most people violate the law every day, so its somehow a problem if the police actually enforce laws …
I will not say that I am totally unconcerned that the Arizona law might not lead to some problems and possible abuse, but I think critics are looking far to hard to find such a flaw at this point.
May 10, 2010, 10:52 amJohn says:
I checked the box for other, and filled in race as American.
May 10, 2010, 11:05 amCarolus says:
Ilya, I don’t know why you don’t propose the most obvious and easiest fix to all of this.
It is that Congress should pass a new statute that simply says this: We never intended or thought that our previous law would be implemented and/or enforced, and we hereby declare any requirement for any alien to prove anything null and void, and, by implication, declare illegal any state law that proposes to enforce the previous, now invalid, federal statute, because from now on anyone present in any state of the union must be presumed to be here legally.
So there. Problem fixed. Case closed. We are now a nation of anyone voting Present.
May 10, 2010, 12:03 pmSammy Finkelman says:
The problem with the law – the change – is that they are required to do so, regardless of whether the local chief of police or mayor or city council wants them to. Not every place is Phoenix and Phoenix may not like forever whqat is going on.
Of course the law pretends that if they notify ICE the aliens will actually be oicked up. Actually what federal law says is taht they can hold them up to 48 hours. In many places they have been held longer but somebody just won a lawsuit about that. If Arizona were serious, the law would say they should be delivered to the nearest ICE office and released there, but ir doesn’t.
May 10, 2010, 2:09 pmd-berg says:
So you think it is OK that we have speed limits that everybody violates and anybody can arbitrarily be pulled over for violating? And it only becomes a problem when immigration law is implicated? Is that the new libertarian approach: arbitrary and unjust laws are OK so long as they do not infringe with unlimited immigration?
May 10, 2010, 3:53 pmeuro_zone says:
Question: if the officer observes a traffic infraction, that’s sufficient for them to stop an operator, but since that doesn’t give them a license to engage in a fishing expedition (for example, they can’t just search a car on the belief that it contains contraband), short of observing in plain view a cache of falsified documents, how would the officer be able to point to the required reasonable suspicion of being undocumented, if the operator and passengers remain calm and comply with the officer? Wouldn’t the fourth amendment prevent them from going further based on a hunch that someone may be “illegal”? The absence of the ID doesn’t seem like it’s a good indicator because even citizens or out of state residents may not be able to provide the ID Arizona wants (per the statute state ID alone isn’t sufficient unless the state has tied its issuance to having to prove status).
Of course, if someone flees that would probably be enough, but that’s the easiest case.
Anyone know the answer?
May 10, 2010, 5:18 pmChem_geek says:
Yes, exactly. I thought following “dem furren laws” was a BAAAAAD thing.
May 10, 2010, 9:06 pmChem_geek says:
Your papers please!
Your papers are not in order, “Patrick.” Come with us.
May 10, 2010, 9:09 pmMaureen001 says:
No. You don’t know where I live. Nor should you. It is, as you’ve said, immaterial.
Ah. Now I understand. You’re part of the 30%.
May 11, 2010, 1:19 amMaureen001 says:
No. You don’t know where I live. Nor should you. It is, as you’ve said, immaterial.
50/50 gamble on the male/female thing. No assumption actually inferred from your posts.
Ah. Now I understand. You’re part of the 30%.
May 11, 2010, 1:20 amMaureen001 says:
You are fortunate to have a Sheriff who is prudent enough not to champion a conclusion ahead of the investigation.
If you were the only one I heard from Arizona speaking on this issue, I might believe your presentation of ‘facts’. The trouble is, the rest of your Arizonan neighbors have been speaking out as well, and they are painting a significantly different picture of the situation in your state. Not sure how it is that you can differ so drastically from your neighbors, except that you’re describing things in political terms and they are describing them in quality of life terms. You are not looking through the same spectacles; yours are rose-colored ones and theirs are through the glass ‘darkly’.
May 11, 2010, 1:33 amORID says:
I don’t understand your point, nor what provoked you to attack my intelligence; in fact your reply would support the evidence that the discussion/debate over this law is irrational. It is clear that simply re-writing the law to preclude racial profiling isn’t enough to dissuade folks from believing they will be racially profiled by enforcement of this law; so I added further evidence from case-law to demonstrated that no judge would even allow racial profiling.
I posted in response to this article because I was astonished a constitutional law professor would write this:
“How many people usually drive under the speed limit? In practice, therefore, police armed with the authority of the Arizona law can find justification for stopping and demanding papers of almost anyone whom they think might potentially be an illegal alien; certainly anyone going anywhere in a car driving above the speed limit.”
Even during a traffic stop, an officer would still need “reasonable suspicion” to believe one was in the country illegally. Breaking a traffic law shouldn’t provide any basis for suspicion of being in the country illegally. Mr. Somin is contributing to the irrationality of the discussion, in spite of the fact that he would be one trained on understanding the nuances of this law as it applies to the Constitution.
What no one has discussed in an article on this blog is “What is reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally”? Certainly I’ve seen the author of the law and perhaps legislators who support it believe that dress, driving in certain neighborhoods, etc. are factors to consider; but I don’t think any of that would stand up in court. As far as I concern some objective standards would include things like:
- Car documents are not in order (license, insurance, registration).
- A person or group of people out walking in the desert, at night, away from recreational areas or other places known as camping locations (behavior like a coyote)
Simply dressing/looking like a daylaborer or farmworker is not going to be enough. I think even supporters of this law are going to be surprised with how narrow it applies.
May 11, 2010, 6:53 amepluribus says:
Maureen:
Isn’t that what a sheriff is supposed to do? Isn’t that what the law requires that he do? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution apply in Arizona, just as it does in other states? What’s “fortunate” about that?
May 11, 2010, 8:42 amMauricio says:
I’m of the opinion that the rule of law is to be above opinions and that any law that can not be(or is not) enforced is detrimental to the rule of law.
I’m a legal immigrant and have carried my green card with me for many years, other than wear on the card itself, there has been no negative impacts of that regulation on myself.
While we do need more comprehensive immigrant and non-immigrant tracks for foreigners to work/live in the US, enforcing the laws on the books needs to be a prerequisite to modernizing/humanizing or whatever sentiment people would like to attach to immigration reform.
May 11, 2010, 4:24 pmJohn says:
If the Feds did their job at securing the border, Arizona wouldn’t have to take the immigration problem into their own hands.
May 18, 2010, 4:26 pmPablo says:
I was born in the USA. I don’t have a problem carrying a copy of my passport around with me in my wallet. Just make a photocopy of it. I can put a copy in the glove compartment too. What’s the big deal? If you don’t have a passport, then a copy of your birth certificate. In the unlikely event that I need to produce it, the copy will be readily available. We carry drivers licenses around with us everywhere we go, so what’s the big deal? If I am at the beach, I’ll just keep a copy in the car(arizona does have beaches). I am sure the police would allow me to go to my car to get the documentation. We are not going to be harassed folks. This law simply gives the police authority in extenuating circumstances during the course of a routine stop(traffic violation, etc). If I am speaking Russian and don’t have any ID, maybe I’d be a little worried.
May 19, 2010, 6:38 pmPablo says:
Here’s how NOT to get suspected of “reasonable suspicion”
1.) Call your friend “Dude” and not “Amigo”
2.) It’s pronuounced “SH-EVY” not “CHEV – EE ”
3.) Leave the lawnmower at home.
4.) When you go to a football game, make sure the ball is not round.
5.) When greeting a police officer, say “Hello Sir, how are you today”, rather than “Whazzzup”
The complete guide on “How get away with being an illegal alien in the USA” is available for only $19.99 at newsstands everywhere(except Nogales and El Paso).
May 19, 2010, 6:47 pm