Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Arizona "Papers, Please" Law May Hit Tech Workers

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the don't-know-jack-boots dept.

Businesses 1590

dcblogs writes "H-1B workers and foreign students may think twice about attending school or working in Arizona as a result of the state's new immigration law. If a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' about the immigration status of someone, the officer may ask to see proof of legal status. Federal immigration law requires all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, to carry documentation, but 'no state until Arizona has made it a crime to not have that paperwork on your person,' said immigration lawyer Sarah Hawk. It means that an H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal). The potential tech backlash over the law may have begun yesterday with a call by San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera 'to adopt and implement a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about the presumption of innocence? (4, Insightful)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006332)

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?

checks and balances, sue and cash in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008930)

you know how to defeat a bad law? Sue the bastards trying to enforce

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (3, Funny)

peterofoz (1038508) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008956)

Getting arrested or detained does not make you guilty. You'll still have your day in court or clear things up at the station.Think of it like a beefed up curfew law for minors.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009014)

They are stealing your time. I hope people can clog things up real good for this. Fight it every way you can. It's outrageous.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (4, Insightful)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009030)

Given that you'll probably serve 3+ months in jail waiting to find out that you are indeed innocent still feels like a 3+ month prison sentence no matter how you spin it.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009130)

Arizona is just enforcing fed law:

(d) Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this Act shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.

(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d).

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8289.html

If we are not going to enforce the laws, take them off the books.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009218)

I'm pretty sure for you to get into the country with a visa you need to be fingerprinted. Once you're fingerprinted your information is accessible when they run your fingerprints.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009224)

Yes, but minors aren't afforded full constitutional rights. There's a pretty long history of case law supporting this.

On the other hand, a law that allows police to detain "brown people" for not carrying papers is definitely unreasonable search and seizure (Catch 22: Police cannot determine who is illegal and who is not by pulling people off of the street, because natural-born citizens are not required to carry papers -- "obvious" indicators such as race or language don't provide probable cause, as the US already has a huge number of 2nd-generation immigrants, and no official national language).

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (1, Informative)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009006)

How is this a problem? By Law they are required to carry documentation with them, like a drivers license.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (2, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009136)

I'm a US citizen. I'm not required to carry papers.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009166)

How is this a problem? By Law they are required to carry documentation with them, like a drivers license.

In a video that I linked to elsewhere, a driver's license wasn't good enough. The police actually demanded the guy show him their birth certificate right there.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009204)

And that guy was stopped by the ICE (a federal department, not state) doing the job they always do. Funny how it's suddenly a problem. More sensationalism at work.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009210)

Because my swimsuit does not have pockets.

seriously there are plenty of context where it is unreasonable, esspecialy with how vulnerable it makes those papers to theft, accident and how burdensome they are to carry around.

and if a major disaster hits like a hurikane or something some paperwork might be lost. I only need to have my drivers licence on me if i am driving a car, if my friend is driving I don't need it, I don't need it at the beech or while bar crawling. This papers please attitude was one of the things most decried about the nazis back in the early 1940's.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009294)

This papers please attitude was one of the things most decried about the nazis back in the early 1940's.

O rly?

I thought it was the invasions, slaughter of entire villages, mass deportations, mass executions, mass graves, slave labor, horrific "medical" experimentation, industrialized death camps, and stuff like that.

I had no idea that people were mainly upset because they had to show identification papers.

How could I have been so misinformed?

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (3, Insightful)

blowdart (31458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009250)

Actually no. As an H1B myself we're supposed to carry the passport containing visa and the last entry we received when entering the country. I have a US drivers license, but that doesn't prove I'm here legally - after all my visa could have ran out. Now do I do it? No I don't, because the risk of being stopped and jailed is minimal compared to the risk of losing my passport, which is an even bigger mess. Even with a green card you're supposed to carry that around all the time, lose it and it's $290 to get another. And passport or green card loss leaves you ripe for identity theft.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009274)

How is this a problem? By Law they are required to carry documentation with them, like a drivers license.

Because it's so easy to demagogue.

Any problem here is with the federal government, as enforcing immigration laws and taking reasonable measures to protect the country's borders is properly their job. As they have utterly failed to do this job, and their utter failure is causing many problems for certain state governments, one of those states is now trying to do something about it rather than ignoring it and continuing to have these problems.

My bet is that the Feds aren't doing jack shit about this because both political parties benefit from the current situation. Republicans are allied with some corporate interests who view the illegal aliens as low-cost workers, while for Democrats, the joke is "they're not illegal aliens, they're unregistered Democrats." Both stand to lose those benefits if states start dealing with this. Both are powerful political and monied interests. That's why this has to be portrayed as negatively as possible with the most highly emotional rhetoric available. Certainly no critical analysis of this rhetoric will be allowed in the news, though it may appear in some editorial programs.

Right now most of the problem of illegal aliens is coming from Mexico; at least in Arizona this is the case. Thus, these laws will mostly be applied to Mexicans who are here illegally or are here legally but failed to produce the paperwork. None of the people enforcing this law caused Mexicans to come here illegally. They are merely recognizing that this is happening and acting accordingly. Yet because Mexicans are a racial/ethnic group, and because the media eats this kind of shit for breakfast, this measure is being called "racist". It's pure bullshit.

If we had many illegal immigrants from England, Spain, Mexico, and Canada, yet the immigration laws were only enforced against the illegal immigrants who are Mexican, that would be an instance of racism or ethnic discrimination. That isn't the case. Right now the problem is coming from Mexico and illegal immigrants from elsewhere are more like statistical error by comparison. Again, some percentage of Mexican citizens are responsible for that, not anyone who wrote or plans to enforce Arizona's new law. You'll practically never see such a common-sense recognition in the media.

Really, people who think this is some horrible extreme law should take a hard look sometime at Mexico's immigration laws, or those of most other countries for that matter. There's an almost 100% chance that none of the highly emotional people screaming bloody murder about this have done so.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009020)

The standards have never been that high for law enforcement.

When it comes to the police, they could always detain you regarding suspicion of a crime. "Proven innocent" is a standard used in the courtroom, that applies to an extent.

Just about everywhere else you are not to be presumed innocent by law enforcement.

You don't have to be proven guilty to be arrested, or to have your effects search.

There is a bar that needs to be met, reasonable suspicion (to question you), demand you identify yourself, and a higher standard: probable cause, if a warrant is required for a search.

And reasonable belief that a suspect committed a crime or is committing a crime, to arrest.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (5, Insightful)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009042)

I think you are misunderstanding that presumption. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anyone can accuse you of any crime at any time. Being temporarily detained or arrested until get a trial, is NOT a presumption of guilt. You have the presumption of innocence in court becuase it is the prosecuting party that assumes the burden of proof for their accusation.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009138)

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (4, Insightful)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009220)

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

You seem to have missed the point that not everyone with brown skin in Arizona is an alien, legal or otherwise. Or, to put it another way, if I took my aunt who was born in Germany (but is now an American citizen) to Arizona, they are probably not going to stop her and demand to see her papers to prove that she is here legally.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (3, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009262)

Technically yes, but those requirements usually aren't strictly enforced. I don't usually carry my passport on my person in foreign countries, because it greatly increases the risk of it being damaged/lost/stolen. Especially if you go to the beach; are you supposed to take it swimming with you, or leave it unprotected under a beach umbrella? I've never heard of tourists being arrested for that, either, at least in relatively sane western countries. If you get stopped for some reason and tell the policeman that your passport is back in the safe at your hotel, they'll either just take your word for it, or follow you back to your hotel to get it. They won't charge you with a criminal not-carrying-passport offense, because that would be stupid.

And in the U.S., permanent residents typically aren't hassled, at least until now. Officially a green-card holder needs to carry their green card with them, but in practice this has never really been enforced in an onerous way. My mom was a permanent resident for decades before eventually getting around to getting citizenship, and I don't think she was ever asked to show her green card outside of circumstances where it was clearly necessary, like upon reentry into the U.S., I-9 employment verification, or other such bureaucratic stuff. She certainly didn't carry it while jogging.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (5, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009168)

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?

As usual, the media has portrayed this bill according to whatever political slant the news outlets see fit. In reality, the Arizona bill is not much different than the federal law on illegal immigration (which obviously just isn't enforced). In particular, more than a few pundits are trying to portray this law as giving law officers the power to go door-to-door in search of illegal aliens to bust. In actuality, there is no such powers, and officers may only ask for papers if there is an altercation. In that case, since officers usually ask to see ID's of any involved persons during any dispute on the street, nobody should have a problem with the Arizona law unless they're trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Clearly, the reason this law is getting so much negative attention is because it makes the President look bad to have states enact laws to enforce federal laws that aren't being enforced.

There are more points to the issue, though. The residents of Arizona overwhelmingly support it because the fact is (although many want to ignore this), illegal immigration is a big problem, economically and socially. As much as people like to avoid talking about this, a huge chunk of crime (especially violent crime) is caused by Spanish-speakers, many of whom are here illegally. I don't blame them! Or at least, I can see the problem they're in. Illegal immigration is akin to slavery, pure and simple. Humans deserve better, which is why this problem needs to be fixed. If nothing else, at least the Arizona law has made it an issue the federal government now wants to address.

The simplest thing we can do to fix this problem is to make it easier to immigrate here legally. Talking about amnesty or anything regarding what to do about illegals who are already here is like bailing water without stopping to fix the hole. If it's easy to immigrate here, more of those who would be illegals become tax-paying, fairly-payed citizens. Then we can work to help illegal aliens who are already here find their way to the back of the line. The longer we wait, the longer this modern form of slavery is going to continue.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009278)

Yeah but this is H1B's we are talking about. They steal our jobs, lower our pay, make us look bad when we refuse to accept their shoddy work when really its about a lack of work ethic or ability to do the job on their part.

I'm surprised we have not sent them back home in the smallest chicken crate we can find, and based on the lack of technical expertise, willingness to assume accountability, and shoddy programming skills I have seen them *all* display - I have never seen a H1B programmer with the skills they claim to have - I'm very surprised they are even allowed in the country when we have so many Americans looking for work who cant get it because the there are so many H1B workers depressing the job market and and stealing good American jobs.

They are cheap for a reason people, wise up!

first! (-1, Offtopic)

plopez (54068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006336)

finally

I'm from Arizona (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32006348)

And I think at least a few dozen of us aren't completely bat shit insane... I think...

Re:I'm from Arizona (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009056)

Are you sure?

Quite reasonable (3, Insightful)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006352)

No worries, they would only would only stop people if they have "reasonable" suspicion. As long as you make sure you appear reasonably white you'll be fine.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-26-2010/law---border [thedailyshow.com]

Re:Quite reasonable (1, Informative)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006398)

Actually, first they have to have a reason to stop you (e.g. traffic violation).

Re:Quite reasonable (1)

[m1] (1392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008938)

Actually, first they have to have a reason to stop you (e.g. traffic violation).

such as DWB (driving-while-black, or in this case, driving-while-brown) ? :-)

Re:Quite reasonable (5, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008974)

That's not true, they can ask for your documentation in course of an "lawful encounter" (the actual language of the law), which is a novel standard and seems pretty ambiguous. If a cop breaks into your house without a warrant, then he can't ask for your passport. Any other situation appears to be fair game.

Re:Quite reasonable (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009024)

Just tell them, "I don't have papers, asshole. I'm an American citizen."

Re:Quite reasonable (1)

assemblyronin (1719578) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009054)

Then under the same law, you'll be arrested and charged with not having proper documentation of being a legal U.S. citizen. It sounds crazy, but it's true! (Note this isn't the same as detaining someone who just wants to give their true first/last name as specified in the "stop and identify" statute).

Re:Quite reasonable (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009176)

What documentation could I possibly carry that proves I'm a U.S. citizen?

SS card? Nope.
Driver's license? Nope.
State ID card? Nope.
Birth Certificate? Nope.
Naturalization documents? Nope.
Passport? Sure, but why would I carry it if I'm not crossing over the border?

Man, what's the matter with my country?

Re:Quite reasonable (1)

assemblyronin (1719578) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009254)

There are apparently some Federal guidelines that list what is acceptable proof, and they invoke these in the law. It's why supporters make the argument, "we're only doing what the Federal Government has mandated".

Re:Quite reasonable (1)

n2art2 (945661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009162)

But you see if you are a legal American citizen, then you would have papers. They appear in the form of, a Birth certificate, or a Driver's license, or a state issued ID, or a Visa or Passport.

So who's the hole now?

Re:Quite reasonable (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009248)

You do know that lawful resident aliens are required to carry their green cards at all times? RIGHT?? YOU KNEW THAT???

If you're driving and get pulled over, you have to provide a DRIVER'S LICENCE. You know this? RIGHT??

If a police office see you walking down the street, he has no "lawful encounter" just because you look like an illegal alien from ... say ... Pakistan. RIGHT?

I have a solution for this problem. We check the legal status of EVERYONE that has a "legal encounter" with a police officer. WHITE, BLACK, HISPANIC, or OTHER*

It is funny listening to some of the people complaining, because they make stupid comments like "We can't profile Hispanics, just because most of the undocumented /illegal aliens are Hispanic". Uh, you just did asshole.

Re:Quite reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009044)

Actually, no they don't. They have to "interact" with you. According to at least the Tucson Chief of Police this includes more than just if they have to "stop you", it is literally any interaction. A cop could be interviewing you as a witness, taking a report of a crime, or buying a donut. They do not need to suspect a crime before they can consider whether you may be "illegal".

If I wasn't white, and especially if I had an accent, there is no way in hell you would get me to Arizona.

Re:Quite reasonable (2, Interesting)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009128)

Actually, first they have to have a reason to stop you (e.g. traffic violation).

Such as being brown-skinned. Such as with this guy [youtube.com] who was arrested and had to get his wife to bring his birth certificate to the police station. He had a commercial driver's license and everything, but the police still demanded to see his birth certificate right then and there.

Wrong - Mod Parent Down (5, Insightful)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009158)

In the past this was true, but this law exists specifically to remove that stipulation. Please read the legislation [azleg.gov] . You may be stopped "upon reasonable suspicion that an entity is not legally allowed to live within the country".

Perhaps you're confusing this with with the evidence criteria provision. The law says that race may be a factor, but it may not only be an only factor. Of course this is laughable -- people will be stopped for race, and cops will find (or create) additional evidence after-the-fact.

It's telling that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police [azstarnet.com] opposes this law, as they believe it will erode trust with immigrants and distract police from more serious threats.

Re:Quite reasonable (0, Offtopic)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008922)

And today we see the tendency for people with mod points to not understand sarcasm. And apparently also an inability to look at links given or even the beginning of the URL. I'd mod you up as a funny or maybe even insightful if I had mod points but I don't have any more. Sigh.

Bienvenidos a libertad (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006360)

En libertad, como los pajarillos.
En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?

Re:Bienvenidos a libertad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32008970)

En libertad, como los pajarillos.
En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?

I believe this is the reason that Arizona has gone Nazi on illegal immigrants. Now New Mexico on the other hand has a state constitution that embraces the bi-lingual hispanic community. Maybe you should just move there.

Re:Bienvenidos a libertad (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009198)

En libertad, como los pajarillos.
En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?

I believe this is the reason that Arizona has gone Nazi on illegal immigrants. Now New Mexico on the other hand has a state constitution that embraces the bi-lingual hispanic community. Maybe you should just move there.

Arizona's new law largely mirrors existing federal law. The only people "going Nazi" are the hordes of activists that are violating Godwin's Law faster than the illegals that are actually crossing the border.

Re:Bienvenidos a libertad (2, Informative)

kenj0418 (230916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009068)

En libertad, como los pajarillos.
En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?

You sound suspicious -- Show me your papers.

I'm sick of the h1bs Fsck em (1)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006364)

You don't like being stopped in the US perhaps you should go back where u came from. Most shortages of IT workers are fabricated anyway by Corps. Shortage my ass. During a depression no less.

All your rights are belong to us! (-1, Flamebait)

strayant (789108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006396)

Immigration (the concept, not the people) and thinking it's possible to fence the US is a load of crap. How about we stop trying to demonize absolutely everything and stop spending too much of my tax dollars on policing such moronic ideals? Can we at least focus on the simple problems of life first, like health, education, employment, and shelter? Apparently not if we want to keep a select few in filthy wealth.

Re:All your rights are belong to us! (0, Flamebait)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009008)

Immigration (the concept, not the people) and thinking it's possible to fence the US is a load of crap. How about we stop trying to demonize absolutely everything and stop spending too much of my tax dollars on policing such moronic ideals? Can we at least focus on the simple problems of life first, like health, education, employment, and shelter? Apparently not if we want to keep a select few in filthy wealth.

Someone making a reasonable statement being modded down as troll because just someone else with mod points disagrees with what they said is becoming all too common on Slashdot. I'm about ready to take my karma and go home.

Haben wir allen vergessen? (1, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008946)

Wie sagt man, ihre papiere bitte!

Coming to a municipality near you. Welcome to 2010. Age of the guilty until proven innocent, malicious until proven benign, privatized profits, socialized losses. And more ridiculous, pointless, noneducational, and downright fucktarded news stories perpetuating the mass media every day. Hatemongering, blatant flaming with red this blue that labels, and social backtracking. Man I can't wait for the future! What wonderful things will the world bring us next!

Re:Haben wir allen vergessen? (2, Insightful)

n2art2 (945661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009226)

stop this non-sense of saying this has anything to do with guilt or innocence. That's for the courts to decide, and a prosecutor to prove, but it has nothing to do with the Police and their ability to detain, question, or stop you.

If you don't like it move to Canada.

Re:Haben wir allen vergessen? (0, Troll)

tarius8105 (683929) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009296)

You do realize that whenever you are pulled over by a police officer that when he requests your license, registration, and proof of insurance...aka your documentation, if you do not provide it you can go to jail? All this is doing is making sure that they are here legally. It is not about hatemongering its about the safety of the people who are here by legal means and pay taxes, which illegal immigrants do not. When you have illegal immigrants there is a higher cost of living in the area, higher rater of crime.

Re:Haben wir allen vergessen? (3, Insightful)

BudAaron (1231468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009300)

It's about f...ing time My wife spent 5 years learning English and social studies in order to become an American citizen. It makes me crazy listening to the bleeding hearts complain about the horrible treatment being afforded people in this country ILLEGALLY!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break already!!!

Uh... contradictory? (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008954)

Federal immigration law requires that all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, to carry documentation, but 'no state until Arizona has made it a crime to not have that paperwork on your person,'

So it already was a crime.

The real news is a state is now making an effort to enforce the law, since the executive branch of the federal government has quite clearly failed to fulfill their constitutional duties on the matter, in regards to enforcing the US borders.

Re:Uh... contradictory? (1, Insightful)

tjones (1282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008998)

Why let facts get in the way of a sensationalist headline?

Re:Uh... contradictory? (2, Interesting)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009016)

Moreover... they can't just ask you for no reason, there has to be reasonable suspicion, and on top of that, it's already written into the bill that they must obey existing law: skin color, race, or country of origin is NOT acceptable for reason of suspicion.

The reaction to this bill is WAY overblown; it's pretty ridiculous... as pointed out, it's not even a new law regarding immigration, it's a new law to simply encourage enforcement.

I know some of you want us to just take everybody that strolls in, but right now there's a legal process to do it.

On top of all that, they won't even necessarily arrest you... if you give them your information they can look you up.

Re:Uh... contradictory? (0, Troll)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009082)

Seems the illegals have mod points tonight.

Re:Uh... contradictory? (5, Insightful)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009134)

While your point is valid...I think the bigger issue with enforcment is how it effects the citezenry. Warning (here comes a hypothetical): What if you are a citizen but speak accented english, or you prefer to speak another language. A cop suspects you are an immigrant and demands immigration papers. Does the cop detain you at that point? Do you need to carry papers to prove citizenship on demand? Does this lead to frequent detention? It just seems unreasonable and ambigous to enforce something like this without encroaching the rights of citizens.

Re:Uh... contradictory? (3, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009146)

They need a new law to enforce the law that is already a law? That don't make no sense.

Just to piss you people off, we should open the borders. If goods and capital can move freely, why shouldn't cheap labor? The world is flat, get used to it.

Re:Uh... contradictory? (4, Informative)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009152)

Final version of the law [azleg.gov] . There is a lot of misconceptions and wild rumors circulating about this legislation. This article [espressopundit.com] points out a few of them.

This is a non story. (2, Insightful)

MacOSXHead (201757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008990)

People should read the law first. They should not turn someone's hit seeking web article into anything important. Arizona resident's have very legitimate concern about the criminal activities of organized crime in Mexico.

This is not a new story: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1

If you do not like the law, change it... do not disobey it.

I do not think that Indian, Russian, Chinese, etc engineers are really at risk of having their civil rights violated.

US Citizens too (5, Informative)

ndogg (158021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008994)

Re:US Citizens too (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009078)

That's the DHS's new regulations in play (not sure why it's not getting more press.) You might as well not head to Mexico on a weekend whim anymore, based on all the new "rules" that are in effect. While this particular DHS shit is silly, I don't equate it with Arizona's new law.

Re:US Citizens too (0, Redundant)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009112)

HOLY SHIT

HOOOOLLLYYYY SHIT

does the 4th amendment apply? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009032)

I know the 4th amendment applies to US citizens, but does it apply to foreigners?

And how do you tell americans from foreigners?

Cause it's not against the law to not carry ID if say, your a mexian born american, but the cops won't know where your born at.

And considering "profiling" is illegal from what i understand, how can they actually enforce this law?

I don't live in AZ, but I'm not going to carry my ID around much anymore just in protest of stupid ass laws like this.

Re:does the 4th amendment apply? (1)

rautell (531390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009064)

I'm not a lawyer, but nowhere in the 4th amendement does it say that it only applies to citizens. It just says "The right of the people"

Re:does the 4th amendment apply? (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009098)

not carrying an ID is a great way to avoid jaywalking tickets. They can't really do much to you if you don't carry and ID or refuse to show it when asked. If you are operating a motor vehicle and refuse to show ID they can tow your car and fine you a bunch though.

on the other hand if you're jaywalking a lot it might be worthwhile to keep an ID on you so they can identify your body more easily.

Standard for Foreign Travel (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009034)

When you are visiting a foreign country, you always need to have some paperwork showing you status. That applies to every country that I've visited except, perhaps Canada. While in Canada, I don't really feel like I'm in a foreign country, so perhaps it is because there isn't a language barrier that I feel comfortable. I dunno.

In all the other countries (Europe, Japan, China, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico), I've been told to carry my passport with the VISA inside. Usually, I leave the passport in the apartment or hotel safe and carry a photocopy of it and the VISA I'm traveling under. In most of those countries, my appearance and dress target me as a foreigner, so it is very easy to pick me out.

Ok, so you are a non-permanent resident in the USA. Why wouldn't you carry "your papers with you?" Seriously?

Re:Standard for Foreign Travel (1)

hpa (7948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009102)

The bigger issue is U.S. citizens, being detained for being suspect of being foreign.

Re:Standard for Foreign Travel (1)

rautell (531390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009132)

And I'm a US Citizen born, but not born in the US and I speak with an accent. If I were to go to Arizona I would have to bring my passport everywhere. Oh and so would my wife who was born here, is a citizen, but is asian.

Re:Standard for Foreign Travel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009236)

How often are you in situations that warrant the attention of law enforcement? Did you know that police cars come with computers that can look you up on the DMV?

grand experiemnt (5, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009036)

Arizona is embarking on a grand experiment, and as a free state it should be allowed to so do. We have heard the hypothesis that undocumented persons cause so much social and financial harm that any measure to thwart such persons from entering the state. Some would go as far as saying that even documented foreigners should be extremely limited as they take our jobs.

I fully support Arizona in this experiment. I suspect the reason they have done this is because, unlike other border states like Texas and New Mexico( all three of which showed incredible job growth pre-2009), Arizona now has the county with the highest percentage job loss in the country. I am sure scaring foreign visitors to Texas and New Mexico, instead of Arizona, to shop at the stores, pay sales tax, eat at the restaurants, and even take helicopter rides from the airport to our shopping malls, will help their economy greatly. The kids may even go to university and settle down to engineering jobs that pay huge amounts of payroll and income tax. So far, at least in Texas, it has worked well.

But that is fine. If Arizona thinks that foreign money has negative value due to documentation or the blight of having people looking for work instead of playing video games or skin color(arizona is the only of the three states that is majority white non-hispanic) or whatever, so be it. We will see if they can achieve economic growth in an isolationist environment. Given that they have one of the highest federal support rate in the country, I doubt it.

4th Amendment Violation (4, Insightful)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009048)

This law so clearly violates the fourth amendment that it will never hold up when the inevitable challenge comes in the courts. Some have predicted it will go all the way to the SCOTUS but I don't see it getting nearly so far.

Re:4th Amendment Violation (2, Insightful)

krk28 (1799308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009188)

don't be so sure. maybe you wish unsubstantiated statements like "clearly violates the fourth amendment" were the case, but there are just not. the 4th plainly and clearly protects us from "unreasonable" searches and seizures...as in one should feel protected from such governmental action in one's home or another place where one reasonably expects one's privacy. places like your car, the public street, or a police station interrogation room are not such places. the Constitution is not a series of court cases btw.

Re:4th Amendment Violation (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009244)

This law so clearly violates the fourth amendment that it will never hold up when the inevitable challenge comes in the courts. Some have predicted it will go all the way to the SCOTUS but I don't see it getting nearly so far.

Good luck with that. This law largely mirrors existing federal law, which has been tested and found constitutional. The only hope you have of overturning it is, ironically, with a variation of the 10th Amendment; the argument that in this case, a state is usurping a federal role, not the other way around. The chances of this being tossed on 4th amendment grounds are nil.

So what? (3, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009058)

When I visit Canada, China, etc. If I don't have my passport with me, and an official requires it of me I could be detained and eventually handed off to my government to get new papers or explain to them where my papers are located.

Re:So what? (1)

rautell (531390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009074)

Yeah, let's be more like China.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009286)

He also said Canada. Why ignore that one? Doesn't fit your leftist agenda?

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009288)

Yeah, let's be more like China.

Or those repressive Canadians either. Or Germany. Or the UK. Or France, or.... I think you get it. The vast majority of countries require visitors to the their country to have documentation with them.

Now, I've never thought "because others do it" is always a good reason for the US to adopt a policy. But in this case, this is just plain common sense.

I'mma boycotting the boycott. (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009060)

Not because the law is good or anything like that, I just don't like that sort of an approach here. It's not like the businesses of Arizona are the ones passing the laws. I don't think there's enough blame to justify it.

(On the other hand, I don't have anything I really need from Arizona).

Re:I'mma boycotting the boycott. (1)

tjones (1282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009192)

I think you'd be surprised what business goes on in Arizona.

Let's just say if you've got the latest intel processor, or an iPod, or if your company just bought a shiny new Sun box (I know, not as likely as last year), there's a good chance it or parts for it were built, programmed, or integrated in a Phoenix suburb.

Oh yes, and a former San Francisco icon had decided to move it's headquarters to that same suburb a few years ago. Don't know how far along that ever got. I'll give you a hint, stagecoach.

Re:I'mma boycotting the boycott. (1)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009280)

Pretty sure the businesses of Arizona support the politicians who enacted this law.

Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009076)

Kudos Arizona. There is a reason why they are called ILLEGAL immigrants. It doesn't matter whether they are Mexican, Chinese, German, British, Canadian, Russian, Japanese, whatever...if they are here illegally, they need to go through the proper process for gaining their citizenship or LEAVE. PERIOD.

Re:Yay! (3, Informative)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009230)

Agreed. Arizona is just looking out for their own good. The amount of drugs and violence brought over by illegals is astounding. It has nothing to do with race/ethnicity/etc, it's just defending communities.

Stop over reacting. (1, Troll)

DragonDru (984185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009094)

It is going to be tied up in the courts for years. Even if it passes every legal challenge, it doesn't change much really. Officers or the courts will check with the government databases before people are penalised, so forgetting one's papers when they run to the 7-11 won't affect much.

Depending on location (it is not legal everywhere), citizens need to produce I.D. when asked by an officer.

As for individuals being harassed by the cops, the cops can do that currently.

Also, AZ (and the rest of the US) have people from all over. People who try to blend in will be fine and will blend in. Those that try to stand out will get harassed, just like always.

Re:Stop over reacting. (0, Troll)

krk28 (1799308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009268)

All true statements (expect the tied up for years part). Also try being suspicious or modestly disorderly in a nyc street or subway without identification....you stand a good chance of getting a vagrancy charge or a disorderly conduct charge if they feel like it. and yes, you will sit in jail alot longer than otherwise until you can be identified and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't see the problem. (4, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009116)

And I live in a pretty laid-back country, too (Finland). Arizona is just trying to enforce the existing law. That is not a tragedy. It's a tragedy if it's done inconsistently.

Re:I don't see the problem. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009228)

Kudos to Arizona. This law has always been here and it just hasn't been enforced. It has nothing to do with race either. I don't care if you're Mexican, Chinese, Canadian, German, British, Japanese, Russian, whatever...if you're here illegally then you need to go through the proper processes for becoming a citizen or LEAVE. Period. Our government should stop fearing its NON-citizens and enforce this!

Fake outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009118)

Haven't left the house without documentation in 20 years. Was born in white bread Michigan; could not be more 'citizen'. This is ginned up outrage; an opportunity to mug for the cameras and demand the nobility of victimhood.

Federal immigration law requires that all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, carry documentation
Federal immigration law requires that all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, carry documentation
Federal immigration law requires that all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, carry documentation

Just leave off the 'but'. Not difficult to understand.

Re:Fake outrage (1)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009276)

The sad fact is that the "but" after that phrase is a necessary evil. The federal government has been unbelievably lax in regards to immigration law. If the feds would enforce their own laws this whole thing would be unneeded.

No one cares (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009120)

I live in San Francisco, and trust me, no one listens to the city council.....

Federal law already requires documentation (4, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009124)

I'm not sure why everyone's panties are getting bunched up. As the header states, Federal law already requires you to carry your visa around with you. People on H1B, tourist, and educational visas shouldn't have problems.

The issue will really hit illegals and US citizens. Citizens generally don't carry documentation around with them. Illegals generally have no documentation, or fake documentation. There's really no way to tell a non-english speaking citizen from a non-english speaking illegal. What'll probably happen is something like this:

Police: are you a US citizen?
Potential perp: si
Police: well then.

In general, the police have better things to do than walk around randomly asking people for their papers. The law really just allows them to export illegal immigrant criminals to other jurisdictions, saving the state of AZ money.

Re:Federal law already requires documentation (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009190)

Not speaking English is a large tip off that they aren't a citizen. There just aren't that many legit non-english speaking immigrants. Theoretically a drivers license *could* be a simple, common means of identification but that will require cracking down on only giving drivers licenses to legals.

couldnt resist sneaking in a 7-11 in there, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009202)

couldn't you?

shows where you stand.

As someone living in SF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009212)

The potential tech backlash over the law may have begun yesterday with a call by San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera 'to adopt and implement a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses

That really has fuck all to do with a possible tech backlash, and everything to do with a.) San Francisco politicians for the most part being absolute imbeciles, near the level of a freak show b.) San Francisco being full of illegal immigrants, and therefore politicians are of course going to make a completely symbolic stand. I'm sure people in AZ are devastated by the potential loss of those tens of dollars of City of SF purchases.

To put it another way, CA is probably the most desirable state to live in, and gets away with arguably the worst taxes in the country, and it's on the verge of bankruptcy while having an immense illegal immigrant population. I live in the Mission and they've been doing construction that absolutely boggles the mind -- tens of millions of dollars to dig up perfectly good sidewalks and put them back almost exactly as they were. Meanwhile, half a block from one area of this construction (16th and Valencia) is a large homeless and crack addict population roaming the streets that apparently are not as important as having ever so slightly wider, more oppressive expanses of gray concrete.

Would you trust the opinion of these politicians about what makes sense? Do you think tech companies are really that incompetent to follow in their stead? CA and specifically SF politicians get away with being idiots because of the extra money they get from being in an otherwise highly desirable location. If a tech company was run by them, it wouldn't last six months.

Japan does this already. (4, Interesting)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009222)

Japan does this already; people are required to carry their foreigner ID cards or passports while they're in the country. Failure to be able to present them can lead to a visit to the police station or jail. Some areas have lots of people who report being checked for absolutely no apparent reason at all; foreigners in other areas have never experienced this.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me. For me, having my wallet or ID with me when I go out is just common sense... not some kind of panty-twisting injustice that I have to carry like a ball-and-chain. It's just common sense.

So I don't see what the big deal is. Now, on the other hand, if people are just stopped randomly on the basis of their appearance and not because of anything in particular they were doing, then yes, that would bother me. That bothers me in Japan, too. But having to carry an ID? Not a big deal -- you should be doing it already.

so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009256)

so what is the big deal? I have to carry my driver's license and insurance every time I drive, and my passport whenever I am in another country? so what if you have to carry documentation to prove you are legal? everyone else has to!

It's for your own safety, Ma'am. (5, Insightful)

eloquent_loser (542470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009260)

I find it strange that the article doesn't discuss the implications for normal U.S citizens, i.e how do you prove you are *not* a H-1B worker? You can't tell a citizen from a non-citizen if neither of them are carrying anything. Obviously no-one who merely arouses the suspicion of police wants to be detained, therefore this constitutes a defacto requirement for every citizen to carry papers.

I am happy with the new law (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009284)

If you are legit you don't have anything to worry about. I don't see what the big fuss is about. I hope this helps the economy. Clearly if someone is illegal they are hurting the economy and not helping it.

I have no problem with this whatsoever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32009290)

its about time I say. If your not illegal you have nothing to worry about. If the first thing you did was break the law by coming here.. oh well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?