Let Me See Your Papers

[mactastic]

Arizona appears on the verge of instituting "the toughest anti-illegal immigrant legislation in a generation", giving police the power to stop and demand identification of anyone who they have a "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant. If the person stopped cannot produce their papers, they can be arrested.

The toughest anti-illegal-immigrant measure in a generation passed the Arizona legislature this week. If signed, as expected, by Republican governor Jan Brewer, the law will give local police sweeping new powers in regard to undocumented workers. Currently, immigration offenses are violations of federal, not state, law, and local police officers only can inquire about a person's immigration status if that person is suspected of another crime. Under SB1070, however, Arizona police will have the right to stop anyone on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be an illegal immigrant and can arrest them if they are not carrying a valid driver's license or identity papers.

A couple of thoughts:

It'll be interesting to see how the high court eventually rules on this, particularly in light of Chief Justice Roberts' comments in the decision today about the "crush videos", wherein he ridicules the notion that the government can be trusted to use an overly broad power wisely.

Much as I find this to be a gross overreaction, and an unconstitutional use of police powers; I can't help but be amused because I think this will be a net loss for the conservative movement. Even Karl Rove understood the necessity of making inroads with Latinos, the fastest growing voter demographic, and the future of US politics. Without Latino support, it will become increasingly difficult to win elections. The more conservatives antagonize the Latino community, the worse their electoral chances become.

It also exposes the rank hypocrisy of the teabaggers who claim to be against bigger government and government intrusion into our lives. If the law gave police the power to stop and demand papers from anyone suspected of illegally carrying a firearm, they'd be burning up the interwebs with their red-hot anger. But because it'll only affect brown people, they don't seem to care much. Which is fine with me. Immigration is a great wedge issue for the Democrats to use nationally. The GOP cannot resist putting people like Tom Tancredo front and center for immigration debates, and the more people like that represent the GOP position on immigration, the faster the party sinks into electoral irrelevance outside the South.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by mactastic

Without Latino support, it will become increasingly difficult to win elections. The more conservatives antagonize the Latino community, the worse their electoral chances become.

I'm curious: would the "Latinos" (horrible term) who have settled (and are eligible to vote) not think themselves apart from the "undocumented", a distinction common with most immigrant communities? And if so, will it actually have a negative impact of itself on their votes for those supporting such measures?

[184550]

Originally Posted by mactastic

Arizona appears on the verge of instituting "the toughest anti-illegal immigrant legislation in a generation", giving police the power to stop and demand identification of anyone who they have a "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant. If the person stopped cannot produce their papers, they can be arrested.



A couple of thoughts:

It'll be interesting to see how the high court eventually rules on this, particularly in light of Chief Justice Roberts' comments in the decision today about the "crush videos", wherein he ridicules the notion that the government can be trusted to use an overly broad power wisely.

Much as I find this to be a gross overreaction, and an unconstitutional use of police powers; I can't help but be amused because I think this will be a net loss for the conservative movement. Even Karl Rove understood the necessity of making inroads with Latinos, the fastest growing voter demographic, and the future of US politics. Without Latino support, it will become increasingly difficult to win elections. The more conservatives antagonize the Latino community, the worse their electoral chances become.

It also exposes the rank hypocrisy of the teabaggers who claim to be against bigger government and government intrusion into our lives. If the law gave police the power to stop and demand papers from anyone suspected of illegally carrying a firearm, they'd be burning up the interwebs with their red-hot anger. But because it'll only affect brown people, they don't seem to care much. Which is fine with me. Immigration is a great wedge issue for the Democrats to use nationally. The GOP cannot resist putting people like Tom Tancredo front and center for immigration debates, and the more people like that represent the GOP position on immigration, the faster the party sinks into electoral irrelevance outside the South.

I fully support any law that gives authorities at the state and local level more power with regards to arresting and deporting illegal aliens.

However, as I doubt this bill/ law is perfect, I hope that Arizona implements this bill and that it facilitates a nation wide discussion that can hopefully put more power in the hands of local and state officials.

[184550]

Originally Posted by skunk

I'm curious: would the "Latinos" (horrible term) who have settled (and are eligible to vote) not think themselves apart from the "undocumented", a distinction common with most immigrant communities? And if so, will it actually have a negative impact of itself on their votes for those supporting such measures?

What's wrong with this term?

I use to volunteer at an outreach center that targeted Latinos in high school and they used the term on all their stationary, signage, phone book listing etc...

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by skunk

I'm curious: would the "Latinos" (horrible term) who have settled (and are eligible to vote) not think themselves apart from the "undocumented", a distinction common with most immigrant communities? And if so, will it actually have a negative impact of itself on their votes for those supporting such measures?

Typically what we have seen in modern history in this country, and particularly here in California, is that when politicians attack illegal immigrants, the legal immigrants take it personally as well because of the offensive tactics employed by supporters of anti-immigrant legislation. Prop. 187 denying illegal immigrants access to public services here in CA back in the early 90's destroyed the GOPs chances with Latino voters for a generation. This despite the fact that the law was declared unconstitutional only a few years later, so conservatives lost both the law AND Latino votes.

Legal and illegal immigrants feel threatened by anti-immigrant groups, whose agendas they view as thinly-veiled racism -- and who can blame them, considering the rhetoric often employed. Conservatives seem unable to help themselves when it comes to anti-immigrant rhetoric. Mexican immigrants are often portrayed as lazy and prone to crime, the legal ones having children to get those juicy welfare checks, and the illegal ones to have an anchor baby.

This Arizona law will likely be seen as a general assault on Latinos as well, as it is inevitable that law-abiding Americans of Latino heritage will be stopped and harassed for "driving while brown".

[TheAnswer]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

What's wrong with this term?

I use to volunteer at an outreach center that targeted Lations in high school and they used the term on all their stationary, signage, phone book listing etc...

Latino, strictly speaking, includes everyone who is a native speaker of a romance language (based off Latin). Technically, this means French and Italian speakers are also Latinos.

Hispanic, on the other hand, means of spanish blood. So anyone who can actually trace back to the spaniard in there family could use this term.

The problem is that Latino is too broad, but many in Central and South America are either wholly or majority indigenous and, therefore, don't identify with the term Hispanic.

[yg17]

Originally Posted by skunk

I'm curious: would the "Latinos" (horrible term) who have settled (and are eligible to vote) not think themselves apart from the "undocumented", a distinction common with most immigrant communities? And if so, will it actually have a negative impact of itself on their votes for those supporting such measures?

Legislation like this negatively impacts the legal immigrants. They'll be targeting anyone with dark skin or Hispanic sounding names. So legal immigrants will constantly be asked to show identity papers just because of their skin color and name.

This reeks of a certain European country in the 1930s.

[184550]

Originally Posted by yg17

This reeks of a certain European country in the 1930s.

Hardly.

I wouldn't be concerned until we start taking them to ghettos, concentration camps and executing them en masse.

[mactastic]

Christ... Godwin'd by the 7th post. That didn't take long.

[184550]

Originally Posted by TheAnswer

Latino, strictly speaking, includes everyone who is a native speaker of a romance language (based off Latin). Technically, this means French and Italian speakers are also Latinos.

Hispanic, on the other hand, means of spanish blood. So anyone who can actually trace back to the spaniard in there family could use this term.

The problem is that Latino is too broad, but many in Central and South America are either wholly or majority indigenous and, therefore, don't identify with the term Hispanic.

Very well.

I still don't understand why Latino is a 'horrible' term.

EDIT:

I suppose another reason for it's usage, in the US atleast, could be that one is far more likely to encounter an immigrant or person from Mexico, Latin or South Americe, than an immigrant or person from France or Italy.

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

Very well.

I still don't understand why Latino is a 'horrible' term.

It sure beats the hell out of what 'Rat calls them...

[it5five]

This is at the same time that we have a new law allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

All I can say is that I'm really glad I'm finally getting out of this state. I have a feeling the next few years are going to be really bad for Arizona if the Republicans keep getting elected to the state legislature in such overwhelming numbers. There are also rumors that Arpaio is going to run for governor; an absolutely terrifying prospect.

Meanwhile, the former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, who is under investigation for abusing his position and engaging in unethical behavior (both him and Arpaio brought charges against county officials who criticized them) is running for the Arizona Attorney General office.

I should also note that the US Department of Justice is currently investigating Joe Arpaio for civil rights violations and unfairly targeting Hispanics. His buddy Russell Pierce was the main proponent behind this anti-immigrant bill that mactastic posted about. If you think the purpose of this bill is anything other than the intimidation of non-whites of Arizona, you're deluded.

[mkrishnan]

Originally Posted by skunk

I'm curious: would the "Latinos" (horrible term) who have settled (and are eligible to vote) not think themselves apart from the "undocumented", a distinction common with most immigrant communities? And if so, will it actually have a negative impact of itself on their votes for those supporting such measures?

The problem is that the law doesn't discriminate between the two. There's a huge jurisprudence issue here -- Americans are not generally required to carry identity papers inside the country. There are plenty of times when I am out and about and don't have a drivers' license or other valid state/fed-issued ID on me. Outside of when I'm in a bar, driving a car, or other limited situations, I'm not required to have these things on my person. But I can be stopped, and apparently, arrested even though I'm not in violation of US immigration law. So can you, were this law enacted and were you to visit Arizona legally.

Similarly, this law has the potential to result in a large number of nuisance arrests of legal / documented non-citizens whose behavior would be in compliance with law anywhere else in the Union.

[Lord Blackadder]

I also am inclined to think that the immigrant community in the area will take a very dim view of this legislation.

[splitpea]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

I wouldn't be concerned until we start taking them to ghettos, concentration camps and executing them en masse.

You realize it didn't start with the ghettos and concentration camps...

[abijnk]

Originally Posted by splitpea

You realize it didn't start with the ghettos and concentration camps...

No, it didn't, and this is shockingly close to our very own yellow Star of David.

[184550]

Originally Posted by abijnk

No, it didn't, and this is shockingly close to our very own yellow Star of David.

Yes, I'm sure the citizens in the countries mentioned here are very close to being moved in to ghettos, concentration camps and then killed. Funny they don't seem know it or aren't making that big a deal about their imminent demise.

[184550]

Originally Posted by splitpea

You realize it didn't start with the ghettos and concentration camps...

Where did I mention the word or concept of 'start'?

Requiring someone to carry an ID or papers, and present them when asked, is hardly the same thing as the Holocaust.

All of us have presented a similiar identifyer when entering the workplace, driving a car or similiar acitvity requiring an ID or paper of sorts.

[KingYaba]

This is a bad bill because you damn well know it involves racially profiling Mexican-looking people. I also don't want police to be able to stop anyone and demand ID. This is a guilty until proven innocent sort of thing. The Supreme Court better knock it down if Gov. Brewer signs.

This is at the same time that we have a new law allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd say these non-whites should arm themselves to prevent bullying.

[mactastic]

Can we stop with the Nazi comparisons? This is to the Holocaust what Obama is to Socialism.

[abijnk]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

All of us have presented a similiar identifyer when entering the workplace, driving a car or similiar acitvity requiring an ID or paper of sorts.

But if I show up at work without my badge I don't go to jail. We aren't talking about having to have an ID to get into a place of work, or a license to operate a vehicle on the motorway, we are talking about having to carry something so we don't get arrested. BIG difference.

P.S. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the multi-quote button is the one next to the "Quote" button (the one with the plus sign). You can click it on all the posts you want to reply to and then go to the bottom of the thread and hit reply and all those quotes will show up in one post. This will also span multiple pages in the same thread, which is really handy. It just makes things cleaner and prevents the mods from having to come in con merge consecutive posts.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by mactastic

Can we stop with the Nazi comparisons? This is to the Holocaust what Obama is to Socialism.

I disagree. I think it is a relevant comparison considering the hostilities many in this country hold towards illegal immigrants.

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by KingYaba

This is a bad bill because you damn well know it involves racially profiling Mexican-looking people. I also don't want police to be able to stop anyone and demand ID. This is a guilty until proven innocent sort of thing. The Supreme Court better knock it down if Gov. Brewer signs.

I like when we can agree on these kinds of privacy issues.

I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd say these non-whites should arm themselves to prevent bullying.

Yeah, because it's ALWAYS a good idea for a minority to pull a gun on an inquisitive patrolman...

[184550]

Originally Posted by KingYaba

I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd say these non-whites should arm themselves to prevent bullying.

In your mind a logical response to an officer theoritically enforcing a legal code is to shoot said officer?

Seems you'd have a better time somewhere like Juárez.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by it5five

This is at the same time that we have a new law allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

All I can say is that I'm really glad I'm finally getting out of this state. I have a feeling the next few years are going to be really bad for Arizona if the Republicans keep getting elected to the state legislature in such overwhelming numbers. There are also rumors that Arpaio is going to run for governor; an absolutely terrifying prospect.

Meanwhile, the former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, who is under investigation for abusing his position and engaging in unethical behavior (both him and Arpaio brought charges against county officials who criticized them) is running for the Arizona Attorney General office.

I should also note that the US Department of Justice is currently investigating Joe Arpaio for civil rights violations and unfairly targeting Hispanics. His buddy Russell Pierce was the main proponent behind this anti-immigrant bill that mactastic posted about. If you think the purpose of this bill is anything other than the intimidation of non-whites of Arizona, you're deluded.

I can't even imagine visiting Arizona right now. Arpaio has created such an attitude of hatred and with all those trigger happy gun owners...

I hope that the US DoJ skewers Arpaio with a bright pink pin. He's dangerous.

[184550]

Originally Posted by abijnk

But if I show up at work without my badge I don't go to jail. We aren't talking about having to have an ID to get into a place of work, or a license to operate a vehicle on the motorway, we are talking about having to carry something so we don't get arrested. BIG difference.

And neither will said immigrant if they are here legally.

When I did ride-a-longs as apart of my internship at the police department the officer I rode with one time arrested a person not having a license.

P.S. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the multi-quote button is the one next to the "Quote" button (the one with the plus sign). You can click it on all the posts you want to reply to and then go to the bottom of the thread and hit reply and all those quotes will show up in one post. This will also span multiple pages in the same thread, which is really handy. It just makes things cleaner and prevents the mods from having to come in con merge consecutive posts.

Yes, I am well aware of a multiquote system works. I prefer the method I use as it allows me to clearly address the individual topics presented by unique posters.