New Prove-You're-A-Citizen law

[JimmyLyding]

When Governor Brewer signs this into law, can anyone see some unintended consequences? For those who don't know, this law will allow law enforcement officials to require anyone they come into contact with to prove that they are legally allowed to be in this country whether as a citizen or guest. For the record a valid driver's license is NOT considered proof-of-citizenship. Does this mean that those of us who appear as if we might be foreign have to carry around our birth certificates?
I'm not that worried about myself because I'm a 6'4" white dude, but then I remember reading about 80-year-old nuns being strip-searched by airport security.
As for hiking, I always carry my wallet with me because I'd rather risk losing it on the trail than having it stolen out of my car. But I'm not about to carry my birth certificate around. Anyhoo, this law will probably be struck down by the courts.

[azbackpackr]

I hope so.

Did you know if all the illegal immigrants got tired of doing all our dirty work and packed up and went home that Social Security would crash and burn?

I am for a sensible amnesty program.

It is pure baloney that they take jobs away from Americans. Go get yourself a bus and take some people from inner city Phoenix who are standing around on the corners, and bus them down to Yuma and turn them loose in the lettuce fields and see how long they last.

That being said, most lettuce pickers have green cards. And they are an aging bunch of people, many are in their 60's. Their kids and grandkids don't want to pick lettuce, and neither do the people from the cities who have never done it before, even though it pays about $10 an hour, well above minimum wage. But there are people in Mexico who would like to pick that lettuce, but they can't come here, or if they do come across, a lot of the farmers won't hire illegals now for fear of being fined.

[berkforbes]

I dunno about the unintended consequences, however this law just seems to make sense. You call them illegal immigrants for a reason, because they have not gone about the proper channels of becoming a US citizen. so why not allow the cops to verify said status?? To me, it only makes sense. im sure someone will reply with a lenghty response as to why im wrong, so be it.

[AndreyP]

This law doesn't make sense to me, because it's their duty to prove that you're doing something illegal, including being in the country, and it's not your duty to prove that you're legal. If this law is accepted by public, this may be just a beginning. And then they will require you to prove that you legally drive a car you're driving, then to prove that you legally have the phone you're carrying, etc. How far will you allow them to go? What makes more inconvinience: for them to search their databases that they have anyway or for you to carry government issues documents all the time that can be easily lost/stolen and require money/effort to be reissued?

[azbackpackr]

I am pretty sure it will be ruled unconstitutional.

I think we should have a reasonable green card and amnesty program, with a lot of checking for criminals.

I despise racism and racists.

[Al_HikesAZ]

Here's what Edward Abbey had to say about the issue back in 1988

http://compassrosebooks.blogspot.com/20 ... ation.html
Edward Abbey [1927-1989], the late novelist, essayist, and environmental activist, was a confirmed political "liberal" (perhaps even an extremist), who believed that the degradation of the land and culture of the American Southwest was a crime against nature, and that the least any one of us could do was to try to defend it from the resource exploiters and population pressures which endangered it.


In an essay written for (solicited, actually, by) the august New York Times, Abbey took the contrarian position regarding Mexican immigration. The Times refused to publish it, or give Abbey his "kill fee"--perfect proof that he'd stepped over the line. Rather than publish the "embarrassing" article, they pretended that it hadn't ever been written. It didn't matter whether Abbey was right or wrong--a figure of his authority disagreeing about immigration was just too potent a threat to the liberal biases the Times felt bound to observe. In the long run, however, as always, trying to resist the truth is always a bad strategy, as Abbey's essay has continued to be a cautionary document for those who get too caught up in the apologetics of unfettered (and illegal) immigration. I'm reprinting the essay in toto here, since it appears several other places online, copyright fears be damned (at least until someone threatens me with a lawsuit).

_______________________________________________________

"Immigration and Liberal Taboos" [Reprinted in 1988]

In the American Southwest, where I happen to live, only sixty miles north of the Mexican border, the subject of illegal aliens is a touchy one. Even the terminology is dangerous: the old word wetback is now considered a racist insult by all good liberals; and the perfectly correct terms illegal alien and illegal immigrant can set off charges of xenophobia, elitism, fascism, and the ever-popular genocide against anyone careless enough to use them. The only acceptable euphemism, it now appears, is something called undocumented worker. Thus the pregnant Mexican woman who appears, in the final stages of labor, at the doors of the emergency ward of an El Paso or San Diego hospital, demanding care for herself and the child she's about to deliver, becomes an "undocumented worker." The child becomes an automatic American citizen by virtue of its place of birth, eligible at once for all of the usual public welfare benefits. And with the child comes not only the mother but the child's family. And the mother's family. And the father's family. Can't break up families can we? They come to stay and they stay to multiply.

What of it? say the documented liberals; ours is a rich and generous nation, we have room for all, let them come. And let them stay, say the conservatives; a large, cheap, frightened, docile, surplus labor force is exactly what the economy needs. Put some fear into the unions: tighten discipline, spur productivity, whip up the competition for jobs. The conservatives love their cheap labor; the liberals love their cheap cause. (Neither group, you will notice, ever invites the immigrants to move into their homes. Not into their homes!) Both factions are supported by the cornucopia economists of the ever-expanding economy, who actually continue to believe that our basic resource is not land, air, water, but human bodies, more and more of them, the more the better in hive upon hive, world without end - ignoring the clear fact that those nations which most avidly practice this belief, such as Haiti, Puerto Rico, Mexico, to name only three, don't seem to be doing well. They look more like explosive slow-motion disasters, in fact, volcanic anthills, than functioning human societies. But that which our academic economists will not see and will not acknowledge is painfully obvious to los latinos: they stream north in ever-growing numbers.

Meanwhile, here at home in the land of endless plenty, we seem still unable to solve our traditional and nagging difficulties. After forty years of the most fantastic economic growth in the history of mankind, the United States remains burdened with mass unemployment, permanent poverty, an overloaded welfare system, violent crime, clogged courts, jam-packed prisons, commercial ("white-collar") crime, rotting cities and a poisoned environment, eroding farmlands and the disappearing family farm all of the usual forms of racial ethnic and sexual conflict (which immigration further intensifies), plus the ongoing destruction of what remains of our forests, fields, mountains, lakes, rivers, and seashores, accompanied by the extermination of whole specie's of plants and animals. To name but a few of our little nagging difficulties.

This being so, it occurs to some of us that perhaps evercontinuing industrial and population growth is not the true road to human happiness, that simple gross quantitative increase of this kind creates only more pain, dislocation, confusion, and misery. In which case it might be wise for us as American citizens to consider calling a halt to the mass influx of even more millions of hungry, ignorant, unskilled, and culturally-morally-genetically impoverished people. At least until we have brought our own affairs into order. Especially when these uninvited millions bring with them an alien mode of life which - let us be honest about this - is not appealing to the majority of Americans. Why not? Because we prefer democratic government, for one thing; because we still hope for an open, spacious, uncrowded, and beautiful--yes, beautiful!--society, for another. The alternative, in the squalor, cruelty, and corruption of Latin America, is plain for all to see.


Yes, I know, if the American Indians had enforced such a policy none of us pale-faced honkies would be here. But the Indians were foolish, and divided, and failed to keep our WASP ancestors out. They've regretted it ever since.

To everything there is a season, to every wave a limit, to every range an optimum capacity. The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of "Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!" from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play "let's pretend" much longer, not in the present world.

Therefore-let us close our national borders to any further mass immigration, legal or illegal, from any source, as does every other nation on earth. The means are available, it's a simple technical-military problem. Even our Pentagon should be able to handle it. We've got an army somewhere on this planet, let's bring our soldiers home and station them where they can be of some actual and immediate benefit to the taxpayers who support them. That done, we can begin to concentrate attention on badly neglected internal affairs. Our internal affairs. Everyone would benefit, including the neighbors. Especially the neighbors. Ah yes. But what about those hungry hundreds of millions, those anxious billions, yearning toward the United States from every dark and desperate corner of the world? Shall we simply ignore them? Reject them? Is such a course possible?

"Poverty," said Samuel Johnson, "is the great enemy of human happiness. It certainly destroys liberty, makes some virtues impracticable, and all virtues extremely difficult."

You can say that again, Sam.

Poverty, injustice, over breeding, overpopulation, suffering, oppression, military rule, squalor, torture, terror, massacre: these ancient evils feed and breed on one another in synergistic symbiosis. To break the cycles of pain at least two new forces are required: social equity - and birth control. Population control. Our Hispanic neighbors are groping toward this discovery. If we truly wish to help them we must stop meddling in their domestic troubles and permit them to carry out the social, political, and moral revolution which is both necessary and inevitable.

Or if we must meddle, as we have always done, let us meddle for a change in a constructive way. Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.

--Edward Abbey

"Or if we must meddle, as we have always done, let us meddle for a change in a constructive way." Amen and Amen.

[Al_HikesAZ]

. . . For the record a valid driver's license is NOT considered proof-of-citizenship. . . .

Is a CCW proof?

OK Joe, I know. ;) I'll stay frosty and keep my powder dry. I'm going to go brew me a strong cup of Shut the Pumpkin UP!! And sit back drinking it while this brouhaha rages.

[BobP]

ignoring the clear fact that those nations which most avidly practice this belief, such as Haiti, Puerto Rico, Mexico, to name only three
I wonder if he knew Puerto Rico was a US commonwealth and its citizens were US citizens as of 1917 .

[berkforbes]

@AndreyP
Its not as if cops will just walk up to random people and ask about their immigration status, you will have had to have done something to attract this attention in the first place. Its no different than cops asking me everytime i get pulled over if i have any pot in the vehicle or have been drinking that night. i was pulled over for doing something wrong, now he wants to find anything he can to further my wrong doing. im all for the government staying out of my life and that of others, i however do not agree with people coming to this country illegally and eating away at my tax dollars having 10 babies a year and free hospital visits for life. I do not see how any of this is racist, as its not pointed towards any specific race or ethnicity rather those who have chosen to break the law by being here illegaly. Back to that same word again ILLEGAL

[chumley]

I'm not a fan of the potential abuse which the current law seems to invite, but I do agree with the following statement from one of its authors:

The Arizona bill's primary author is Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, who said this week that "illegal is not a race, it's a crime."

But I do think I have a better idea/plan as a first step:

For the record a valid driver's license is NOT considered proof-of-citizenship.

Since it is already the law that you must carry identification with you at all times (and its been that way forever or longer, so I'm assuming that is court-tested and constitutional), how about a law that requires proof of citizenship/legal-residency to obtain a state-issued identification card.

Seems to me, then either 1. You have ID ... and are subsequently here legally; 2. You don't have ID and are in violation of the existing law requiring that you carry ID; or 3. You have a fake ID, in which case you can be prosecuted for ID theft.

Up the penalty for not carrying an ID (or being able to produce one to the court later on) to removal from the state. I don't think Arizona as a state can make somebody leave the country ... but they can escort you to the border. (California? Nevada? Utah? NM? Here's somebody who violated our state law. You want em?)

[Al_HikesAZ]

ignoring the clear fact that those nations which most avidly practice this belief, such as Haiti, Puerto Rico, Mexico, to name only three
I wonder if he knew Puerto Rico was a US commonwealth and its citizens were US citizens as of 1917 .

I think Ed referred to the Navajo as a Nation also even though he knew. I'm not sure how Ed defined nation.

Staying factual Joe. My cup of STPU is still a little too hot to sip.

I don't think Arizona as a state can make somebody leave the country ... but they can escort you to the border. (California? Nevada? Utah? NM? Here's somebody who violated our state law. You want em?)

California and Utah seem like foreign countries to me sometimes.

[chumley]

@AndreyP
Its no different than cops asking me everytime i get pulled over if i have any pot in the vehicle or have been drinking that night. i was pulled over for doing something wrong, now he wants to find anything he can to further my wrong doing.

Its actually quite different. The difference is that you don't have to answer either of these questions (and most lawyers will tell you that you in fact SHOULDN'T answer). They are voluntary. (And protected by the 5th amendment). Your driver's license requires that you submit to a breath test or you surrender the "privilege" of driving for a year. You don't need to answer a single question. Not where you've been. Not where you're going. Not if you've been drinking. Definitely not how many drinks you've had. Nothing. You must provide your drivers license and proof of insurance. That's it.

A metaphor to this law would be that you would now be required to prove that you don't have pot in your car. The burden of proof has switched.

As I said above, I understand and agree with the spirit of the law, but I think there has to be a better way to implement it.

[Sredfield]

Fences, identity papers, profiling . . . l think the world was here before--70-80 years ago. It didn't turn out so well.

[BobP]

Since it is already the law that you must carry identification with you at all times (and its been that way forever or longer, so I'm assuming that is court-tested and constitutional), how about a law that requires proof of citizenship/legal-residency to obtain a state-issued identification card.
My son has a state issued MVD ID card. If I recall correctly, i think to obtain it you need one photo ID and one other form or three other forms without photo. He's not required by law to carry it, but he is required by me

[berkforbes]

@chumley
Son of a pumpkin! you are correct, i typed before i thought as usual.. well there definitely needs to be a different implementation of this law..

i dont get why they didnt just do as you said before and make you prove citizenship/legal-residency to obtain a state-issued identification card... then again i dont get half the nonsense our govt does...

[JimmyLyding]

As a few users have already posted it's quite likely that this law will be overturned by the courts (just what our fiscally-strapped state needs: millions of dollars in attorney fees while this puppy gets appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court) because it requires people to prove that they have NOT committed a crime.
Meanwhile, one of my economics professor just got back from a meeting in New York about investing in Arizona. The theme of the conference was "What in the world are you fools doing out there? Why should we sink millions of dollars into a place that's more concerned about illegal aliens than the economy?" These folks were Wall Street-types rather than namby-pamby liberals.

[te_wa]

stay home and grow your own lettuce. problem solved!

[chumley]

These folks were Wall Street-types rather than namby-pamby liberals.

You say that as if they are mutually exclusive

[chumley]

Meanwhile, one of my economics professor just got back from a meeting in New York about investing in Arizona. The theme of the conference was "What in the world are you fools doing out there? Why should we sink millions of dollars into a place that's more concerned about illegal aliens than the economy?" These folks were Wall Street-types rather than namby-pamby liberals.

I meant to say ... those Wall Street-types have been so successful in their concern for the economy. Why listen to some backasswards hicks from the country that believe in the rule of law?

[BobP]

If the federal laws on the books for illegal immigration were being enforced....we wouldn't need this law.