Driving while Hispanic in AZ

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Well, a broadly written law that basically allows the police to harass any person that they deem illegal "looking", and regular citizens to harass the police so it in turn harasses suspected illegal immigrants was just signed by the governor of Arizona:

http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2010/04/23/D9F908LG0_us_immigration_enforcement/index.html

Fundamentally, it means that if you look Hispanic (or Arabic, or Indian, or Native or, well, non-white) you can be stopped by the police and asked for a proof of residency in the state of Arizona (a valid Driver's license from a different state doesn't work).

Needless to say, as a Hispanic I'm not setting foot in AZ in the foreseeable future, nor anyone in my family.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I hadn't heard about the ID having to be Arizonan. But I had heard about this. How Nazi-esque.

What's more is the impact of penalizing drivers (who are correctly colored for AZ, or are properly ID'd) who have incorrectly-colored passenger who lacks Arizona ID or ID at all. They go to jail, which makes Good Samaritans less likely. So now, if a person who is too dark is dying on the side of the road, or is stranded, or whatever else, fewer people are going to pick them up to help them get to the hospital, etc. because having an incorrectly colored person in your car is cause to pull you over, and the driver is penalized with jail and/or a fine.


And the best part is this: if a "potential illegal" is picked up sans proper ID, they will be sent to a detention facility, which can be out of region or out of the state, with no way to contact friends or family who can prove their citizenship.

Welcome to Gitmo 2.0, now even more unconstitutional!

[Aggie]

 

[Swatopluk]

And in a country without a standard ID for every citizen (unlike most European countries) this is essentially a get-into-jail-free card.
What is even worse (and shows the actual intent of the proponents) is the nonsense now spewed by GOP officials (with the Son of Cain in the lead) about how to spot illegals. [snark]It would be easy, if they were all Jews. Then the shape of the earlobe would be an umistakable indicator[/snark].
I had not yet heard about the Arizonan driving licences part. Does that mean that non-Arizonans are not allowed anymore in Arizona at all or that any federal or other state ID has to have an extra approval by Arizona? Is the president still allowed to go to Arizona?

[Aggie]

He'd better bring his birth certificate if he does...


I'm likewise confused about the AZ driver`s licence - was considering a trip down there, but can I be arrested and deported for driving while Canadian too?  I suppose I'd better keep up with my sunscreen, I tan to a suspicious shade quite easily.   (edit: immigration papers are required, a passport with a stamped visa should do.  I imagine for out-of-state landed immigrants, your immigration card would work, but packing that thing around is a hassle and worry in itself, what if it gets lost or stolen?).


I'd be with if native people had to show proof of residency, if the whole thing wasn't so repulsive. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Personally I find idiotic that I would have to take my US passport (and some say that isn't enough) to go there, but the harassing part is bad enough*.

So I will NOT be visiting grand canyon for the foreseeable future, and I would suggest to anyone who has any brownish looks to avoid the state altogether.

*some nazi senator said somewhere that the illegals would be recognized by their clothes not by the color of their skin. So poor/"bad taste" people should avoid the state also.

[Opsa]

Well, I'm Germanic in physique, and I won't go there, either. Foo on them, and worse! We ought to boycott Az and let all the fascists go there and blow themselves up. Heck with 'em. They gots their heads in their Az.

[Swatopluk]

I have a great business idea. Let's sell "I love Rush and Glenn" tshirts with confederate flags on the back with a special discount for non-citizens in Arizona. Also "My papers? Here's my concealed carry permit!" 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Or drive in a tinted car with bumper stickers of the NRA and the confederate flag, but once they figure out the person inside is not white they may accuse him/her of deception.

[Swatopluk]

The Son of Cain believes that illegal immigrants are reckless drivers. More sane people believe the opposite. Illegals tend to be especially careful not to speed or violate other rules of the road because that carries the risk of being pulled over by the police.
So better arrest everyone but road rowdies

[Griffin NoName]

Doesn't this show the need for another slaying of the firstborn? Kill all the eldest boys* excluding those with sheep's blood on their gateposts. There are bound to be illegals amongst them so it should get rid of a few at least.

*I thought of making it apply to girls too but it seemed all wrong somehow.

[Swatopluk]

All Arizonans should be obliged to get a barcode tattooed to their foreheads after passing the test of citizenship. Anyone found without the tattoo 3 month after this becomes law can be shot on sight by the police. Visitors get a fading tattoo in a different colour. Any illegal caught gets a big "PIG" (Persona InGrata) as a permanent marker.

[Darlica]

US of A never stops to amaze me...

I find this very frightening. It violates the basic human rights and nobody in the central government lifts a finger to stop it?

I pink as I am I'm staying away from AZ and the states in general. Too many trigger happy idiots in the wrong positions for my taste.

We have racism here too no doubt about it, but in Sweden so far we haven't got any laws like this, and I hope we never get them either (that'll be the day when I'll go from having no political affiliations to standing on the barricades).

[Swatopluk]

I think this looks worse from an US/Anglo perspective because personal ID is considered the first step to tyranny (and not a rather convenient item like I consider my German ID card). But there is hope (though faint) that this very fact will undermine the law. If everyone has to carry an ID because the state is forced to avoid open racial profiling (despite that being the unspoken primary purpose of the law) then the 'patriots' are likely to rebel because many will consider that state intrusion even worse than to have 'illegals' running around unharassed

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Fundamentally, it means that if you look Hispanic (or Arabic, or Indian, or Native or, well, non-white) you can be stopped by the police and asked for a proof of residency in the state of Arizona (a valid Driver's license from a different state doesn't work).

Excellent.  If true, this particular clause is a direct violation of the authority given specifically to the National Government by the Constitution.

I.e.  the Constitution specifically grants the national government power over inter-state commerce, regulation, etc.

It's what forces other states to recognize the legal marriage of gays done in a gay-is-legal marrying state, for example.

It has since their invention, forced other states to honor the driver's licenses of all states within their borders.

Specifically prohibiting non-AZ licenses in the law will kill it, as soon as someone sues.   I imagine there are lawyers already drooling at the thought of the revenue they are going to earn over this fiasco.

And the poor AZ taxpayers will have to foot the bill, of course...

... McSame ought to have his fortunes garnished to cover the cost ...

[Swatopluk]

As I understand it, the driving licences are valid for the purpose of driving but not for the purpose of personal ID. Therefore I consider it unlikely that the law will be overturned because of that. The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).


*and I am not talking about the absurd ideas of the Blair government with an ID card that would contain all sorts of intimate personal data and cost several hundred £. That would be unacceptable indeed.

[Darlica]

The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).

Yes and no, at least in Sweden, Norway and Denmark a driving licence is a valid means of identification, albeit not a proof of citizenship. However one can see on a drivers license if a person is a Swedish citizen or not on the four extra digits that comes after our date of birth (social security number).
I don't remember the exact rules but people who aren't Swedish citizens and therefore don't have a Swedish social security number still has a unique number but it's set in another way than a regular social security number (you need to be a permanent resident to get your drivers licence transferred though), the drivers licence is still a valid ID.

As a non Swede in Sweden you don't need to carry your passport if you have other valid means of identification, however it might be the easiest way as we don't accept bank cards or corporate IDs.
A valid ID has to have a recent photo (at the most 10 years) and a date of birth and have a signature.
As Swedish citizen, the only way I can prove my citizenship is more or less by my social security number or ID/passport if I have one.
ID cards are used daily here, if you are shopping using your credit card and the pin-code doesn't work, if you want to prove your age of some reason; buying alcohol, travel to reduced prices (up to 20, student or above 65) gain entrance where there is an age limit etc.   

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I have a great business idea. Let's sell "I love Rush and Glenn" tshirts with confederate flags on the back with a special discount for non-citizens in Arizona. Also "My papers? Here's my concealed carry permit!" 

Fun fact: that's no longer necessary to have in AZ to carry concealed.

As I understand it, the driving licences are valid for the purpose of driving but not for the purpose of personal ID. Therefore I consider it unlikely that the law will be overturned because of that. The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).

Incorrect, iirc. My driver's license is an acceptable form of ID, no matter where I go in my country.

Fundamentally, it means that if you look Hispanic (or Arabic, or Indian, or Native or, well, non-white) you can be stopped by the police and asked for a proof of residency in the state of Arizona (a valid Driver's license from a different state doesn't work).

Excellent.  If true, this particular clause is a direct violation of the authority given specifically to the National Government by the Constitution.

I.e.  the Constitution specifically grants the national government power over inter-state commerce, regulation, etc.

It's what forces other states to recognize the legal marriage of gays done in a gay-is-legal marrying state, for example.

It has since their invention, forced other states to honor the driver's licenses of all states within their borders.

Specifically prohibiting non-AZ licenses in the law will kill it, as soon as someone sues.   I imagine there are lawyers already drooling at the thought of the revenue they are going to earn over this fiasco.

And the poor AZ taxpayers will have to foot the bill, of course...

... McSame ought to have his fortunes garnished to cover the cost ...

I disagree. I expect it'll overturned because of the full faith and credit clause of article four of the Constitution (which is what will force other states to accept a gay marriage, even if it's not legal there). You have to be legal to get an ID (here, at least) and as such, if I were brown and accidentally set foot in AZ, they would ultimately have to honor California's acceptance of me as legal or a citizen. I still predict someone important is going to have to get caught in this for anything to change.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Double post, yes I know.

He'd better bring his birth certificate if he does...

Arizona basically told him that...briefly. They passed a provision that would require him to show his birth certificate if he wanted to be on the ballot come 2012.

And then he told them to put back their healthcare program for the poor and the young back, or loose ALL federal funding. So, hm

Obama: 1
Arizona: 0

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As I understand it, the driving licences are valid for the purpose of driving but not for the purpose of personal ID. Therefore I consider it unlikely that the law will be overturned because of that. The reason behind that clause is (I presume) that some states grant driving licences independent of legal status, i.e. non-citizens can acquire a valid driving licence. That's no problem in Europe where driving licences are not used as personal  ID and proof of citizenships has to rely on other tools (like national ID cards that Anglosaxons seem to see as the mark of the beast*).


*and I am not talking about the absurd ideas of the Blair government with an ID card that would contain all sorts of intimate personal data and cost several hundred £. That would be unacceptable indeed.

That may once have been true, but today, the driver's license is also the same as a state ID card, and may be used anytime a state requires ID.

If you cannot drive for whatever reason, you can get a state ID card, which looks much like a license card, except it does not enable legal driving.

Which is why I said what I said.

Edit:  I see Scrib has already pointed this out.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm more worried about this thing than many others, while comments on the internet are usually a trollfest and the worst of the worst tends to show up quickly, I am honestly disturbed by the many comments I've read in supposedly left leaning sites like Huffington Post, which either say there is nothing racist in targeting people of brown color, or that racism is fine, that they are indeed racists and that they celebrate the law as such.

Perhaps I'm a bit more paranoid than I should, (besides South FL is almost 40% Hispanic) but it makes me think about our safety. I was already surprised with the veiled racism I found in Ohio a few years ago (I wasn't expecting it) but watching so much hate coming out makes me think that perhaps the worst is yet to come.

[Afterglow]

FYI...

Forms of ID accepted to prove citizenship and/or right to be here:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

BTW, my scripted response will/would be:  "I am an American war fighter who served in the US Navy for over 22-years and I refuse to obey an order that seems to be unlawful to me!!!"

[Swatopluk]

I was only referring to the effects of the Arizona law on the acceptance of driving licences not on the general US practice.
---
Afterglow, I fear that scripted response would not (necessarily) work for two reasons
1) Not all US soldiers are citizens (many use it as a way to citizenship like in Roman times)
2) There is bad tradition to consider a uniform on a non-white as another crime, i.e. impersonation*.

Governor Bill Richardson was on the Rachel Maddow Show the day before yesterday and joked that as the (currently) only Hispanic governor he might have trouble going to neighbouring Arizona with his moustache.

*most (in)famously highly decorated black US soldiers got arrested for impersonating a military officer when they stepped on US soil at the end of WW2. Hispanics are the new black in that regard in some regions of the country, I presume.

[Aggie]

Forms of ID accepted to prove citizenship and/or right to be here:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Interesting - I wonder which state IDs meet the requirements of 4? 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There's a bit that I don't know regarding the states vs the federal government, I know that border security should be enforced by the federal government, but is there any law preventing a state from fencing it's borders?

My point is this, if the concern is people crossing the border and they feel that the federal government isn't doing enough can't they at the local or state level fence the border themselves?

Now, certainly doing it properly is incredibly expensive (didn't the wall in the GDR almost broke it's coffers?) and also the infamous Great Wall of Mexico had an incredibly high price tag, but it would seem to me that if the real concern is illegal immigration that would be a far more efficient way to prevent it*.

Is it that the state of AZ much rather have the federal government to foot the bill or that racism is "cheaper"?

*as much as it pains me to admit it, I much rather prefer a properly made fence than a police state. My general thoughts toward the Great Wall were that the money would be better spent in raising the level of life from Mexicans, but the reality is that it would likely take years if not decades.

[Griffin NoName]

Excuse me for being uninformed/naive around this, but do other states accept each other's identity proofs? Because it sounds not just racist but also insane not to.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Excuse me for being uninformed/naive around this, but do other states accept each other's identity proofs? Because it sounds not just racist but also insane not to.

Yes, by federal statute, and by current interpretation of the Constitution.

[pieces o nine]

I've been watching this news as well. I was gob-smacked that (1) anyone would associate his/her face & name with such blatant raism; and (2) there seems disturbingly little hue-and-cry from the state itself, let alone any appropriate smack-down from other authorities.

I suspect that some of the pro-profiling crowd hope for a Federal response, so they can whine about their 'state's rights' being violated and try to whip up even more anti-governmental animus.



I have relatives in AZ, but it's officially off my travel list until this travesty is corrected. Let's see whether Ditat Deus  this White Christianist initiative...

[Swatopluk]

I think it is a common misconception that most 'illegals' 'climbed the fence'. Iirc most come on short time visa and simply stayed instead of going back. Border crawlers just do more for the imagination (and the propaganda). There'd be numerous rather cheap (but inhuman) ways to block the border in those areas not near to cities (hey, we found the ideal location to drop all the hazardous waste ) and the prison industrial complex could provide the cheap labour force.
But everyone sane knows that the only effective way is to dry the demand. Go after the employers and help Mexico to get its stuff together. Of course we know that is the last things the GOP leadership would want. It would anger donors and kill a successful perennial campaign theme.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

According to wiki:

In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

So assuming the trend remains it would be more or around half. Obviously that guesstimate has the problem that in general immigration has slowed down significantly and that many illegals have returned to their countries because of the unavailability of jobs particularly in the construction area.

And reading here or there, the "easier" cross right now is in AZ.

An interesting tidbit is that a number of illegals that would have returned to Mexico now don't do so because crossing [back] the border is too difficult (I imagine those are the guys used to come in and out for harvesting season).

A big fence has two other large benefits, a) it should reduce drug entry using the border (and dispel the myth that by doing so there will be less consumers here  ) and b) it should slowdown the illegal traffic of arms to Mexico.

I have come to the conclusion that a fence doesn't stop anything, it merely slows down whatever is coming in and out, in the end either, drugs, weapons or people will cross the border in lower numbers (and forced to look for alternatives, quite likely by sea).

[ivor]

Oh yeah, the fence and the stupid new law are just things that crony capitalist neo-cons are doing to avoid responsibility.  It should be against the law to hire an illegal but the wealthy are crying about it, like they don't actually know.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I have relatives in AZ, but it's officially off my travel list until this travesty is corrected. Let's see whether Ditat Deus  this White Christianist initiative...

Ditto.

Oh yeah, the fence and the stupid new law are just things that crony capitalist neo-cons are doing to avoid responsibility.  It should be against the law to hire an illegal but the wealthy are crying about it, like they don't actually know.

It is against the law. The authorities are just lackadaisical about enforcing it. Here, it's because they're useful in the fields (we produce ~20% of American food) or because the police would rather shoot them (the cops are notorious for shooting brown people first and asking questions later).

...help Mexico to get its stuff together. Of course we know that is the last things the GOP leadership would want. It would anger donors and kill a successful perennial campaign theme.

I disagree. It's not the last thing they'd want, so much as it would require A) too much work and B) too much money. And so far as the majority of the GOP is concerned, they're smudgy brown people, so why bother? And when it starts to creep over the border, shut it down tight. Or try.

[ivor]

Yeah, you're right Scrib.  They don't enforce it at all so it's kinda like it's legal.

[Swatopluk]

I limited my opinion to the leadership. They know that the status quo favors them in several ways.
1) It provides cheap labour for their rich clientele by people that can't fght back against mistreatment and exploitation
2) It gives them something to rally their ignorant racist base
3) It serves as a pretense for trampling the Bill of Rights 'for your own protection'

They also know (at least since the Bush/Son-of-Cain plan enraged the base) that changing the status quo
1) takes effort
2) angers the base with the anger directed at them, not the Dems
3) angers the exploiters and would possibly dry up the fountain of donations
4) would likely drive the prices for vegetables etc. up thus angering even more people

There main problem is to keep the base from noticing their duplicity.
I think few in the actual GOP leadership are genuine racists (with some pathological exceptions) but still would not abandon their most successful tool (i.e. appealing to the real racism of significant parts of the base).  As long as it is perceived to work, it will be used. I'd not be suprised, if right now some operative was sifting through the collected laws and ordinances of the 3rd Reich in order to find some new ideas (replacing 'Jew' with 'Muslim', 'non-citizen' 'illegals' etc.). I often enough get the impression that RWers plagiarize speeches of Nazi leaders, sometimes verbatim.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.... I often enough get the impression that RWers plagiarize speeches of Nazi leaders, sometimes verbatim.

Or?

It could be that the sorts of things Nazi's thought of for their speeches are just the sort of thing anyone, in a similar situation would think of and utilize.

In other words, a negative twist on an old saying:

'Evil minds think alike'

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Yeah, you're right Scrib.  They don't enforce it at all so it's kinda like it's legal.

I was checking some numbers, according to wiki, ICE enforced 310K deportations last year (down from 2008 by ~40K), and on the border there is an estimated 500K illegals crossing every year but I haven't seen exact numbers which could be significantly different considering the economy.

So they might be capable of doing more but they aren't exactly idle.

[ivor]

I know what you're saying.  I've spent a lot of time out there and immigrant labor is right out in the open.  They stand in line on the side of the road in "designated" spots and wait for some one to pick them up for a job.  I think the usual reimbursement is $100, probably under the table.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Those are day workers (which BTW frequently get paid less than agreed or not at all at the end of the day). They frequently hang out in front of Home Depot or places like such.

Let me be the devil's advocate for a second and say that that may be one reason for the law as written, ie, local enforcement knows where likely illegals are but is prevented by federal law to act. Another such case would be if they decide to patrol the border. The problem is that the net used in this case is so large that not only amounts to discrimination (I want to see the first white person asked for papers) but that it will most likely "catch" more legal residents/citizens than illegals (who now will be forced into darker shadows).

Now I wonder if is it illegal for local enforcement to give punters to ICE, because that is the logical solution. Then we go to the point of how much personnel ICE has for enforcement, and the efficiency of sending a few patrols for two or three guys that may or not be there for the time the agents arrive.

The other side of the coin is that I do know of people denounced to "La Migra", (as it's colloquially called) and caught. To my knowledge there is no restriction for any citizen to give a tip, which takes me to the other problem with this whole ordeal, if you know where they are, you are perfectly entitled to call ICE and tell them, and most likely they will show up (eventually) and pick whomever they deem as illegals. But that has a little problem, you personally might dislike immigration policies, laws, enforcement etc, but knowing that you personally ratted out someone that likely hasn't done anything to you might be uncomfortable, in more layman terms, "I want them out (but I don't want to be a son of a b**** and feel like a b@$tard while going to sleep)", hence the solution by proxy.
---
One thing I've learned over the years is that racism, while more preponderant than anyone would like to admit, is usually a passive affair, lots of people have racist feelings but much rather not act upon those, and these kinds of movements allow closet racists to express those feelings that otherwise they would deem impolite. Obviously the hardcore racists don't have problems denouncing, shooting or even killing, but those are generally a small minority.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I limited my opinion to the leadership. They know that the status quo favors them in several ways.
1) It provides cheap labour for their rich clientele by people that can't fght back against mistreatment and exploitation
2) It gives them something to rally their ignorant racist base
3) It serves as a pretense for trampling the Bill of Rights 'for your own protection'

They also know (at least since the Bush/Son-of-Cain plan enraged the base) that changing the status quo
1) takes effort
2) angers the base with the anger directed at them, not the Dems
3) angers the exploiters and would possibly dry up the fountain of donations
4) would likely drive the prices for vegetables etc. up thus angering even more people

Oh yes, but getting Mexico to get its shit together isn't the last thing they'd want, none the less. If it did on its own, well, then the base has nothing to bitch about, and I don't think they'd sabotage efforts in that direct anyway (why? They've got Middle Easterners to drag through the mud). Or even the rich clientele, because I doubt migrant workers would cease to come. And paying them legally would only add ten cents per pound to the cost. Which would add up, but my inner hippy/progressive thinks that's a small price to pay.

The inability of illegal workers to fight back is disgusting. It's illegal to pay them in produce, but yet it happens. I see a lot of them, selling oranges, strawberries, and flowers on the side of the road.

The other side of the coin is that I do know of people denounced to "La Migra", (as it's colloquially called) and caught. To my knowledge there is no restriction for any citizen to give a tip, which takes me to the other problem with this whole ordeal, if you know where they are, you are perfectly entitled to call ICE and tell them, and most likely they will show up (eventually) and pick whomever they deem as illegals.

Farmers have been known to do this often enough. Technically, they're supposed to get slapped with a fine, but I don't think it happens very much.

[ivor]

What I am really trying to say, and my slight retardation is getting in the way...  Round up the people that hire illegals not the illegals.  The problem of illegal immigration will take care of itself after a while.  My program will be far less expensive.  May even pay for itself in fines. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That solution is commonsensical therefore we can be sure it will never be implemented... 

This one is an oldy, but...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800613.html

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

[Swatopluk]

And what's the bet that the employers actually fingered are known Dem sympathizers. A GOP favorite to keep people in line where they are at the controls.

Stepladder of exploitation
1) poor US whites
2) poor latinos in US
3) prison inmates in US
4) prison inmates in Mexico
If the US bordered Burma, North Korea or Nazi Germany then Gulag/KZ inmates would be the logical #5 (There are still the slave camps in the Marianas but that adds transportation costs).

In Germany we have the Polish harvest helpers but it is by no means as extreme as in the US (Eastern European sex slaves is a different matter altogether).
---

True to form the GOPsters in Arizona claim that the law was necessary because 'Washington' does nothing while the GOP in Congress prevents immigration even debated by means of the filibuster.

[ivor]

Yeah, it's ironic that the GOP wanted to get rid of the filibuster when W was in office.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

What I am really trying to say, and my slight retardation is getting in the way...  Round up the people that hire illegals not the illegals.  The problem of illegal immigration will take care of itself after a while.  My program will be far less expensive.  May even pay for itself in fines. 

Agreed:  been saying this for years.  But, the fines must be a significant amount, so as to actually make it hurt.  I know of any number of large companies who routinely hire illegals, and routinely pay fines for hiring them as a matter of routine; it's still cheaper overall for them to do so.

The current fines are token amounts.   And the cost difference between legit workers and off-the-books illegals is too attractive, even factoring in occasional slap-on-the-wrist fines.

One solution suggested:  for anyone caught hiring an illegal, the former employer is responsible for the cost to feed/house and ultimately transport back to their country of origin (often not actually Mexico, but further south...).  That would be both a significant cost, and would be ethical: it would help lower the overall enforcement cost, while humanely providing for the illegal until he is returned to his own country.

[Aggie]

What I am really trying to say, and my slight retardation is getting in the way...  Round up the people that hire illegals not the illegals.  The problem of illegal immigration will take care of itself after a while.  My program will be far less expensive.  May even pay for itself in fines. 

Escalating fines and penalties might help, too.  The ERCB (provincial energy board) can effectively shut down the (in-province) production of entire oil companies here if they rack up too many violations.  First fine can be a slap on the wrist, especially where it's happening at a branch-specific level, but repeated violations suggest either corporate 'policy' at work or lack of a proper management system and need to make the shareholders notice.

Still, shut down legitimate employment and you'll see illegal immigrants pushed into black-market work or crime.  There is currently an uproar in AB about the deaths of 30 Somali men in the last 5 years.  Most of these men were young legal immigrants who came here for high-paying work in the oilpatch from other parts of Canada, failed to find jobs (almost certainly due to discrimination, although nobody is spelling it out - if you're recent-immigrant African without impeccable English skills here, you are pretty much going to be on the bottom of the hiring order) and were recruited into gangs prior to being killed.

What might help is some sort of an amnesty program by which employers caught hiring illegals could (as an alternative to a fine) opt to offer them minimum-term contracts and facilitate them getting work visas for the duration of those contracts, at standard wages, of course.  There needs to be a way to get this group of people, which is contributing to the American economy, legitimized once they are here, where possible and practicable, or make temporary entry-for-work conditions good enough that there's a greater benefit in going through the legitimate channels than border-hopping.  Simply cutting off the work available and deporting more people will take years to stem the influx of migrants from economically disadvantaged neighbours.

Of course, I'm from a country that tends to have mostly polar bears as border-hopping unregistered immigrants, at least until the next time the US brings in conscription.