Printable View
Those reasons you listed are exactly why they probably aren't legal. :confused: I'm not saying they don't deserve to be legal, I think most do.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
It's not speaking Spanish. :rolleyes: It's being unable to speak English that could reasonably qualify as reasonable suspicion to ask about immigration status.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yeah, I'd love to see that cop interaction. I DEMAND THAT YOU SPEAK ENGLISH!
See, just because I can, doesn't mean I have to. And just because cops have guns and can make me do certain things, doesn't mean they can make me do everything. :p
Um, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You don't seem to know much about the ins and outs of the US immigration system (which is fair enough, since you're not paid to know, and finding out is kind of like stabbing yourself in the groin repeatedly), but those reasons I gave were ways to be a *legal* immigrant and have no interest in (or need to) learn English.
I'm personally of the opinion that if you move to a new country, it's both wise and proper to learn the native language, but the way our system works, that's not a requirement. (And for some, it's not even desirable, as odd as I find that.) Therefore, it's not reasonable to use linguistic ability as an indicator of immigration status. It would certainly lead you to the wrong conclusion about me, wouldn't it?
Did you ever get your papers, Cain?
Another way to confound things, pretend to be deaf and sign to the cops. In Spanish.
Depends on what you mean by "papers."Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I have so fucking many of them that my document safe is pretty cramped... but that doesn't mean I have the particular papers to which you refer.
Nah, they really don't like it... especially when you try to explain to them in broken English that the middle finger sign means "one" South of the border. :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's not a requirement, but it's a de-facto requirement because the quiz is in English, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
No. It's not even the only way to become a naturalized citizen, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And the citizenship test applies to citizenship, not the multitude of other ways to be a legal immigrant. (Work visa, migrant worker visa, student visa, dependent visa, asylum, refugee status, trafficked woman visa, ... ) Many, if not all, of those visas have no formal linguistic requirement - sure, you may have a problem getting a company to sponsor you for a work visa if you no speakie de Inglish, but if you can pull it off, there's nothing technically stopping you from doing it.
My sister's mother-in-law can read English okay, maybe at an elementary level, but she can't speak it worth shit. She managed to pass the citizenship test by studying the questions and knowing the answers. But that was decades ago, maybe the test has changed?
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRDQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
http://www.welcometousa.gov/Immigrat..._materials.htm
Do you think the estimated 400,000 non-citizen residents of Arizona all have those waivers? Come on folks, this is silly.
That's still for just naturalization, not visa.
Um... they're not waivers, they're legitimate and fairly common ways to be in the country legally, without being on the path to naturalization/Green Card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
In fact, there are more visa holders than Green Card holders in the US (and it's not even close, FYI).
So again, being a citizen (or being on the road to becoming one) is far from the only way to be a "legal immigrant" in this country, and is in fact, more common than the type of immigration that leads to being here permanently.
Even with your legal immigrants, this country likes to use them up and spit them out as much as possible.
EDIT: to answer your question, probably most, if not [virtually] all of them. I don't know where that 400,000 figure comes from, but legal immigrants are easy to count, where as "undocumented" ones are, much harder count... primarily because they get deported if the government becomes aware of them... so if that's an "official" stat, it's almost definitely the number of *legal* aliens working/schooling/residing in Arizona.
WELCOME TO THE USA!
Give us your tired, your poor, yearning to be freeeeeee
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/09/razing-arizona.html
Interesting piece. Some highlights:
Indeed, much has been made of the Arizona requirement that immigrants must carry papers. But the U.S. government’s “Guide for New Immigrants” already states that “it is your responsibility” as a legal immigrant to “carry proof of your permanent resident status at all times.”
The Associated Press has reported the law will actually increase crime, and the Los Angeles Times and most other big papers have focused on the boycotts and protests. Not many have written stories like “New Law Proves Popular With Constituents” or “Governor Reflects Will of People.”
There also seemed to be scant coverage of the fact that Arizona officials removed the word “solely” from language that said the police could not “solely consider race …” as a factor when determining reasonable suspicion that someone was an illegal, so ethnic origin or race cannot be used. “Lawful contact” with police officers was also changed to “stop, detain or arrest,” further lessening the chances of racial profiling.
So what's your opinion on requiring National ID cards, Loki? That was a bone of contention during the primaries that led up to the election.
I still don't see "either side" talking about this, because it goes back to Big Brother vs Freeedom. Seems like polarizing sides is the political move to keep us from actually tackling the problems.
Conservatives can rightly object to illegal immigrants crossing our borders to find work, but they are also loath to tell employers how to check if they're hiring an illegal. Liberals can rightly object to racial profiling via state laws, but they are also reluctant to give nationals and legal visitors a way to "carry their papers" [without also requiring citizens do the same].
It's both philosophical and structural. Immigration enforcement is a duty of the federal government. But I dare say the conservatives would be throwing a hissy fit if the feds mandated everyone "carry papers" to move around our country. The way it stands now, the only way to "judge" who's here legally vs illegally is to ask for their "papers", but the only ones required to carry their "papers" are visa holders and visitors.
The distinction between conservatives and "liberals" here is an artificial one. This kind of policy has across the board support, including from 40% of Democrats.
I do agree it's not an us vs them metric. Question still stands though, what is your opinion about national ID cards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
They're not something I care about. They're a symptom of government intrusion into our lives. Even if we get rid of the symptom, the underlying reality remains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
My turn to nit pick?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If only immigrants must carry papers, and not citizens, then no matter of wording a state law can help police know what to do unless they "profile" somehow, in some way.
A jaywalking non-driver brown person who only speaks Spanish may not appear to be a US citizen, but they very well could be born and raised in the US. They are not required to "carry their papers" to prove that. But in AZ s/he can be dragged down to police HQ and treated like they're guilty of something anyway.
How does that follow constitutional law of being innocent until proven guilty? Do we really want border state cops arresting anyone and everyone who "looks illegal" while they "appear" to be violating a law, even something so minor as a jaywalking citation? Really?
Innocent until proven guilty applies to being punished. It doesn't apply to being dragged into a police station...Believe it or not, virtually everyone who currently gets dragged there hasn't been convicted of the crime they're suspected of.
Sure, they are dragged there on suspicion of violating a law. That's what cops are paid to do. That means they have to use their judgement. Based on that type of thought, illegals should just walk and not drive, not jaywalk or loiter, or try to buy/sell contraband. Keep their noses clean, so to speak. Don't attract attention of local enforcement. HIDE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Since there are already millions of illegals in our country, working, buying stuff, paying sales taxes, 'stimulating our economy', sending their US citizen children to public schools.......even if we closed the borders right now, and made them impermeable, there are still lots of folks here "illegally". Not just nuclear family units, but two or three generations of extended families, some illegal and some not.
I really don't know how (state or federal) government officials can go forward with any type of comprehensive immigration reform, without demanding that ALL citizens "carry papers". Do you?
Again, I think you can't see the forest for the trees. This is an idea of marginal importance and isn't going to make much of a difference for anyone involved.
What's "marginal"? I do not believe that states drafting their own immigration laws is a "marginal" problem, I think it's a HUGE problem. It's a federal duty to protect our national borders. Is it too far a stretch to expect our federal government tackle that, instead of leaving it to the states? I'm pretty sure that's what the states are complaining about.....that the feds aren't helping much, and leaving it up to each state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Who wants 50 different immigration laws? That's crazy.
You really think it makes a difference whether someone is required to carry a piece of paper with them?
Let's ask brown Spanish speaking people in Arizona, shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
On the national ID card; it works for Holland. The introduction of a law similar to the Arizona law hasn't led to non-white people being harrassed by the police in the streets.
Well, at least nobody can claim that Obama is letting polls dictate his decisions, a major criticsm I had of Bill Clinton. I like when politicians do something that isn't popular. It means that they are deciding based on their principles. Gestapo-like asking for citizens' papers ain't the right tack.
Edit: And I have no objection to national ID cards because we already have them, yet we do it inefficiently by having every state have its own drivers license bureaucracy. Most states strongly recommend IDs even if you are not a driver. They are very helpful in emergencies. None of that endorses police stopping people on the street to see their papers.
I'll never be stopped, because I'm tall, blue-eyed European-looking. It would be some fun civil disobedience to look Latino and refuse to show my ID. I'm sad that I can't be difficult that way. :(
I will never be stopped either. Short, white, blond, blue-eyed English speaker. Might be a profile for a Russian spy, but nobody would ever suspect, let alone care. Also, I am getting "old enough" that even the booze sellers don't card me. As a joke I ask them how they don't know I'm under 30, are they being ageist? :haha: :(
Guaranteed tho, if I had brown skin and didn't speak much English, it wouldn't matter what I did or didn't do.....in border states, I'd be yanked for suspicion of breaking some ordinance or other. I'd be afraid to go out into public, even if I was a legal citizen. If I didn't have much money for an attorney, and couldn't rely on local public defenders, it would be a very frustrating situation. I probably wouldn't even want to sign my kids up for summer parks programs, let alone meet with their teachers. I might even be paranoid about going to the doctor!
All of these things are real, and affect real people's lives.
I agree Termite, Obama really is bucking the polls on this. But in the process he's also appearing to be radical. A few years ago my thinking was to reform/open-up the immigration process and the border would become more secure and controllable. But it's become clear that the border is a freaking mess, and I'm getting appalled that this administration seems so unwilling to seriously control it.
We're never going to have a healthy debate about this issue until our southern border is less of a convenient route for trafficking, which BTW is destabilizing other parts of Latin America besides Mexico.
What is the right track?Quote:
It means that they are deciding based on their principles. Gestapo-like asking for citizens' papers ain't the right tack.
Fun fact: The Gestapo didn't ask for citizens' papers.