Papers: Not Just for Aliens Anymore

Arizona's controversial new immigration law requires every noncitizen to carry "an alien registration document" and makes failure to do so (already a misdemeanor under federal law) a state crime punishable by up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. But because it also instructs police officers to make "a reasonable attempt" to "determine the immigration status of a person...if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an unlawfully present alien," everyone in Arizona, including U.S. citizens, would be well advised to carry proof of his status to avoid a hassle. The law says "a person is presumed to not be an unlawfully present alien if the person provides...a valid Arizona driver license or nonoperating identification license," "a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification," or "a valid U.S. federal, state or local government-issued identification if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the U.S. before issuance." Anyone not carrying one of these IDs runs the risk of being detained while the police verify his citizenship, which will be hard to do without an ID.

While police are prohibited from "solely considering race, color or national origin in implementing the requirement for determining and verifying immigration status," Hispanics obviously are at greatest risk for such encounters. (Likewise, although police are allowed to forgo the immigration check if it would interfere with an investigation, the general rule established by the law will further discourage illegal residents from cooperating with the police, whether as complainants or as witnesses.) Even though the law in effect requires everybody to carry an approved form of ID and present it to police on demand, the authors want us to know that "nothing in this act shall implement or shall be construed or interpreted to implement or establish the REAL ID act," a 2005 federal law that Arizona legislators rebelled against in large part because they feared the scenario they are now trying to achieve.

More on the Arizona law here and here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    You guys have to understand... It's not so bad here in Arizona--if you're white. So I'm all set!

  • ||

    Wasn't this battle already lost at the Supreme Court a couple of years ago? I seem to recall the case from Texas where the woman refused to produce ID and they arrested her for it. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and the woman lost.

    No defending the "papers' please" society. But this doesn't strike me as anything different than what already exists. The cops can already detain you for not having an ID.

  • zoltan||

    Do you remember that case John? I wonder who the proto-Nazis were who voted for that?

  • Suriously||

    No, no, no, you don't get it.

    Nazis say "Papieren, bitte!"
    Freedom-loving freedom fighters upholding the American flag and wielding the crucifix-shaped baton of justice say "Papers, please!"

  • ||

    Actually, I think the case is out of Nevada

  • ||

    You are right. It was Nevada.

  • kinnath||

    I hadn't heard about that one.

  • ||

    That wasn't an ID case, assuming you're talking about Hiibel v. Nevada. The guy in question refused to even tell police his name.

    AFAIK SCOTUS didn't opine on whether ID-producing requirements would be constitutional, they just said that a requirement to identify yourself verbally was.

  • ||

    Tulpa is correct.

    That case was about him being detained for not identifying himself at all.

    And if I remember correctly, the fact that a crime had recently been committed in the area also had to do with the ruling.

    I don't think that case is sets a precedent for this law.

  • robc||

    So, why is anyone required to identify themselves?

    Doesnt the right to remain silent exist even before you are arrested?

  • ||

    And it was the old conservative (ReOSKT) majority (as opposed to the current RoSKTA one) who voted in favor in that 5-4 decision.

  • kinnath||

    I believe the TX case had a "suspect" who refused to provide identification. The police did not have probable cause to arrest, but they had reasonable suspicion that the suspect may have been involved in a crime.

    I do not think the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police can stop people at random on the streets and demand ID.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Hiibel-vs-Nevada

    The decision was closely written and used phrase like "must identify himself", and never anything like "must carry identifying documents".

    Enforcing a requirement to carry papers would be new.

    Even then I'm sure Arizona will argue that citizens *aren't* being required to carry papers. 'ya see, its just that if you're brown and not carrying papers were taking 'ya in. Just to be sure.

    Just another brick in the wall.

  • ||

    No. I am talking about the case with the Soccer Mom who got pulled over and had lost her driver's license and was arrested for that and her kids not being in seat belts. That is not the Nevada case. That is a Texas case.

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a067593450

  • zoltan||

    (SLD)
    That's different than just being asked for ID though. To drive you must have a driver's license and Texas law states that children have to wear seat belts. There hasn't been a case exclusively dealing with a non-driving defendant not showing ID?

  • Jamie Kelly||

    "if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an unlawfully present alien,"

    IOW, if you drive a low-rider, work in the fields or blow taco-flavored keeeses.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    I bet there will be a great market for letters of transit.

  • ||

    It seems as long as I have those letters, I'll never be lonely.

  • VikingMoose||

    just keep 'em in Sam's piano...

  • ||

    Serves me right for not being musical.

  • ||

    These people should be thankful the Governor of Arizona wants to protect them from exploitation by evil corporations.

    Why does the Governor of Arizona hate true Americans?

  • Bee Tagger||

    If I were here illegally, my first course of action would be to buy a police costume. My second would be to start harassing Hispanic-looking people.

    I'll bet pesos to buñuelos I'd never be arrested.

  • ||

    "...in large part because they feared the scenario that are now trying to achieve..."

    Wasn't that fear a big part of what sent the Greatest Generation (tm) to War in the 1940s, or drove the Cold Warriors in the 1960s-through-1980s? Weren't we viscerally sickened by the thought of having to knuckle-under to a "papers-please" totalitarian State?

    Did the WWII GIs die for nothing? Did the Cold Warriors fight in vain? Would members of either group recognize the US today, as something that was worth their efforts and sacrifices?

  • ||

    Sadly, we already did a long time ago. When was the last time you could walk around this country and refuse to produce ID to the police? Not anytime in my lifetime.

  • ||

    This is where you are mistaken. Those totalitarians were bad guys. Our's are good guys. Jeeze, duh.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    How many of that greatest generation would have bothered to fight a war for their country knowing their elites would be giving it away to foreigners, anyway? Not many, I'd imagine!

  • MWG||

    Current number of illegals as a percentage of the total population? Less than 5%.

    Not exactly "giving it away".

  • ||

    WW2 had more to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust than ID-producing requirements.

    To equivalence all the horrors of actual totalitarianism into a requirement to carry ID is ridiculous, but it doesn't surprise me that that's the tack Reason and its groupies are taking here.

  • Fluffy||

    To equivalence all the horrors of actual totalitarianism into a requirement to carry ID is ridiculous

    Tulpa, I think the problem is that your authoritarian instincts run so deep that you vastly underestimate what people who lived in less authoritarian times would have seen as an objectionable act by the state.

    The citizen who has to constantly produce papers at the demand of any petty official of the state is demeaned thereby. Is this the sine qua non of totalitarianism? Maybe not. But to anyone who isn't a broken peon of the state, it's a humiliation. You're just so used to humiliation that you no longer care.

  • Mo||

    Ironically, this law has its highest levels of support from among those exact same demographic groups (the elderly and Cold Warriors).

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Wasn't that fear a big part of what sent the Greatest Generation (tm) to War in the 1940s, or drove the Cold Warriors in the 1960s-through-1980s? Weren't we viscerally sickened by the thought of having to knuckle-under to a "papers-please" totalitarian State?

    Did the WWII GIs die for nothing? Did the Cold Warriors fight in vain? Would members of either group recognize the US today, as something that was worth their efforts and sacrifices?


    How many of them fought to have our country turned over to foreigners?

  • MWG||

    Oh yes, those brutal hispanic immigrants who rule over us.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Wasn't that fear a big part of what sent the Greatest Generation (tm) to War in the 1940s, or drove the Cold Warriors in the 1960s-through-1980s? Weren't we viscerally sickened by the thought of having to knuckle-under to a "papers-please" totalitarian State?

    Did the WWII GIs die for nothing? Did the Cold Warriors fight in vain? Would members of either group recognize the US today, as something that was worth their efforts and sacrifices?


    How many of them fought to have our country turned over to foreigners?

  • Just Askin'||

    "if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an unlawfully present alien"

    So, then, you're telling me you don't know who plays second base for the Detroit Tigers?

  • Barack Obama||

    Gotcha! It's the Chicago Tigers!

  • ||

    Wasn't that fear a big part of what sent the Greatest Generation (tm) to War in the 1940s

    Nope, it was the fear caused by the bombs on US ships in Peral Harbor and the German declaration of war

    Did the WWII GIs die for nothing?

    No

    Did the Cold Warriors fight in vain?

    No

    Would members of either group recognize the US today, as something that was worth their efforts and sacrifices?

    Maybe

  • ||

    Probably. Contrary to expectations around here, not everyone (in fact pretty much nobody) was a libertarian back in the day. Hell, I'd imagine most of the great generation/cold warriors would think this is peachy, and if anything more extreme steps should be taken to keep illegals out.

    It's a common bit of libertarian mythology that everyone used to be anti-government individualists, and maybe there were a lot of people like that (as long as the individual was a white heterosexual male), but I'm not sure how you can resolve a people that was very comfortable with racial segregation, official discrimination against gays, eugenics, and who didn't let women vote until 90 years ago, as a bunch of libertarians in any meaningful sense of the word. They, like most people, are libertarians when it comes to the freedom to do what they want to do, and authoritarians when it comes to what you want to do. If they were libertarians, let me off the bus cause I don't want to ride anymore.

  • zoltan||

    Are you joking? Where are you getting these mythical libertarians? Plenty of people here acknowledge that the past was not freer in a certain sense.

  • ||

    "Did the WWII GIs die for nothing? Did the Cold Warriors fight in vain? Would members of either group recognize the US today, as something that was worth their efforts and sacrifices?"

    See the comments above. And yeah, there does seem to be a significant # of people who believe in a libertarian utopia around here. They might give a nod to slavery or something, but generally at least the founding fathers get a libertarian halo.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    See the comments above. And yeah, there does seem to be a significant # of people who believe in a libertarian utopia around here. They might give a nod to slavery or something, but generally at least the founding fathers get a libertarian halo.


    You mentioned that there was official discrimination against gays.

    Were gays discriminated against by the state because of their sexual disorientation, or their conduct?

    Remember that just because someone is gay does not mean they have engaged in same-sex sodomy.

  • ||

    That's a retarded distinction.

    The fact is that discrimination wasn't put in place to put down anyone except gays. Otherwise we'd be hearing about all those poor sodomizing heteros denied the freedom to get blowjobs.

  • ||

    ...and who didn't let women vote until 90 years ago...

    Coincidentally or not, that's also when large scale restriction of immigration began.

  • kinnath||

    Everything went to hell after sufferage.

  • ||

    I'm just saying--- most of the guys who died in WW2 or fighting communism would not find this to violate the reasons they fought for the USA. It's bullshit to act like it would. I doubt they would have any problems with the police asking for ID when they have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant. Maybe I'm just putting words in my grandparents mouths, but I seriously doubt they would have blinked twice at this law, except perhaps to wonder why they hadn't been doing this in the first place.

    Which isn't to say I like this law. Just that I kinda find it offensive when people try to put words in the mouths of dead heroes. Especially when the dead heroes probably didn't particularly agree with you.

  • Fluffy||

    Well, you have to discount the fact that most of them were, by our standards, racist scum.

    So sure, they would have been delighted if the local police forces required Mexicans or blacks to produce internal passports on demand.

    The important question to ask is how they would have demanded the police treat white people. So all that "reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant" stuff doesn't arise.

    Would they have accepted it if any police officer could demand that any white person on the street produce evidence of citizenship? I doubt it.

    Just like I doubt that they would have allowed some TSA employee at an airport to grab their wife's tits to check for bombs. Pretty much any WWII vet in 1947 would probably have started a riot if that happened.

  • robc||

    No dogs or Irish allowed.

    Just sayin'.

  • ||

    Interestingly enough, the second largest group of illegal immigrants after Latinos are the Irish.

    Somehow I don't think Arizona cops will be asking for ID from all the redheads in the state.

  • Robert||

    So few people flew then, especially as civilians, that had they been transported suddenly to an airport in their future (our present), they probably would've thought, "Well, if the experience of the intervening years has shown these people that grabbing my wife's tits is necessary for air safety, I'll trust their judgment."

    Seems in examples like this nobody but me takes into account that the milieu (including technology and wealth) has changed, and that people from the past wouldn't have adapted similarly.

  • Coeus||

    So by adapted, you mean that eventually the blood from the average citizen's torn and battered anus lubricated the passage of the totalitarian cock?

  • ||

    I'm not putting words in the mouths of dead heroes, and people ratcheting the rhetoric to that level are merely engaging in the tactics of marginalization. You know who you are and you should be ashamed, but on these forums, I expect nothing less. Bring it.

    Of course the dead heroes didn't fight for ideals nearly as much as they fought to preserve the freedoms of their own family and friends, and of themselves. And the propaganda of the day (which I have seen, have you?) was telling them that if they didn't fight, they, their sons, daughters, and spouses would someday soon have to show their papers (if not their knickers) to some foreign conqueror, and answer questions in that person's language. I realize that the bombs on Pearl Harbor and other violent provocations were the key reasons for war in the public mind. But also, looming large in that same mind, were the propaganda images that our own government paid to produce -- the horrors of the "show your papers" State large among them (to the point of almost being a shorthand for the totalitarianism that we were said to be fighting).

  • Dan||

    "a person is presumed to not be an unlawfully present alien if the person provides...a valid Arizona driver license or nonoperating identification license,"

    This doesn't seem like much of a hassle. I carry my driver's license with me whenever I go anywhere. So does everyone I know.

  • Greer||

    Major missing of the point here.

  • Dan||

    What's the point I'm missing?

    It is already established law that police can make you show a driver's license if they suspect you've broken the law. The only new thing is that people who don't have a license on them, and are suspected by the police of being illegal immigrants, can end up having trouble with the law. Since I don't leave the house without my wallet (and am obviously American if you speak to me for two seconds), I don't see how this law poses any danger or inconvenience to me. Certainly not as much danger or inconvenience as the illegal immigrant population itself does.

    And before you make some remark about how police can use the law to harass people on trumped-up charges: they can already do that in any one of a thousand different ways.

  • Dave||

    No, it's established that police can make you show a driver's license if you are driving. Nothing else has been answered--in fact, the court specifically ducked that question in Hiibel.

    And the question isn't whether it inconveniences you. A) it's not all about you, and B) just because it's not inconvenient doesn't make it okay.

  • Dan||

    And the question isn't whether it inconveniences you. A) it's not all about you, and B) just because it's not inconvenient doesn't make it okay.

    The fact that it will inconvenience criminals without inconveniencing either me or my friends and family is sufficient reason for me to support it.

  • zoltan||

    Do you happen to have the last initial of T?

    What happens when you don't have your license on you?

  • ||

    I don't think Tron rules are all that unreasonable.

  • zoltan||

    I'm too young for that reference.

  • Thom||

    I don't have a valid Arizona drivers license or nonoperating identification license (I'm not from Arizona), and I don't make a habit of carrying my Passport around when I'm traveling internally. Does that mean I could be detained at the whim of a police officer if I should happen to travel into Arizona? I hope so. I've always wanted to make a federal case out of something.

  • ||

    They also accept other states' identification as long as residence in that state is required to get that ID. Read the bill text.

  • Rhywun||

    When I got my passport a few years ago, the feds informed that my non-driver ID was insufficient evidence of being an American, and I would have to bring over a friend or family member to vouch for my citizenship. Guess I will have to bring that person with me to Arizona, too.

  • Thom||

    So police officers will not only have to be familiar with their own laws on this issue, but the laws of the remaining 49 states, one federal district, and other federal territories? Based on what little I know about Arizona police officers, that's a hell of a lot to ask.

  • adam||

    Do you carry it when you go out jogging? Walking the dog? Other times you leave the house and aren't driving? I only take it if I drive or will need money (because it's in my wallet).

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

  • ||

    Most people want to stop immigration. That has been the case for decades.

  • zoltan||

    A majority voted for Obama. You are a moron.

  • ||

    Well, I wouldn't want undocumented Klingons around.

  • Tman||

    Of course most independent minded people here in the US will object to the idea that we should need to carry around papers to prove who we are at all times. This might not be the case if we were a US citizen in say, China, where we would probably want to be able to prove where we were from.

    The Arizona law is a gauntlet throw-down from the state to the Feds that the pressure that AZ has to deal with in terms of enforcing legal immigration is an unfair burden. They are calling the Feds bluff with this law, and I don't blame them.

  • Arizona||

    Federal bailouts for us, too!

  • * NAME||

    Would you say their gauntlet is requesting a law, perhaps like Real ID? Or would the fact that their law states it's anti-that mean they're asking for something else?

  • Tman||

    The gauntlet is, as Fluffy writes below, due to the fact that Arizona has to deal with immigration problems that are not an issue in most other states, and therefore the current federal involvement is inadequate to help them. They passed this law as a notice to the Feds that since they won't do anything to help them they will have to do something on their own. I don't know if this is an answer worthy to become law, but I can't blame AZ for trying.

  • Fluffy||

    Arizona is under absolutely no pressure to enforce any immigration statutes.

    In fact, in recent years the federal government's primary concern with Arizona vis-a-vis immigration is that Arizona keeps trying to INSERT ITSELF into the enforcement of immigration laws, and the federal government doesn't want them to do so.

  • ||

    They are not under any pressure from the Feds, that is true. But they are under tremendous pressure from their citizens along the border who are seeing their property violated and their lives occasionally taken.

    I think Arizona owes the people who live along the border some measure of public safety.

  • robc||

    A mine field would work better than this stupid law.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A mine field would work better than this stupid law.


    So true.

    Mine fields work at the Korean DMZ.

  • MWG||

    Many republicans and conservatives won't be satisfied until the boarder resembles that of east/west Berlin, or the current one between China and N Korea.

    B/c I know many conservative here will argue that those wall are/were designed to keep people IN, let me just add that it's totally irrelevant. In either case, such extreme measures are designed to keep people on one side, from crossing to the other.

  • Dan||

    In either case, such extreme measures are designed to keep people on one side, from crossing to the other.

    Could you explain why you think it is always wrong to "keep people on one side, from crossing to the other"?

    As a follow-up, could you explain why you have a lock on your front door? Why take such an extreme measure to "keep people on one side, from crossing to the other"? How is your house any different from North Korea or East Berlin?

  • MWG||

    "Could you explain why you think it is always wrong to "keep people on one side, from crossing to the other"?"

    Besides the fact that I believe people have the natural right to free association, I don't think we should have a shoot-to-kill policy on the US border, which, by the way, is the ONLY way to keep people from attempting to cross over.

    "As a follow-up, could you explain why you have a lock on your front door?"

    My right to defend my own private property is not the same thing as the governments right (Show me in the constitution where the government has that right) to keep people out.

    If I, as an American, want to hire Mexican workers to clean my house, nowhere in the constitution does the government have the right to impede that. Quite the contrary.

  • Dan||

    I don't think we should have a shoot-to-kill policy on the US border, which, by the way, is the ONLY way to keep people from attempting to cross over.

    If you want to take things to that extreme then, yes, any border policy ultimately boils down to either:

    (1): Open borders
    (2): Illegal immigrants are shot

    But that's a little simplistic, because we have a government funded via progressive taxation -- and taxation boils down to either "pay the tax" or "get killed by the government". So that "open borders" option gets a little more complicated:

    (1a): Open borders, and my money is stolen from me to pay for the government services to support the flood of immigrants

    (1b): Open borders, and I'm killed by the government for refusing to pay

    (2): Illegal immigrants are shot.

    I pick (2). Easy choice.

  • Dan||

    (Show me in the constitution where the government has that right) to keep people out.

    Article 4, Section 4, second clause. The federal government is required to secure the states against invasion:

    Article 1, Section 8, commerce, militia, naturalization, and necessary/proper clauses: the power to secure borders is implicit in regulation of international commerce, in protection from invasion, and in maintaining a uniform system of naturalization.

    Most importantly, under the 10th amendment states retain the right to secure their own borders against foreigners. So even if you don't think Congress is allowed to keep foreign citizens from entering the country, Arizona is allowed to keep them from entering Mexico.

    Finally, Article 1, Section 9 includes this limit on Congress:

    "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight"

    This obviously implies that, after 1808, prohibitions on the migration and/or importation of people to the United States can be imposed by Congress. It was aimed at the slave trade, but the language has much broader application than that.

    If I, as an American, want to hire Mexican workers to clean my house, nowhere in the constitution does the government have the right to impede that. Quite the contrary.

    Your state government does. The federal government probably does as well, since imported foreign labor pretty clearly qualifies as commerce between the nations.

  • ||

    "This might not be the case if we were a US citizen in say, China, where we would probably want to be able to prove where we were from."

    You are precisely correct. Visas and passports were made necessary/required by OTHER countries, long before we started using them. Having a US Passport back then meant guarantees of US protection. Having a US Passport now is becoming a necessity -- even in the US itself! -- because the government is these days not so much about securing the rights of American citizens but telling them how to live their lives.

  • ||

    Thank you, GOP!

    We will enjoy the Hispanic votes!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Thank you, GOP!

    We will enjoy the Hispanic votes!


    Which would be swamped by the anti-illegal-alien vote, which composes a majority .

  • ||

    Green Card holders are already supposed to carry our cards at all times.

  • ||

    I think you should have to wear a scarlet "C."

  • ||

    Or a maple leaf pinned to your clothes.

  • zoltan||

    Or only a maple leaf.

  • ||

    I wonder how many guys on the board participated in Boobquake.

  • ||

    Warty did. His moobs are pretty big.

  • ||

    Every day is boobquake for Warty. You are definitely not ready for his jelly.

  • Warty||

    Fuck you, you ice-fucking Canuck coprophile, I am FUCKING SHREDDED.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    http://blogs.houstonpress.com/.....igh-in.jpg

    I bumped into that guy once. Literally. In a cafeteria.

    He was very understanding about it, but it was rather like waking into the side of a building.

  • Warty||

    He plays for Baltimore now. Why didn't you take the opportunity to do the world a service and gouge out his eyes with a fork, you pussy?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Why didn't you take the opportunity to do the world a service and gouge out his eyes with a fork, you pussy?

    I didn't have one of those really long fondue forks, so I couldn't reach...

  • ||

    That dude looks like he's suffering from the male version of cameltoe, which you know is my only weakness. Warty, I take back all the horrible things I've said about you. Your stench be damned- I must have you.

  • Warty||

    I smell like roses and honeysuckle, my dear. You're thinking of Steve Smith. You do that a lot, don't you?

  • ||

    My therapist says the flashbacks will subside, but I'll never be able to open up and trust Sasquatches again.

  • ||

    I would go all but undetected were it not for the aroma of poutine and the air of quiet desperation all Canadians emit.

  • ||

    Quiet desperation?

    Screw that. I'm going to have 'yelling and screaming desperation."

  • ||

    You need to chill out with some better drugs, Aresen. I ended up hanging out with some fellow Canadian expats this weekend, and they hooked us up admirably.

  • Rich||

    And I suppose we can expect this kind of stuff:

    "Officer, I know I look a bit like Benjamin Franklin in this photo, but I'm hoping you'll accept my documentation."

  • ||

    police are prohibited from "solely considering race, color or national origin in implementing the requirement..."

    Does this not imply that police are allowed to consider race and color in implementing the requirement?

  • adam||

    Yes, which is one of a number of reasons this law is going to get struck down. Intrusion of federal immigration authority is another.

  • Robert||

    And isn't national origin what it's all about?

  • ||

    Also within 50 miles of the border, CPB has the authority to ask you for proof of citizenship if they have reasonable suspicion you might be an alien.

  • ||

    I think in Douglas, AZ., this law will largely be ignored. Douglas is predominantly hispanic, the cops are hispanic, most everyone. And thank god for all those hispanic women. Douglas easily has the highest concentration of hotties anywhere. They are all so curvy.... and like showing their curves....wait...what was i talking about?

    Places like Kingman, and Mohave county will largley ignore this law too. They are already so cash strapped and undermanned that they won't have time to go on special trips looking for Klingons.

    This leaves shitwads like Apraio will make it his top priority to fuck with as many brown people as he can.... at the expense of looking for rapists, murderers, kidnappers... you know ... dangerous people.

  • ||

    I agree with this. I live in Tucson and I'm pretty sure that Sheriff Joe up in Maricopa is the only one thats going all out with this. Well, the Sheriff in Pinal county seemed pretty happy with the passage too.
    The rest of the State... not so much

  • adam||

    Maybe the cops in those counties could start stopping white folks...you know, because of the anglo immigration problem.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I think in Douglas, AZ., this law will largely be ignored. Douglas is predominantly hispanic, the cops are hispanic, most everyone. And thank god for all those hispanic women. Douglas easily has the highest concentration of hotties anywhere. They are all so curvy.... and like showing their curves....wait...what was i talking about?


    Douglas is a small town, so the local cops would pretty much know who is in the country legally.

  • Ernie the Bear||

    In 6-12 months, there won't be any more 'illegal aliens'. Everybody wins.

  • IceTrey||

    1. Do away with birthright citizenship.

    2. No government assistance of any kind or schooling for illegals.

    3. Criminal penalties (jail) for hiring illegals.

  • ||

    1. Do away with targeted government assistance for citizen children of immigrants.

    2. No targeted government assistance for any legal or illegal immigrants.

    3. There will be so few illegals that hiring them will be irrelevant.

  • Tony||

    1. Do away with birthright citizenship.

    So we all have to take a test? At least that would mean dumb white people will have to be as informed about their country as spanish-speaking immigrants. This could be devastating to Republicans.

  • Your Government||

    WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?

  • Rhywun||

    In addition to tests, countries that don't have "birthright" citizenship tend to grant citizenship based on "blood", "ethnicity" and similar tribal notions.

  • cynical||

    Or you could go with the bizarre, nonsensical notion that children inherit the citizenship of their parents or legal guardians, rather than whatever patch of ground their parents happened to be standing on when they were born.

  • Warty||

    You idiot. Why would you say something that makes Tony say something sensible? Don't do it again, you fucking horserimming moron cockdreamer.

  • ||

    Nah. Tony is still a moron. If you got rid of birth right citizenship, you wouldn't have to take a test. You would just have to show that one of your parents was a citizen.

    And why Tony thinks that racial slurs and insults are an acceptable method of argument is beyond me.

  • ||

    Several thoughts:

    1.) The correct form of civil disobedience would be for legal citizens and residents to not carry ID and inform as many police officers as possible that they don't have any documentation. Once the jails start getting crowded with legal citizens, you bet your ass the Supreme Court will strike it down.

    2.) Now there are two crimes of existence - existing without health insurance and existing in Arizona without government papers. Those anti-government tea partiers must not appreciate the irony...

    3.) Illegal immigration is a lose-lose-lose situation. If we enforce the law and deport every one of them, innumerable civil liberties will be violated and the expense will be enormous. Same with the bureaucratic infrastructure required to enforce against employers, most of whom will just claim that the worker showed them false documents. If we give them amnesty or citizenship, we create a moral hazard and more will keep coming. If we make them pay income taxes, most will not make enough and will instead qualify for credits for their large families, draining what little money we have left. Luckily contrary to most of the foaming-at-the-mouth nativists, the illegal immigrants are paying their fair share for the welfare state as most of them pay property (via inflated rent) and sales taxes, which are the typical funding source for welfare programs.

    Honestly, maintaining the faux-enforcement status quo combined with better legal immigration reform is probably the best solution. If only the system were simple enough for them to be able to go home and come back with legal work visas after passing background checks...

    4.) I'm very glad for the heavily Mexican culture down here in Texas. It must be really bland to live up north, never before having eaten al pastor burritos covered in spicy salsa verde.

  • ||

    5.) Can't Obama just pardon any person arrested by the State of Arizona for lack of documentation?

  • ||

    He could, but he won't because they won't contribute enough to his re-election campaign.

  • ||

    6.) If they argue that they don't racially profile, but they profile people who aren't native English speakers, that would be a violation of that person's First Amendment rights. I believe we have a right to speak in an accent or even it whatever language we choose, even if we have to miss opportunities because we don't speak English.

  • Dan||

    I believe we have a right to speak in an accent or even it whatever language we choose, even if we have to miss opportunities because we don't speak English

    The first amendment prevents police for arresting you for your speech. It does NOT prevent police from arresting you for criminal conduct revealed by your speech, nor does it prevent them from questioning you if your speech suggests you might be engaged in criminal activity.

    You have the right to act like you're not native born -- and the police have the right to interpret that as evidence that you're not native born.

  • ||

    So it's criminal conduct to have an accent? How many naturalized citizens and legal residents will have to get tormented by the cops because the federal government was too lazy to close the border?

    By the way: 7.) Isn't Arizona in one of the worst fiscal shapes of any state? How is paying for thousands of illegals clogging up their jails instead of spending money and paying sales taxes going to help their situation any?

  • Dan||

    So it's criminal conduct to have an accent?

    If it was criminal conduct to have an accent, police would be able to arrest you for it without any further investigation. You need to distinguish between criminal conduct (which police may arrest you for) and evidence of possible criminal activity (which police may investigate).

    How many naturalized citizens and legal residents will have to get tormented by the cops because the federal government was too lazy to close the border?

    The great irony here is that naturalized Hispanic immigrants and their descendants are the major voting bloc opposed to closing the border to illegal immigration. I think it is a damned shame that legal Hispanic immigrants labor under a cloud of suspicion because of the ten million illegal Hispanic immigrants in the country. But it is, to a large extent, a self-inflicted wound.

    How is paying for thousands of illegals clogging up their jails instead of spending money and paying sales taxes going to help their situation any?

    Illegal immigrants are a net drain on state coffers. In the long term, it is in Arizona's best interests to remove illegal immigrants from the state. If they end up having to jail them, well, that will probably not be cost-effective. But if the law has the effect of encouraging most of the illegals to either leave the country or migrate to another state, Arizona will probably benefit financially.

  • ||

    Isn't that like saying someone is possibly a crackhead because they are black, therefore they should be investigated? Perhaps the government should investigate all Catholic priests because they might all be child molesters. Don't forget - if you have an Arabic accent, that gives the government license to investigate whether you are a terrorist.

  • Dan||

    Isn't that like saying someone is possibly a crackhead because they are black, therefore they should be investigated?

    There is no rational basis for assuming a black person is probably a crackhead. Most black people aren't cocaine users; most cocaine users aren't black. The majority of foreign-born Mexicans in America ARE illegal immigrants.

    Perhaps the government should investigate all Catholic priests because they might all be child molesters.

    The evidence we have is that only a tiny minority of priests are molesters. But I'd be open to the idea of investigating the church for its complicity in molestation cases.

    Don't forget - if you have an Arabic accent, that gives the government license to investigate whether you are a terrorist.

    If most of the Arabs in America were terrorists, I would have no problem with the police assuming that "he's an Arab" was valid grounds for further investigation. Similarly, the fact that most foreign-born Mexicans are here illegally means that I have no problem with police assuming that "foreign-born Mexican" is valid grounds for further investigation.

    There's a simple solution for foreigners who don't like this approach: don't move here.

  • ||

    I'm glad its seen as a 4th amendment
    issue instead of the racist one
    more popular in the press.

    Get a tan, accented lawyer who goes without ID to vacation in AZ. Bring a film crew. Dress like an illegal.
    Profit.

  • http://linksyssolutions.com/||

    Arizona is nuts.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement