Anyone avoiding Arizona?

[realjd]

Have you considered saying something along the lines of, "These Puerto Ricans are full US citizens just like you and me?"  Not your responsibility to help them out of their ignorance, of course, but evil requires only that good people do nothing . . .

Usually I will, depending on the situation. I overheard one idiot once telling his buddy that "I'll bet none of those Puerto Ricans have green cards!" I informed him that he was correct, they don't, but it's because they're US citizens.

Coming back from from the Caribbean, often you'll clear US customs in San Juan. It's a domestic flight from there back to the mainland, although you do have to go through an agriculture quarantine booth before TSA if you're flying back to the states.

[Brandon]

Have you considered saying something along the lines of, "These Puerto Ricans are full US citizens just like you and me?"  Not your responsibility to help them out of their ignorance, of course, but evil requires only that good people do nothing . . .

Usually I will, depending on the situation. I overheard one idiot once telling his buddy that "I'll bet none of those Puerto Ricans have green cards!" I informed him that he was correct, they don't, but it's because they're US citizens.

Coming back from from the Caribbean, often you'll clear US customs in San Juan. It's a domestic flight from there back to the mainland, although you do have to go through an agriculture quarantine booth before TSA if you're flying back to the states.

That's not much different than coming back from Hawai'i.  They have the same ag booths, and for much the same reasons.

[mightyace]

I have a simple supposition with not so simple consequences.

If a law is on the books, enforce it!

If a government is not going to enforce a law, repeal it!

If you don't like a law, work on getting it repealed or declared unconstitutional.  Not liking a law is not sufficient grounds to breaking it.

IMHO  "Civil disobedience" should only be applied in extreme cases.

[Stephane Dumas]

Speaking for myself:  yes and yes.  I have been following this issue for a number of years and have supplemented my reading in the news media with a couple of books.  I am aware, for example, that on a per capita basis Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the Western Hemisphere.  Even in Kansas the inward migrant flow has brought about noticeable social changes, such as the conversion of inner-city Catholic parishes from majority white (generally German descent) to Hispanic.  Like many states a significant distance away from the border, Kansas has relatively liberal policies toward migrants of uncertain immigration status (such as tuition fees at the in-state rate), but a backlash has become evident in measures such as the recent adoption of English as an official language (which is designed to discourage state agencies from providing official materials in Spanish except as required by overriding federal legislation such as the Voting Rights Act).

I'm surprised to learned this about Phoenix althought from what I read at http://www.city-data.com/forum/phoenix-area/652633-az-kidnapping-capital-world-3.html compared to Ciudaz Juarez, Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Rio de Janeiro, Caracas.  For a bit of humor relief, if some of you remember the "Kentucky Fried movie" quote "Take him...to Detroit" should we replace it for "Take him....to Phoenix"?

On a off-topic note, Kansas City isn't the only city, the Chicagoland also witness some changes as well, a "Black Flight"
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=181153

As Also, I strongly favor repealing the Drug War™.

Mike

I begin to think of the same thing, do you think we should go a step further by legelizing pot and hemp as mentionned  at http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/19/reasontv-3-reasons-to-legalize ?

[agentsteel53]

I freely admit I don't know what USC Title 8 has to say about foreign citizens on US soil, but in your case I think the honest admission that you are not a US citizen is adequate cause to justify a demand for you to show your papers that is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment.  Now, if you lied and said you were a US citizen, they would not be able to require you to show your papers, and they would not be able to search you or detain you to verify your citizenship status unless there were some other reason to believe you were not an US citizen which could be cited as probable cause.  Similarly, if I drive up and say I am a US citizen, they have to let me go unless they have probable cause to believe I am lying.

I did not realize the US Constitution was to be interpreted using game theory ...

[agentsteel53]

It is relevant.  Think about it.  "When in Rome . . ." applies to the US just as it does to Mexico.  If you don't object to the way they do things down in Mexico, why are you objecting to the way we do it in the US?  It can't be because one side of the border has a greater surfeit of self-congratulation or hypocrisy than the other.  Mexicans are very proud of their human-rights record!

because I can voluntarily avoid going to Mexico without having to make any particular compromises in my lifestyle.  Leaving the US is not quite so simple, so therefore I will notice, and object, if the water starts to boil a little.

[agentsteel53]

agriculture quarantine booth

speaking of which ... at the California border, they have these agricultural checkpoints.  Coming into CA on I-10 a few weeks ago from Arizona, guess whom I noticed standing in the shadows while the aggies actually asked the questions ...

that's right, the US border patrol.

nothing like a little responsibility creep here and there.

I've also seen them on I-15, sitting in the median, a la the Highway Patrol watching traffic.  No idea if they had a radar gun; was too shocked to make careful observations.

[agentsteel53]

The underlying point is that there is an Anglo-American way of doing things, and there is a separate Latin American way of doing things which is in some ways more bureaucratic, more legalistic, more closely attuned to patron/client relationships, and more susceptible to corruption.  For a variety of historical and institutional reasons, it is unequipped to support freedom of movement either as a basic human right or as a fundamental economic freedom.  So while I dislike Border Patrol checkpoints, I think our system in its totality serves our needs and our conception of human rights better than a clone of the Latin American system for managing cross-border flows.

what about the countries under the Schengen agreement?  I have received only very cursory questioning when entering Europe with an European passport - significantly less attention than my American friends have gotten when returning to the US.  (In fact, my American friends who have flown to Europe have also reported significantly less questioning than when they returned to the country of their citizenship!)

And, of course, not only are there no internal checkpoints in Europe, but you can move between sovereign countries without getting hassled!

I submit that as an alternative to both the US and the Mexican way of doing things.

[agentsteel53]

If a government is not going to enforce a law, repeal it!

adios, speed limits?

(or: "what if a government is going to enforce a law in an arbitrary and senseless manner?")

[bugo]

I notice most of you who have contributed to this thread live a long way from the Mexican border.  So I'm curious: do you feel that you have an adequate grasp on the situation with illegal immigration in border states?  Or the role of Mexico in the narcotics trade?  I'm sure lawmakers in Arizona are no more and no less reasonable than lawmakers elsewhere in the US.  I imagine the situation must be pretty desperate if they felt they had to resort to such a drastic law.  Arizona is on the front lines of a battle that most people do not understand, because they have not yet been impacted by the consequences.  But I think the situation in Mexico is a huge problem that will increasingly affect those of us in the US, and I don't see any easy solutions... partly because of the role we in the US play in the narcotics trade.

I have an simple fix for the drug cartel problem: legalize, tax, and regulate drugs.  Addicts are going to get their fix anyway. If the government ensured the drugs were pure they would save many lives.  Drug crime would vanish and tax revenues would help our economy while some of our rights that were taken away would be restored.  DEA agents would be reassigned to fight real crime and to secure our borders.  Prison time would be replaced by rehab.  California is about to legalize cannabis, and I see other states following soon. 

It's not perfect.  But it's better than the current system.

[mightyace]

If a government is not going to enforce a law, repeal it!

adios, speed limits?

(or: "what if a government is going to enforce a law in an arbitrary and senseless manner?")

I agree with you there.   To me, "enforcing" a law in an arbitrary and senseless manner isn't enforcing the law.  (But that's what I get for writing a sound bite!  )

EDIT:
<sarcasm>
Are there any laws in this country that aren't enforced in an arbitrary and/or senseless manner?
</sarcasm>

[agentsteel53]

there are degrees of senseless enforcement, and speed limit laws are near the top. 

[mightyace]

there are degrees of senseless enforcement, and speed limit laws are near the top. 

I would agree to that.  Many jurisdiction's "revenue enhancement" enforcement makes highways a toll road with most paying nothing and a few paying a lot.  If all the jurisdiction wants is money, wouldn't it be better to set up toll collection points as that would be much fairer than speed limit enforcement?

[agentsteel53]

I would agree to that.  Many jurisdiction's "revenue enhancement" enforcement makes highways a toll road with most paying nothing and a few paying a lot.  If all the jurisdiction wants is money, wouldn't it be better to set up toll collection points as that would be much fairer than speed limit enforcement?

indeed.  and, as a corollary, speed limits that are much more in tune to the road's capacity and performance.  Why, again, is there a speed limit on state route 140 in rural Nevada, home to maybe 40 cars per day? 

[mgk920]

As Also, I strongly favor repealing the Drug War™.

Mike

I begin to think of the same thing, do you think we should go a step further by legelizing pot and hemp as mentionned  at http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/19/reasontv-3-reasons-to-legalize ?

A step further Stephane?  I'd legalize and tax/regulate all of the harder stuff, too.

From an agricultural/agribusiness standpoint, outlawing completely harmless industrial hemp was a terrible side effect of the Drug War™, brought about during the mid-1930s by frustrated 'Drys' (those who supported even tougher enforcement of the then just repealed 18th Amendment, which outlawed beverage alcohol).  Hemp was temporarily re-legalized in the USA during WWII due to wartime needs for its products and during that period, Wisconsin lead the USA in production - the climate here allows for two complete crops each year.  Hemp is an immensely useful plant, producing valuable oil seeds AND is an abundant source of natural fiber with a ready market in the state's industrial sector (papermaking), especially here in the lower Fox River Valley (Neenah/Menasha/Appleton to Green Bay) and upper Wisconsin River Valley (Wisconsin Rapids to Tomahawk) areas.

Mike

[agentsteel53]

don't forget the nylon lobby - with hemp out of the way, their product could take a greater market share.

[hbelkins]

Looks like I am in the minority of those commenting here.

I support the Arizona law 100 percent.

It is illegal to be in this country without permission if you are not a citizen. I think that law should be enforced. It's obvious the federal government has little stomach to enforce the laws currently on the books, and apparently illegal immigration is a serious problem in Arizona. The locals feel the feds have not done their duty so they have passed a law to augment the federal law currently on the books.

If you are in this country illegally, I believe you should be deported. No ifs, ands or buts.

There are people who go through the steps required to come to this country legally to work temporarily or to become residents and citizens. They deserve priority over those who willfully violate our laws and our borders.

I do not support amnesty for those already in this country illegally.

I will say that states could help their own causes here by requiring proof of citizenship (or green cards) before granting driver's licenses. I don't think all states require this.

[agentsteel53]

There are people who go through the steps required to come to this country legally to work temporarily or to become residents and citizens. They deserve priority over those who willfully violate our laws and our borders.

been there, done that, do not wish it upon anyone else.  Bureaucracy is best experienced secondhand.

[Marc]

Looks like I am in the minority of those commenting here.

I support the Arizona law 100 percent.

It is illegal to be in this country without permission if you are not a citizen. I think that law should be enforced. It's obvious the federal government has little stomach to enforce the laws currently on the books, and apparently illegal immigration is a serious problem in Arizona. The locals feel the feds have not done their duty so they have passed a law to augment the federal law currently on the books.

If you are in this country illegally, I believe you should be deported. No ifs, ands or buts.

There are people who go through the steps required to come to this country legally to work temporarily or to become residents and citizens. They deserve priority over those who willfully violate our laws and our borders.

I do not support amnesty for those already in this country illegally.

I will say that states could help their own causes here by requiring proof of citizenship (or green cards) before granting driver's licenses. I don't think all states require this.

I agree 100%. This is basically Arizona giving the middle finger to Washington for failing to deal with this issue for over two decades. The last I checked, the word "illegal" is in the phrase, so what makes that okay? I understand that they are very kind, hardworking people (in most cases). So, if they want to live here and work here, they are more than welcome to come in legally. If you want to come here and use our resources (which legal citizens pay for), you are more than welcome to do it in a legal way. They're presence here in an illegal manner is unfair to those who did move to our country legally. This is not at all an issue of race like people on the left are claiming. If you actually read the vocabulary of the bill, it's very well written and takes issues such as racial profiling into account. I can tell you that my girlfriend's parents are from Nicaragua and they are extreme advocates for securing our boarder. So, I don't see how the left playing the race card (once again) is a valid argument, after all, Mexican is not a race. I feel the left is using the immigration issue simply for political gain. Just my $0.02.

[J N Winkler]

I support the Arizona law 100 percent.

So you support SB 1070, hmm.  Kris Kobach drafted it:  that is another auspicious omen for its eventual repeal or striking-down by the courts.

[SP Cook]

If I had the opertunity, which seems unlikely given my location and economic situation, I would be proud to give extra business to Arizona based on its citizens standing up for the Rule of Law.

[Stephane Dumas]

A step further Stephane?  I'd legalize and tax/regulate all of the harder stuff, too.

From an agricultural/agribusiness standpoint, outlawing completely harmless industrial hemp was a terrible side effect of the Drug War, brought about during the mid-1930s by frustrated 'Drys' (those who supported even tougher enforcement of the then just repealed 18th Amendment, which outlawed beverage alcohol).  Hemp was temporarily re-legalized in the USA during WWII due to wartime needs for its products and during that period, Wisconsin lead the USA in production - the climate here allows for two complete crops each year.  Hemp is an immensely useful plant, producing valuable oil seeds AND is an abundant source of natural fiber with a ready market in the state's industrial sector (papermaking), especially here in the lower Fox River Valley (Neenah/Menasha/Appleton to Green Bay) and upper Wisconsin River Valley (Wisconsin Rapids to Tomahawk) areas.
Mike

I also heard then Ford experimented the hemp car, a plastic car where the plastic came from hemp

[J N Winkler]

I have received only very cursory questioning when entering Europe with an European passport - significantly less attention than my American friends have gotten when returning to the US.  (In fact, my American friends who have flown to Europe have also reported significantly less questioning than when they returned to the country of their citizenship!)

A question:  how many of those American friends have left Schengenland and then re-entered a few weeks later?

[english si]

Schengenland, however is very very lax when it comes to passport checks. Especially if you have a British passport, as they don't care, wanting the UK to be in Schengen or thinking it already is. I remember lots of trips to France where passport control weren't manning booths, and you could just head through (given that it was the biggest ferry of the day, it was a little rude that they didn't seem to want to welcome us to France). Schengen passport checkers spot you have a British passport, check it's yours and wave you on - no scanning it or anything.

Indonesia and the US have asked me questions on the visa forms, the US one being more detailed, but not needing a $25 dollar fee. Thailand did retina scan, stamped my passport, checked where I was staying and that was pretty much it - rather good given it was a military dictatorship at the time. The UK asked me lots of questions on my return from Asia as I was a 20-something male, travelling alone and looking rather stoned (I think it might have been the getting up at 4.30am Thai time to get my flight to Bangkok, spending most of my time with recycled air and having just got off an 11 hour flight - it being about 11pm Thai time - having not slept and coming out into the bright artificial lights of Heathrow with my sensitive eyes). I also remember flying out to Milan while the world cup was on in Germany - because I was on my own and a young male, I got asked some questions before going through security at Stansted, to stop there being an influx of English louts in Germany - even when I showed that my ticket was going to Milan the guy was still doubtful as to whether to let me out of the country and asked me a couple more questions and then realised that I was no threat at all.

I had no problem re-entering the US after a week back home in England between two different two week trips, even though it's probably the hardest country to get into that I've been to (the UK coming high up on the list, despite my citizenship, with Europe being about as easy as crossing the border to Wales, just that there's sea in the way!).

Isn't a lot of the Arizona law basically saying "we will enforce federal law"? It does, however, seem rather draconian on those there legally.

[shoptb1]

Isn't a lot of the Arizona law basically saying "we will enforce federal law"? It does, however, seem rather draconian on those there legally.

I'm not sure that I can speak for everyone, but my personal issue with the new legislation isn't the fact that they will deport illegal aliens.  I'm completely fine with that aspect of it.  If you're here illegally, then you are subject to be deported.  That's not anything new.  The part that I'm concerned with is the "identification of illegal aliens".  The legislation gives police the directive to question "anyone suspicious", which is absolutely going to lead to questioning/pestering of many Latino AMERICAN citizens based upon racial profiling.  Do you think that they'll be questioning everyone for their proof of citizenship?  No.  Jake, for example,  won't be questioned, even though he is also a foreigner (although legal) b/c he's not a primary Spanish speaker or Latino.  I just don't agree with legislation that enables the police to single out a group based upon racial profiling, especially considering the fact that the Latino minority is the fastest-growing segment of AMERICAN CITIZENS within the United States population.  This is bad practice and will certainly only further negative stereotypes and xenophobia of the Latin-American culture.