AARoads Forum

Will any of you road enthusiasts be avoiding Arizona due to the new law that requires persons in the state to prove their citizenship by showing proper documentation upon request? Some groups, as well as the congressman representing Tucson and the Mexican government, have called for boycotting the state. I don't have any personal connections (business or personal) with the state that would call for me to go there anytime soon, so me not being there isn't necessarily for the sake of boycotting.

Nope- a large number of service workers in Arizona are Latinos. When I go to Arizona, the money I spend is usually in the service sector. Why would I boycott the Latino-populated service industry? That doesn't seem to help them out at all.

the law has already been on the books for the federal government for years.  It's been unconstitutional from day 1 (a Soviet-style "your papers, please") but it's enforced regularly in the internal checkpoints along the border.

so now they're turning I-40 into I-8.  Ho, hum.

I have some apprehension about because it sounds a bit authoritarian.

However, if you are a citizen or otherwise in this country legitimately, I don't think proving it is an unreasonable request.  But, first, there needs to be 'probable cause.'  I don't think you should be able to stop someone just because the "look like a Mexican" or set up roadblocks to "check papers."

So, no I wouldn't avoid it.

But, we do need to start enforcing the laws against illegal presence that are constitutional.

EDIT:
If you're here legally, I don't care if your Latino, Chinese, purple, blue or pink.

But, it must be legally!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 12:31:50 AM
the law has already been on the books for the federal government for years.  It's been unconstitutional from day 1 (a Soviet-style "your papers, please") but it's enforced regularly in the internal checkpoints along the border.

so now they're turning I-40 into I-8.  Ho, hum.

I road the Greyhound bus from California to Mississippi and remember going through a checkpoint in Arizona and another one in Texas. I didn't even know there were such checkpoints up until then. Since everyone was checked, I didn't have a problem with that.

I've always thought it a bit inhuman to discriminate against someone based on where they happened to first play peek-a-boo.  Not like anyone has much of a choice over that ...

so in principle I'm going to be opposed to the border patrol.  Especially if they set up inland checkpoints, which to me seems a violation of the 4th amendment.  Checkpoints at the actual border crossing seem fairly iffy to me too.

Quote from: golden eagle on April 28, 2010, 12:26:08 AMWill any of you road enthusiasts be avoiding Arizona due to the new law that requires persons in the state to prove their citizenship by showing proper documentation upon request?

In short, no.  I have relatives who live in Arizona and Arizona DOT is one of my major sources of signing plans, so a boycott along the lines suggested is not really practical for me.  I am, however, strongly opposed to the new law.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 12:31:50 AMthe law has already been on the books for the federal government for years.  It's been unconstitutional from day 1 (a Soviet-style "your papers, please") but it's enforced regularly in the internal checkpoints along the border.

I dislike internal Border Patrol checkpoints, but the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation regarding their constitutionality.  The Supreme Court has upheld checkpoints of all kinds, ranging from Border Patrol checkpoints (the constitutional basis for which comes from Congress' enumerated powers to provide for the national defense and to promulgate an uniform naturalization law) to sobriety checkpoints (which are an exercise of the general police power reserved to states).  Moreover, the Supreme Court has upheld Terry stops, which allow a LEO to stop you essentially on whim as long as the stop is brief and ends when no probable cause has been established for further search.

You do not actually need to be able to prove your citizenship at a Border Patrol checkpoint, so it is not a "your papers, please" affair in the European sense, i.e. where you actually become liable to criminal prosecution simply for not having your papers on your person.  All you have to do is to state your nationality and then it is the responsibility of the Border Patrol officer to find other evidence, subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions on search, that you are somehow violating the immigration law.  I do carry my passport in the glove compartment when I am travelling in border states (not just Arizona), but that is more as a quick way of settling arguments than because I think it is genuinely necessary.

Border Patrol checkpoints are less severe than the internal Customs checkpoints in Mexico.  For those you have to have actual proof of nationality, douaniers in general have very broad powers of search and seizure (no requirement for probable cause even by Mexican legal standards), and the documentation you have to have in hand is quite extensive.  If you are driving your own car, for example, you need passport or other citizenship proof, FMT-3, and temporary vehicle import certificate.  Internal Customs checkpoints are additional to other checkpoints run by the PGR, state judicial police, and the Mexican army, which are procedurally similar to state police checkpoints in the US.

I dislike checkpoints in general but the jurisprudence in this country just does not favor their absolute elimination.  I am just happy that the majority of the US, with the new exception of Arizona, no longer operates the types of checkpoints described in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.  There is a passage in there where the Joad family enters Arizona en route to California and have to stop at a checkpoint where a state highway patrol officer makes sure that they are just passing through and not planning to stay in Arizona.  That is an unconstitutional restriction on the right of free movement which is also patently unjust.  The new law is almost a revival of this practice.

Quoteso now they're turning I-40 into I-8.  Ho, hum.

No, I think it is worse.  I haven't actually read the bill that has been signed into law, but my understanding from press reports is that its probable unconstitutionality results from the requirement for citizens to carry actual proof of citizenship with them.  This means that checkpoints operated under this law will actually be more restrictive than Border Patrol checkpoints.

I won't be avoiding Arizona, but I don't make it there often.  However, when I went to Arizona in January, I brought my passport with me just in case I decided to visit Mexico while I was out there.  I usually bring my passport with me when I visit Buffalo for a similar reason, since there is always a possibility that I may visit Canada.

There's an inland border border control checkpoint between San Diego and Los Angeles on I-5. I've always been waved through - as horrible as it sounds, I figure it's because I'm not hispanic or driving a vehicle that looks like it's loaded with drugs. I imagine that the same thing would happen for me in Arizona. I fell really bad for all the legal immigrants and hispanic citizens in AZ though. They're essentially going to have to carry a passport/green card just to go to the store.

Papiere bitte!  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsO1KwF64Ow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsO1KwF64Ow)

This is not what I want to see the United States become, and therefore I oppose this legislation in practice & principle, and I definitely don't want to see it spread.

But to answer the question, I wasn't planning a trip to Arizona in the future anyway, so I can't say that my travel plans will be changed as a result of the recent legislation.  I will, however, keep this in mind when making future plans to send the appropriate 'middle-finger-message' to those lawmakers that felt it necessary to step on everyone's rights in the interest of state control/xenophobia.  For some reason, it seems that people always listen more effectively when it hits their pocketbook.

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.

Quote from: usends on April 28, 2010, 09:44:52 AM
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.

The problem, in my opinion, is that the rest of the United States that borders Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, and California) has built fencing along the border.  My understanding is that Arizona has not.  This creates a physical funnel to the Arizona border for those wishing to easily "jump the fence".  Instead of sacrificing liberties and turning this into a police-state, how about just completing the fence?  Sorry, I just don't think there's any excuse for the legislation that has been enacted.

I used to live in San Diego.

Especially since internal checkpoints have been shown to be ineffective.  Their only purpose is to turn the US into a police state.  But until the majority of people realize this, nothing can be done to stop it (the same probably applies to the TSA).

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 05:35:19 AM
You do not actually need to be able to prove your citizenship at a Border Patrol checkpoint, so it is not a "your papers, please" affair in the European sense, i.e. where you actually become liable to criminal prosecution simply for not having your papers on your person.  All you have to do is to state your nationality and then it is the responsibility of the Border Patrol officer to find other evidence, subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions on search, that you are somehow violating the immigration law.  I do carry my passport in the glove compartment when I am travelling in border states (not just Arizona), but that is more as a quick way of settling arguments than because I think it is genuinely necessary.

given that I'm a Hungarian citizen with a green card, either I flat-out lie when asked my citizenship, or I am immediately required to show my papers.  Since the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies to everyone in the US, not just citizens (Boumediene v. Bush, etc) then my fourth amendment rights are being violated.

as for the Mexican checkpoints being much harsher, well, that's neither here nor there.  I figure "when in Rome..." and therefore am not bothered by their checkpoints. 

I do not know how constitutional they are according to Mexican law, but that's my fault for not doing the research.  I'm figuring their constitution allows them just fine.

Quote from: shoptb1 on April 28, 2010, 10:02:53 AM
The problem, in my opinion, is that the rest of the United States that borders Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, and California) has built fencing along the border.  My understanding is that Arizona has not.  This creates a physical funnel to the Arizona border for those wishing to easily "jump the fence".  Instead of sacrificing liberties and turning this into a police-state, how about just completing the fence?  Sorry, I just don't think there's any excuse for the legislation that has been enacted.

is a fence not enough of an indication of a police state?

I'm of the persuasion that if someone lives in a place, obeys their laws, pays their taxes, etc ... it should not matter if they arrived pre- or post-birth.

(now as for illegals in the US that do not pay their taxes, I put them in the same category of trash as American citizens who do not pay their taxes - but I do wonder how they manage to sign up for welfare, a driver's license, etc ... without a couple of basic checks going through.  If we're going to become a police state, the least we can do is poke around people's backgrounds effectively.)

Quote from: usends on April 28, 2010, 09:44:52 AM
Or the role of Mexico in the narcotics trade?

which gives rise to the question "what's wrong with narcotics in the first place?"  Yes, they can kill you.  Well, life is 100% fatal in the end ... people shouldn't have their personal responsibilities dictated to them.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:06:58 AM
is a fence not enough of an indication of a police state?

I'm of the persuasion that if someone lives in a place, obeys their laws, pays their taxes, etc ... it should not matter if they arrived pre- or post-birth.

(now as for illegals in the US that do not pay their taxes, I put them in the same category of trash as American citizens who do not pay their taxes - but I do wonder how they manage to sign up for welfare, a driver's license, etc ... without a couple of basic checks going through.  If we're going to become a police state, the least we can do is poke around people's backgrounds effectively.)

Jake -- not going to disagree with you there, but to me, the construction of the fence is a foregone thing of the past for 75% of the states involved, so my point is only to state that I would much prefer that the first option be completing that endeavor (since I can't reverse it in Texas, New Mexico, or California) instead of enacting some 4th Amendment violating legislation prior to doing so.   I would much prefer if the stupid fence was taken down altogether, but that's apparently not happening.  But since my tax dollars were used to construct said fence....I just don't think that there's any point in the fence if there's a big gaping hole in it.   :-D

Quote from: usends on April 28, 2010, 09:44:52 AMI 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?

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).

QuoteI'm sure lawmakers in Arizona are no more and no less reasonable than lawmakers elsewhere in the US.

This is true but there is less to it than meets the eye.  Rational choice is rational choice, yes, but the choices a rational actor makes will depend on the specific circumstances, including institutional structure and availability of information.  There is also the ever-present question of whether elected politicians are maximizing social utility or their own electoral advantage.

Arizona has had long-standing racial problems--SB 1070 is just the latest in a long list of incidents which includes non-observance of MLK Day, election of Evan Mecham as governor ("I've got black friends. I employ black people. I don't employ them because they are black; I employ them because they are the best people who applied for the cotton-picking job"), Proposition 200 in 2004, etc.

Arizona is a snowbird state with a significant transient population.  As a result, the voters as a body have little institutional memory and it is easy for opportunistic crazies to get a turn at the wheel, especially if they have a cadre of committed supporters (usually quite conservative--quite a high proportion of born-in-Arizona residents are Mormon, and the state has traditionally been hospitable territory for Birchers) and promise tax cuts.  This is essentially how Mecham got elected in 1986.

Arizona tends to have high taxes because its super-rapid growth and desert location make it necessary to spend heavily to provide the infrastructure required to support an ordinary American standard of living.  Therefore, most political battles in Arizona are indirectly about taxes.  The forerunner of SB 1070 was Proposition 200, which was very similar in that it tried to link provision of public services (as well as certain networked services provided by private entities, like utilities) to proof of citizenship.  A "here today, gone tomorrow" electorate has little invested in the community, less of a sense of community to begin with, and tends to be unresponsive to moral imperatives because it tends to think it has the option of leaving before the consequences of bad decisions arrive.  This breeds myopic thinking--people support citizenship verification for basic public services as a way of cutting spending and thus taxes, not realizing that even illegal immigrants contribute to state GDP, let alone considering the moral debt society owes to those who have benefited the economy despite being present illegally.

Because it is so easy to elect crazy politicians, and because the electorate considers itself footloose, the persistent pattern in Arizona politics (going back well before the current mess) is to promulgate a really extremist policy, wait and see what the blowback is in terms of boycotts, economic sanctions, adverse court rulings, etc., and row back as required.

QuoteI 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.

Looked at in terms of the underlying secular trends, the situation is not more desperate now (in 2010) than it was in 2008, 2004, or the late 1990's when the Clinton administration's intensification of border enforcement in California and Texas shifted the illegal crossings to the inland desert.  Moreover, Arizona is not the only state with a desert border which has seen a significant increase in crossing traffic since the Clinton-era enforcement changes.  New Mexico has had similar problems with illegal immigrants crossing through the desert and a few years ago increases in the number of people crossing prompted the governors of both Arizona and New Mexico to declare states of emergency.

The huge difference is that New Mexico, unlike Arizona, has had a stable population with a minimal number of snowbirds and transients, a stable power structure, institutional memory within the electorate, etc.  Extremist policies of the kind seen in Arizona never get traction in New Mexico even though, if you accepted the justifications for those policies at face value, you would have to argue that they are just as necessary in New Mexico as in Arizona.  (Yeah, yeah, you could argue that since the power structure in NM favors Hispanics, policies that penalize the brothers and sisters south of the border will never get adopted--but if that is so, why don't you hear about the usual Anglo coalitions lobbying for them anyway?)

Therefore, I reject absolutely the claim that SB 1070 is the result of policymakers sitting down soberly to weigh the net costs and benefits of illegal immigration and devising measures of control which obtain the greatest benefit for the least cost of intervention.  It is, instead, the result of opportunistic policymakers trying to exploit a local flashpoint (the death of the rancher last March), and it is comparable in this respect to the health-care nullification measures being considered in other Republican-dominated state legislatures which have not been fortunate enough to receive such a gift from God.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:03:53 AMgiven that I'm a Hungarian citizen with a green card, either I flat-out lie when asked my citizenship, or I am immediately required to show my papers.  Since the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies to everyone in the US, not just citizens (Boumediene v. Bush, etc) then my fourth amendment rights are being violated.

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.

The experiment I would really like to try is to daub walnut oil all over my skin, run black shoe polish through my hair and beard, put on sombrero and serape, and drive through a Border Patrol checkpoint and say, "Sí, estoy un ciudadano de los Estados Unidos de América" in a really thick Tabasco accent.  I assume they would want to double-check I was not an illegal immigrant but I am not sure where they would get the probable cause for further search without racial profiling, which I think is probably both illegal and unconstitutional.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:05:53 AMas for the Mexican checkpoints being much harsher, well, that's neither here nor there.  I figure "when in Rome..." and therefore am not bothered by their checkpoints.

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!

I usually insert a mention of Mexican internal frontier controls into discussions like this as a way of keeping matters in perspective.  The point has already been made that it is easy for people living away from the border to have uninformed opinions about what things are really like at the border, and that observation is even more true about the Mexican side of the border than it is about the American side of it.  Americans who visit the border zone tend to be outraged the very first time they pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint--"What is this Soviet-style restriction on free movement doing here?" was my reaction when I went through the semi-permanent one at I-10 MP 118 near Columbus, NM--but the reality is that the controls we have now are less severe than they used to be during the Depression, when state police agencies got in on the act and tried to impose entirely illegal and unconstitutional restraints on free movement.  Moreover, as a country we have chosen to impose a difficult crossing at the border itself in order to avoid massively inconveniencing domestic-to-domestic traffic at internal frontier checkpoints.  In Mexico, and in Latin America in general, the reverse tends to be the norm--the border area tends to be a free-travel zone while the check at the Km 30 internal frontier is tight.

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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:06:58 AM
(now as for illegals in the US that do not pay their taxes, I put them in the same category of trash as American citizens who do not pay their taxes - but I do wonder how they manage to sign up for welfare, a driver's license, etc ... without a couple of basic checks going through.  If we're going to become a police state, the least we can do is poke around people's backgrounds effectively.)

For what it's worth, a large number of illegal immigrants DO pay taxes, even those paid in cash who don't have automatic withholding: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

In fact, a number of them overpay taxes because they're afraid to file a return and get a refund.

I'm not saying that I agree with illegal immigration (and I don't think a fence on our southern border is unreasonable), but I also have a hard time being upset with someone who comes here, works hard to provide for his or her family, and even files taxes even though there would be no ramifications for not doing so. It's the system I hate, not the people themselves.

Now the narcotics smuggling, that's some scary stuff, and one of the reasons why I'm OK with the fence. I think we should make it easier for the regular folks to come and make a living, but at the same time make it harder for the criminals to enter. I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on who enters and leaves the country. Once they're in though, they shouldn't have to worry about being hassled by the cops simply because they left their ID at home.

I'm with you on legalizing the drugs, or at least changing the way we approach it as a nation. We've lost the war on drugs. Lets legalize it, regulate it, and start treating drug addiction the same way we do alcohol and nicotine addiction - a public health issue, not a criminal issue. It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves. I think that doing this would go a long way to reducing the violent crime, both here and in Mexico.

Where I live, the largest group of immigrants is from Puerto Rico. I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever I hear one of the idiots around here referring to "those damn illegal Puerto Ricans."

Quote from: realjd on April 28, 2010, 12:33:04 PMWhere I live, the largest group of immigrants is from Puerto Rico. I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever I hear one of the idiots around here referring to "those damn illegal Puerto Ricans."

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 . . .

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 12:54:38 PM

Quote from: realjd on April 28, 2010, 12:33:04 PMWhere I live, the largest group of immigrants is from Puerto Rico. I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever I hear one of the idiots around here referring to "those damn illegal Puerto Ricans."

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 . . .

Agreed, Puerto Rico is a part of the USA (a territory that is on a statehood track) and Puerto Ricans are FULL USA citizens with the right to freely travel and live throughout the rest of the USA.  You also have the right to freely travel to Puerto Rico with no more hassles than with any other domestic destination.

As for the Mexican border, I would favor a 100% reciprocity WRT to travel, commerce and migration between Mexico and the USA - the exact same laws applying in both directions.  Also, I strongly favor repealing the Drug War™ - as with the 18th Amendment 80 years ago, it is the *ONLY* thing that will stop the extreme violence that is threatening to bring down Mexico's government (Can you say 'unfriendly junta', 'USA military action to deal with it' and 'refugees by the tens of millions'???  Mexico's current population is in the 105M-110M range).

Mike

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 12:54:38 PM
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.

Quote from: realjd on April 28, 2010, 03:20:28 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 12:54:38 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 11:53:02 AM

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

QuoteAs 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 ?

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 12:08:45 PM

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 ...

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 12:28:53 PM
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.

Quote from: realjd on April 28, 2010, 03:20:28 PM
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.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 12:28:53 PM

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.

Quote from: mightyace on April 28, 2010, 05:06:27 PM
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?")

Quote from: usends on April 28, 2010, 09:44:52 AM
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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 08:21:10 PM

Quote from: mightyace on April 28, 2010, 05:06:27 PM
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!  :banghead:)

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

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

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 09:34:49 PM
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?

Quote from: mightyace on April 28, 2010, 09:59:43 PM

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? 

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 28, 2010, 07:47:41 PM

QuoteAs 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

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

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.

Quote from: hbelkins on April 28, 2010, 11:13:06 PM
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.

QuoteLooks 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.

Quote from: hbelkins on April 28, 2010, 11:13:06 PMI 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.

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.

Quote from: mgk920 on April 28, 2010, 10:07:13 PM
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

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 08:18:40 PMI 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?

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.

Quote from: english si on April 29, 2010, 08:48:51 AM
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.

Especially since internal checkpoints are not effective at getting illegals.  The only thing internal checkpoints do is make travel within the US more difficult.  They're unconstitutional, but the government is asserting that there's a constitution-free zone that exists within 100 miles of the coast or a border (this is itself unconstitutional, but it's not as if the federal government cares about the constitution).

As a person of Mediterranean descent, who gets confused as being Hispanic by the locals, I would be wary of traveling to Arizona. I don't think I should have to pack my birth certificate, passport, newspaper clippings of my birth and any other needed documents just to travel to another one of the 50 states.

my objection to the concept of "illegal immigration" is philosophical.

the way to become a US citizen is ridiculously complicated.  Get a sponsor who is already a member of The Club to give you a job, and go through the paperwork of an H-1 or L-1 visa.  After several years of being successfully employed, apply for a green card.  Lose the lottery a few times before winning, and having to pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege.  After several years of that, apply for citizenship, spending many more hundreds of dollars.  Learn your history.  Learn the Constitution.  Take the test.  Swear a goddamned oath.

or, alternately, find a vagina in the right place, and crawl out of it at the right time.

that is a hideous double-standard, and reeks of the precise brand of hereditary aristocracy that our founding fathers so explicitly railed against.  (Just because a hereditary title of nobility - in this case "natural-born citizen" - is held by 90something per cent of the population doesn't make it any less a hereditary title of nobility.)

so I say make all people go through the same hoops.  You want to become a citizen?  At the age of 14, find yourself a sponsoring employer.  Age 16, get your own green card.  Turn 18?  Congratulations.  Identify all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, elaborate competently on the three branches of federal government and the role of Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812... and, oh yeah, if you're going to make me swear an oath, you'd damn better do it too.

While only a certain class of people is subjected to the potential stigma of being "illegal", and others are given blanket escape clauses at birth, I will consider the practice to be discriminatory and completely at odds with the principles the US was founded on.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 29, 2010, 07:18:26 AM

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

none.  I believe you're getting at the "90 out of 180" clause, but I do not recall the exact numbers ... but these friends basically go to Europe for a couple weeks once a year.  Maybe twice.  So I don't think any red flags were raised by their entry and exit times.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2010, 10:50:12 AMWhile only a certain class of people is subjected to the potential stigma of being "illegal", and others are given blanket escape clauses at birth, I will consider the practice to be discriminatory and completely at odds with the principles the US was founded on.

You are conflating two separate issues--acquisition of citizenship at birth versus naturalization, and immigration protectionism.

As a generalization, in virtually every country in the world, it is much easier to acquire citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization, and this has been the case for essentially as long as there has been a legal concept of nationality.  In the English-speaking world it goes straight back to English common law.  The justification for this is that when you are a baby just starting to grow up, you are vulnerable and the state helps protect you by giving you an automatic grant of citizenship in advance of the processes of education and formation which help you become a good citizen.  The US, being founded on Enlightenment values, has taken the concept further by establishing citizenship as an inborn attribute and attaching inalienable basic human rights to it--as an American you are born free with rights, and not created as the subject (nominal or actual) of a monarch who claims a divine right to rule.

On the other hand, if you come to a country as an adult foreigner, the presumption is that you have acquired citizenship at birth and undergone the processes of civic formation in another country, and therefore your first loyalty is to that country.  Therefore the purpose of a naturalization process is to educate you as to your rights and responsibilities as a citizen of your new country and to impose a legal test of loyalty to it which you must pass before you can be naturalized as a citizen.

As an example, if I were to pursue British citizenship, the hoops I would have to jump through are just as bad as the ones you have to jump through to become a US citizen.  The British naturalization process is an unholy mess of points-based qualifications, tiered visas, and application fees which seem to be on a perpetual escalator.

Immigration protectionism is a separate issue since the justification for it does not arise from the legal concept of nationality per se (since it is possible to have a concept of US citizenship with fully open borders and an easy naturalization process, as we did during the nineteenth century).  Rather, it is a manipulation or outright suspension of the free movement of people in order to protect economic interests--typically by creating artificial scarcities in labor markets which would otherwise be flooded by immigrants.  It is easy to say that it is immoral to restrict the free movement of people just to protect the economic incumbents, but the reality is that we live in a world of managed trade with restricted flows of people and goods, and it is difficult to pursue liberalization unilaterally without winding up as a loser.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2010, 10:53:38 AMnone.  I believe you're getting at the "90 out of 180" clause, but I do not recall the exact numbers ... but these friends basically go to Europe for a couple weeks once a year.  Maybe twice.  So I don't think any red flags were raised by their entry and exit times.

That is just it.  You can't judge Schengenland as a comparator to the US or Mexican immigration area without also considering how multiple-entry visitors are treated, as well as other issues such as treatment of illegals who nevertheless get through.  I have exited Schengenland and re-entered almost immediately on a number of occasions and each time I have had the X-ray eyes turned on me, just as happens with people (even US citizens) re-entering the US.  Meanwhile, the border fences at Ceuta and Melilla are even more aggressively patrolled than the US-Mexico border, and once illegals get through (often losing pieces of their fingers to the razor wire), they are stuck because they can't do anything without an ID card and they can't establish contact with the informal economy in mainland Europe so they can try to scrape together a living.

For the first 120 years or so the only reason Immigration could deny you entry to the United States was if you appeared to be carrying some kind of dangerous disease. There was no fixed quota of people that were permitted to immigrate and the rest denied.

I'm sure if the Chickasaws and Cherokees had the ability, they would have deported us.

There are still people questioning the President's citizenship, even!

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 29, 2010, 04:31:26 PM
There was no fixed quota of people that were permitted to immigrate and the rest denied.

I'm not an opponent of overall quotas, because we don't want to overstretch strained government resources and possibly dwindling natural ones.  One hundred years ago, the former wasn't that big a deal and the latter wasn't an issue.

However, I think the law of having quotas by country/region is wrong.  That may very well involve ethnic or racial hatred and certainly give the perception of such even if it was not intended.

EDIT:
Now this may have to be split off into another topic:

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 29, 2010, 04:31:26 PM
There are still people questioning the President's citizenship, even!

I'm not going to even try to evaluate the merits of those claims.  But, the reason that it is even an issue is the strange clause in the Constitution that the President mush be a native-born citizen.  (With the exception of those around when the country was formed.)  For any other political office and pretty much anything else, a citizen is a citizen regardless of how you obtained the citizenship.

That has never made much sense to me, if you're a citizen, you should be allowed to run for the Presidency.

President Schwarzenegger anyone?  :sombrero:

I think that the reason national quotas exist is so that no one region hogs the whole quota. If you say "we're going to allow 100,000 people in this year" and 99,999 of those are Mexican and the last one is a Hungarian obsessed with US route shields, then the immigrants from UK or China or wherever else will probably not be too happy.

We have not been above legislating ethnic hatred.  Chinese Exclusion Act of 1885, anyone?  But in general I think the main justification for country-based quotas is as Scott suggests.  My own objection to a quota system is that if we are going to resort to immigration protectionism for our own selfish benefit, we would be better off evaluating new immigrants according to their potential to contribute to the economy (as is basically the British system) rather than imposing country-based quotas which are bound to seem arbitrary.

Quote from: hbelkins on April 28, 2010, 11:13:06 PM
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 with everything you said except for your support of the Arizona bill which I feel is too draconian and infringes on the rights of those who are here legally.  Something needs to be done.  And amnesty is a bad idea because it rewards criminal behavior. 

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 29, 2010, 11:38:02 AM
As a generalization, in virtually every country in the world, it is much easier to acquire citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization, and this has been the case for essentially as long as there has been a legal concept of nationality.  In the English-speaking world it goes straight back to English common law.  The justification for this is that when you are a baby just starting to grow up, you are vulnerable and the state helps protect you by giving you an automatic grant of citizenship in advance of the processes of education and formation which help you become a good citizen.  The US, being founded on Enlightenment values, has taken the concept further by establishing citizenship as an inborn attribute and attaching inalienable basic human rights to it--as an American you are born free with rights, and not created as the subject (nominal or actual) of a monarch who claims a divine right to rule.

then maybe my objection stems from the fact that I came here at age 5, was schooled entirely in the US, and therefore picked up the US's values for "good citizenship" (okay, maybe not all - the pledge of allegiance always baffled me, for example) ... and, despite being indoctrinated 99.x% identically to my peers, I do not have the same rights they do.

I still get especially rankled by the "must swear oath" part of the citizenship process.  Shouldn't everyone have to do that?  To have at least some verification that the indoctrination was successful?

Quote from: golden eagle on April 28, 2010, 12:51:13 AM
I road the Greyhound bus from California to Mississippi and remember going through a checkpoint in Arizona and another one in Texas. I didn't even know there were such checkpoints up until then. Since everyone was checked, I didn't have a problem with that.

That's not just a Mexican border thing. I was checked on a Jefferson Lines bus in Grand Forks, ND.

Quote from: tmthyvs on April 29, 2010, 08:51:56 PM
That's not just a Mexican border thing. I was checked on a Jefferson Lines bus in Grand Forks, ND.

wow, thought never crossed my mind when I drove North Dakota highway 5 a few months back...

The reason why the Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be 'natural-born' citizens was that in 1787, there was a deep (and perhaps very justified) concern among the Framers that a foreign-born naturalized citizen from a 'Nobility' class could make the office hereditary - thus the restriction.

BTW, many questions were asked back in 1964 regarding the 'natural born' status of Barry Goldwater in his candidacy for President.  Goldwater was born in Arizona, but BEFORE it had achieved full statehood.  It was determined that because he was born in a place that had by the time of the election become a state, that he was indeed a 'natural born' citizen.

Similar questions were also asked regarding John McCain in 2008, due to his being born to USA-citizen parents on an overseas USA military base.  He was also determined to be 'natural born'.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on April 29, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
The reason why the Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be 'natural-born' citizens was that in 1787, there was a deep (and perhaps very justified) concern among the Framers that a foreign-born naturalized citizen from a 'Nobility' class could make the office hereditary - thus the restriction.

I think that needs to be revisited.  Dunno if I want to suffer through four years of President Schwarzenegger for that, though.

eh, can't be too badly worse than Governor Schwarzenegger...

Quote from: mgk920 on April 29, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
The reason why the Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be 'natural-born' citizens was that in 1787, there was a deep (and perhaps very justified) concern among the Framers that a foreign-born naturalized citizen from a 'Nobility' class could make the office hereditary - thus the restriction.

I had heard the actual reason was to keep Alexander Hamilton out of the white house, as he was from St. Croix.

Quote
Similar questions were also asked regarding John McCain in 2008, due to his being born to USA-citizen parents on an overseas USA military base.  He was also determined to be 'natural born'.

I've read that it doesn't matter where you're born if you are born to American citizen(s). It wouldn't have mattered if Barack Obama was born in Kenya or not (he wasn't)--if he had, he would be a citizen anyway because of his mother's citizenship.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2010, 08:23:03 PMthen maybe my objection stems from the fact that I came here at age 5, was schooled entirely in the US, and therefore picked up the US's values for "good citizenship" (okay, maybe not all - the pledge of allegiance always baffled me, for example) ... and, despite being indoctrinated 99.x% identically to my peers, I do not have the same rights they do.

Your case is one of several types which are not, in my opinion, well addressed by the current law.  I basically think that if you can show you have lived peacefully in the US for a defined length of time, been educated, turned into a productive member of society, etc., you should have an easy road to citizenship.  The problem with adopting such a policy is that it could potentially become an amnesty for illegal immigrants who, aside from their being in the country illegally, have also stayed in the US for a defined length of time and have become contributing members of society.

There is a very high level of opposition to SB 1070 in Arizona because of its intrusions on civil liberties, but based on the responses to this thread, I would say that I am probably in the minority in tending to favor measures of immigration liberalization up to and including general amnesties for those now in the US illegally.  Similarly, the number of people contributing to this thread who have lived for extended periods of time in countries where they have no citizenship is very small.

QuoteI still get especially rankled by the "must swear oath" part of the citizenship process.  Shouldn't everyone have to do that?  To have at least some verification that the indoctrination was successful?

I would say No.  The way I see it, you get to have citizenship once without having to swear an oath, just as you get to grow up once.  In any case, the oath is essentially a formality.  What really matters is that you are a productive and contributing member to society.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 29, 2010, 11:24:16 PM
I had heard the actual reason was to keep Alexander Hamilton out of the white house, as he was from St. Croix.

That's probably just a myth. There's an exemption for anyone who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, regardless of birthplace, so it wouldn't have mattered for him.

Of course, St. Croix is part of the United States now!

Quote from: tmthyvs on April 29, 2010, 08:51:56 PM
That's not just a Mexican border thing. I was checked on a Jefferson Lines bus in Grand Forks, ND.

Never seen any such stuff like that done near the Canadian border myself.  Of course, there'd be a major uproar if they pull that crappola around Detroit or the Soo.  People are already pissed off enough as it is about having to have a passport to visit Windsor or Soo Ontario.

Quote from: florida on April 29, 2010, 10:46:34 AM
As a person of Mediterranean descent, who gets confused as being Hispanic by the locals, I would be wary of traveling to Arizona. I don't think I should have to pack my birth certificate, passport, newspaper clippings of my birth and any other needed documents just to travel to another one of the 50 states.

As long as you're not violating the law, you would have nothing to worry about. The police can't stop people willy-nilly asking for their immigration status. Those who tell you that are lying. They can only ask people about immigration status if they are making a "lawful stop, detention or arrest"(it originally just said "lawful contact" which was more vague).

Personally, I wish I was going to Arizona this summer. It's one of my favorite states to travel in, and I would like to give a middle finger to all the left-wing do-gooders who are boycotting the state(and hurting the people that they profess to help because the service industry employs a disproportinate number of Hispanics). If I was an Arizona resident, my resolve to keep the law weould be emboldened in order to show other people that we will not be bullied into changing a law that most people don't even understand and has been misrepresented in the media.

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on April 30, 2010, 02:07:02 PMAs long as you're not violating the law, you would have nothing to worry about.

No, no, he would have plenty to worry about even if it were just a Terry stop to establish whether illegal activity was actually occurring.  This law has plenty of potential to catch people just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

QuoteThe police can't stop people willy-nilly asking for their immigration status. Those who tell you that are lying. They can only ask people about immigration status if they are making a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" (it originally just said "lawful contact" which was more vague).

But it also discourages exercise of police discretion by empowering people to sue police agencies for not enforcing immigration laws.  It also allows the police to use skin color as a factor in establishing reasonable suspicion that a person may be an illegal immigrant.  It only requires that skin color must not be the sole factor.  This means that a person who is either an illegal immigrant, or is legal but a close friend or relative of an illegal immigrant, will be reluctant to go to the police to report a crime because the police cannot credibly promise that immigration status will be ignored while the investigation proceeds.

There are good reasons this law was opposed by the Arizona police chiefs' association and supported by the police unions.  The police chiefs know the solve rate for violent crimes will probably go down along with the public's inclination to cooperate in the poorer neighborhoods which are more violence-prone.  The police unions support it because they know employment will have to expand among the rank and file--the police will need more boots on the ground just to process immigration-related offenses, and also to maintain the solve rates for other offenses because the law will result in existing police resources being used less efficiently.

QuotePersonally, I wish I was going to Arizona this summer. It's one of my favorite states to travel in, and I would like to give a middle finger to all the left-wing do-gooders who are boycotting the state (and hurting the people that they profess to help because the service industry employs a disproportinate number of Hispanics). If I was an Arizona resident, my resolve to keep the law would be emboldened in order to show other people that we will not be bullied into changing a law that most people don't even understand and has been misrepresented in the media.

Boycotts are about short-term pain for long-term gain.  We could go in circles about who is bullying whom--rest of the USA versus Arizona, or Arizona versus illegal immigrants.  But, unless a civil-rights challenge results in this law being voided before it takes effect, it will be a goombah's charter.  If the police can't enforce the law in immigrant communities, that will open up a void which vigilantes and organized crime will try to fill sooner or later.

Quote
I've read that it doesn't matter where you're born if you are born to American citizen(s). It wouldn't have mattered if Barack Obama was born in Kenya or not (he wasn't)--if he had, he would be a citizen anyway because of his mother's citizenship.

This is the case- I've long said that when I have a kid I'm going to try to have it birthed on Canadian soil because it will instantly receive dual citizenship. One of my friends in high school was born in Newfoundland to American parents and has retained both his US and Canadian citizenship. It's a good safety net to have just in case something happens.

Quote from: corco on April 30, 2010, 02:47:37 PMThis is the case- I've long said that when I have a kid I'm going to try to have it birthed on Canadian soil because it will instantly receive dual citizenship. One of my friends in high school was born in Newfoundland to American parents and has retained both his US and Canadian citizenship. It's a good safety net to have just in case something happens.

Actually, I think it makes more sense to have dual citizenship that straddles trading blocs.  If I had a child by an EU citizen, for example, he or she would have US citizenship (through me) and citizenship in his or her mother's EU country, and thus could work (subject to local rules governing expatriate citizen births--which can actually be quite restrictive, by the way) in both the NAFTA zone and the EU.

The problem with having a child born abroad is that the US, and some other countries like Britain, have now outlawed indefinite expatriatism.  If your child is foreign-born, he or she is a full US citizen but will need to establish residency in the US for a certain defined period of time (which varies according to whether it is before or after age 14) in order to have a child who is a US citizen by jus sanguinis (blood) rather than jus solis (birth on US soil).  In Britain, only British citizenship "otherwise than by descent" (which generally means birth in the UK home islands to a parent who is either a British citizen or has been granted indefinite leave to remain) confers the ability to give British citizenship to a child born abroad.

In order to make it easier on Arizona police forces, perhaps Arizona's legislature should pass a law encouraging everyone of Hispanic ethnic descent to wear an embroidered patch of a taco or burrito on their clothing at all times.  This way, the police won't have to bother about picking or choosing whom to question.  If you're in the US legally, you shouldn't mind...and that's definitely not insulting, right?

Here's an example of another situation where this type of thing was used in the past:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS9snphw3s4I%2FAAAAAAAABq4%2Fd4VTvVQAdCw%2FJudestern.jpg&hash=9237774c665b950bb7beac2b8a233d6eb64bf3b8)

I'd like to remind folks of nice quote by Rev. Martin Niemöller that seems very fitting anytime I see civil rights pinched in the interest of our "safety and security".

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Maybe I'm just a "left-wing do-gooder", but seriously...don't folks see the slippery slope here? 

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 30, 2010, 05:36:08 AM
Your case is one of several types which are not, in my opinion, well addressed by the current law.  I basically think that if you can show you have lived peacefully in the US for a defined length of time, been educated, turned into a productive member of society, etc., you should have an easy road to citizenship.  The problem with adopting such a policy is that it could potentially become an amnesty for illegal immigrants who, aside from their being in the country illegally, have also stayed in the US for a defined length of time and have become contributing members of society.

Simple.  The government should have records on everyone who is in this country legally.  Give them the easy road to citizenship.  If there's no record of you being here, you don't get a chance.  Period.

The fact of the matter is, this law violates (or potentially violates) the civil rights of American citizens. I do believe that it will get struck down.

Quote from: corco on April 30, 2010, 02:47:37 PM
This is the case- I've long said that when I have a kid I'm going to try to have it birthed on Canadian soil because it will instantly receive dual citizenship. One of my friends in high school was born in Newfoundland to American parents and has retained both his US and Canadian citizenship. It's a good safety net to have just in case something happens.

similarly to this, I am keeping my Hungarian citizenship (with its corresponding EU passport) and my US green card, the combination of which gives me the right to work in quite a few locales.  That is the primary reason for my not pursuing US citizenship (the grousing about the oath is simply grousing in the context of my actual life choices).

Wouldn't really affect me really, cause I have a passport card, I'm not a big fan of illegals, I'm fine with Mexicans but if you're going to come across illegally, then I'm not gonna care if you get deported, whether it be Latino, black(I'm half black), Chinese, or whatever, don't expect me to really care. Here in Texas immigration checkpoints are real common, they have 'em north of Del Rio, north of Big Bend, well pretty much any road that gets you from Mexico to the U.S. San Angelo's population is made up of like 33% Latino. Anyways, I don't like the fact that illegals in Arizona think they have 1,000,002 rights even though the 14th Amendment say's that citizens have the rights. Anyways, legal immigrants welcome to America.
*In no way am I trying to be racist, just stating my opinion.*
BigMatt

Everything said, I agree fully with those who say that the USA should make it much easier to come in legally and achieve citizenship (including eliminating all of those silly pitfalls that could inadvertently result in denial and deportation) and much more difficult to come in and stay illegally.

OTOH, I can also see there eventually being a North American equivalent of the European 'Schengen' borderless zone involving at least Canada, Mexico and the USA, including the rights of citizens of all of the involved countries to live and work in any of the other countries.

Mike

Quote from: shoptb1 on April 30, 2010, 03:02:06 PM
but seriously...don't folks see the slippery slope here? 

No, I do not.  This is simple law enforcement.  If someone is commiting a crime, they should be arrested.  That simple.  The first thing an illegal alien does every day is commit a crime.  He continues to commit a crime every second of every day he is here.

Now, if a cop pulls over somebody and he does not have a DL, or an inspection sticker, or a plate or he is wanted, or he has a blood soaked corpse in the back seat, or he has a kid not in a car seat, or whatever, he will be dealt with.

The far lefts want criminal aliens dealt with in some different manner. 

This is not racism, not anything but basic law enforcement. 

Quote from: SP Cook on May 01, 2010, 07:39:07 AM

Quote from: shoptb1 on April 30, 2010, 03:02:06 PM
but seriously...don't folks see the slippery slope here? 

No, I do not.  This is simple law enforcement.  If someone is commiting a crime, they should be arrested.  That simple.  The first thing an illegal alien does every day is commit a crime.  He continues to commit a crime every second of every day he is here.

Should it be a crime?

I don't think it is actually a crime, in the technical sense, at the federal level.  Immigration enforcement is done administratively rather than through the courts, and immigration violations are generally described as having a civil rather than criminal character.  SB 1070 is unusual in that it criminalizes illegal immigration outright.

In regard to the "yellow star" post above, the following Wikipedia articles are of interest:

*  "Mexican Repatriation" of the 1930's--if you looked Mexican, you were shipped back to Mexico (60% of those deported were, in fact, US citizens):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

*  "Operation Wisconsinite," 1954--mass roundup and deportation of illegal immigrants (including children who had been born in the US and so were US citizens):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Controversy tends to stimulate policy cycling, but I for one hope we don't try repeating either operation.  The Mexican Repatriation in particular has more than a whiff of the "territorial solution."

The problem I see is the "papers please" approach to check whether someone's legal or not - there's possibly a 4th amendment thing there and even if it is constitutional, it does reek of somewhere where we don't want to go.

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on April 30, 2010, 02:07:02 PM
As long as you're not violating the law, you would have nothing to worry about.

I don't suppose you realize that that line has been used to justify the actions of police states throughout history.

Quote from: shoptb1 on May 01, 2010, 12:21:08 PM
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Exactly, legalizing illegal behavior does not reduce it.

Scott 5114 asked, "Should it be a crime?"

Well, at the moment, it is.  And therefore, if you are a law enforcement officer, you are bound by duty and the law to uphold the law.  Whether you like it or not does not matter.  If you cannot enforce it in clear conscience you should resign.

As to should it be, I say yes.  Take this example, the "first peoples" as the Canadians called them (better then "Indian" or "Native American IMHO), effectively had an open immigration program and look what happened to them!

Even creating a "Euro" style zone in North American would not take the law off the books, it would make it not applicable to Canadian and Mexican citizens and that is a compromise that I could live with.

I love this law!  In fact it should be even more strict.  The penalty is absurd if you bring in a few Cuban cigars off a cruise ship, but here we are ALLOWING illegals to break federal laws by sneaking into the US.  Not only are we allowing them, but we're handing them health benefits, education, public housing, etc etc etc.  And the only way they can even go after you is if they have another reasonable cause to do it... like catching you committing another misdemeanor/crime.

Quote from: lamsalfl on May 01, 2010, 08:11:11 PM
I love this law!  In fact it should be even more strict.  The penalty is absurd if you bring in a few Cuban cigars off a cruise ship, but here we are ALLOWING illegals to break federal laws by sneaking into the US.  Not only are we allowing them, but we're handing them health benefits, education, public housing, etc etc etc.  And the only way they can even go after you is if they have another reasonable cause to do it... like catching you committing another misdemeanor/crime.

maybe the law that needs to be examined in more detail is the one about the importation of small quantities of Cuban items for personal use...

Not to stray off topic (ok, I am)...but I definitely think that the embargo on trade with Cuba needs to be lifted. After all, international trade, by definition, is a capitalist activity...if you are trading, then you are automatically not communist (besides which, no true communist society has existed up to this point).

Quote from: mightyace on May 01, 2010, 07:42:11 PMWell, at the moment, it is.  And therefore, if you are a law enforcement officer, you are bound by duty and the law to uphold the law.  Whether you like it or not does not matter.  If you cannot enforce it in clear conscience you should resign.

That does not work in practice or even principle.  By the same logic, a police officer should have zero discretion to let you off without a ticket when you are clocked above the speed limit.

QuoteAs to should it be, I say yes.  Take this example, the "first peoples" as the Canadians called them (better then "Indian" or "Native American IMHO), effectively had an open immigration program and look what happened to them!

This example is not on point because the European settlers had novel technologies (guns, fermented beverages, small industrial products like glass beads, and the technique of horseback riding) which the aboriginals did not.  Moreover, they had novel diseases (smallpox, syphilis, etc.) to which the aboriginals had no immunity.  Neither of these factors now apply, so in practice Mexican immigration has been regulated by the push-pull of crime and the labor needs of a plantation economy.

QuoteEven creating a "Euro" style zone in North American would not take the law off the books, it would make it not applicable to Canadian and Mexican citizens and that is a compromise that I could live with.

As I understand it, Canadians will soon have the right to move to the US, find employment, and settle without special arrangements, and US citizens will have reciprocal rights under Canadian law.  It is just with Mexico (the junior NAFTA partner) with whom the US is trying to sustain the fiction of free movement of goods but not people.

Every nation has defined citizenship.  Its in the Bible.  Its in things that predate the Bible. 

Now, if you advocate some kind of "world citizenship", then fine.  Be honest and run for office on that platform. 

Arizona is just treating this crime like every other crime, and directing its law enforcement to do some useful work (rathter than bother motorists, for example).  It is a good idea.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2010, 07:46:13 AM
Every nation has defined citizenship.  Its in the Bible.  Its in things that predate the Bible. 

Please do not bring religion into this discussion.  That has NOTHING to do with this topic, and it just takes the focus off of a logical back-and-forth to something that is faith-based, and therefore doesn't prescribe to logic or discussion.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2010, 07:46:13 AMArizona is just treating this crime like every other crime, and directing its law enforcement to do some useful work (rather than bother motorists, for example).  It is a good idea.

Isn't it a good idea to do both?  Motorists break the law.  Illegal immigrants break the law.  The law is the law.  On that basis, how do you justify pursuing illegal immigrants and leaving motorists alone?

Quote from: lamsalfl on May 01, 2010, 08:11:11 PM
I love this law!  In fact it should be even more strict.  The penalty is absurd if you bring in a few Cuban cigars off a cruise ship, but here we are ALLOWING illegals to break federal laws by sneaking into the US.  Not only are we allowing them, but we're handing them health benefits, education, public housing, etc etc etc.  And the only way they can even go after you is if they have another reasonable cause to do it... like catching you committing another misdemeanor/crime.

Thank You!
BigMatt

Quote from: shoptb1 on May 02, 2010, 09:20:08 AM
Please do not bring religion into this discussion.  That has NOTHING to do with this topic, and it just takes the focus off of a logical back-and-forth to something that is faith-based, and therefore doesn't prescribe to logic or discussion.

I wasn't bringing "religion" into this discussion.  I was discussing the ancient nature of the concept of citizenship by citing a work that most people are familiar with which is of great antiquity.  And thus by implication the radical nature of those who oppose such a concept, or its enforcement.  If I were speaking to a Muslim audience, I could have cited the Koran just as well.  For that matter, I could have engaged in a discussion of the concept citing works far older than either, but which most people would not have been as familiar.

I'm sorry references to historical documents offend you.

You probably should have clarified that.  It looked like you were saying "the Bible says so, so it's LAW".

For the record, your audience here is not exclusively Christian...

Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2010, 10:15:26 AM
If I were speaking to a Muslim audience, I could have cited the Koran just as well.

How do you know that you're not?  America is not 100% Christian, and neither is this forum.  And Islam isn't the only other major religion in the world...in fact, neither one is the largest OR the oldest.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2010, 10:15:26 AM
I'm sorry references to historical documents offend you.

Don't be a smart a$$.  Your message was easily misinterpreted.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2010, 10:15:26 AMI was discussing the ancient nature of the concept of citizenship by citing a work that most people are familiar with which is of great antiquity.  And thus by implication the radical nature of those who oppose such a concept, or its enforcement.

You use radical as if it were a term of abuse--nicely sidestepping the underlying question of social utility.

It is not new (even in this thread) that the concept of citizenship is ancient.  The real novelty is the linkage of travel freedom and right to work with documented citizenship:  that is immigration protectionism and it is both very recent and, yes, very radical.  The requirement to have a passport when travelling abroad is barely one century old, and (as has already been pointed out) in the US in the nineteenth century, you could live and work anywhere without being a US citizen.

So, yes, citizenship is ancient.  (I suppose you could throw the code of Hammurabi at us if you wanted to.)  But don't try to fool us into believing that citizenship itself is or has ever been a focus of enforcement activity.  Immigration control is economic regulation, not a moral issue.  And in any case mere antiquity is not justification in either the moral or utilitarian sense:  "eye for an eye" and the concept of the predator state are likewise ancient.

Quote from: shoptb1 on May 02, 2010, 12:19:42 PMHow do you know that you're not?  America is not 100% Christian, and neither is this forum.

Was that ever implied - America has a lot of culturally Judeo-Christian heritage, so most people here (who have free access to information and can at least read English) would know that the Bible is fairly old (Job is one of the oldest texts we have and can understand). Would you have preferred it if there was the more obscure The Republic by Plato (also rather old), or some Egyptian/Indian/Sumerian work?

I'm with Mr Winkler on this one that the antiquity of having such a concept doesn't mean that it was universally heavily enforced. I do indeed disagree, while not the initial premise SP Cook is making (that citizenship is an almost universal, and ancient, concept), but with what he is suggesting with that premise.

QuoteAnd Islam isn't the only other major religion in the world...in fact, neither one is the largest OR the oldest.

What's the largest then? AFAICS these two, in nominal terms (people applying the label to themselves) takes up 2.2 billion and 1.6 billion respectively. Hinduism comes third at 1.2 billion (lower end estimates for these three are 2.1 billion, 1.3 billion and 828 million). The top end estimates leaves just over 1.8 billion for such a bigger religion (so it's smaller than Christianity) if everyone else subscribed to the same religion (which they don't). The lower end figures leaves just under 2.5 billion, so it's possible if no more than 400 million of the rest doesn't subscribe to other things. 500 million say that they believe in Folk Religions and 500 million say that they are Buddhists. Seems like (nominally) they are the two largest religions.

Anyway, neither of those two things you suggest were implied by the person writing. Islam was another example - it could have been Pastafarian (though do they have a holy book). I don't think the Koran is a good example of a replacement - partially as saying that there was a time when it wasn't (ie something can be before) might upset those who subscribe to some strands of Islam, but also as at 1400 years old, the Koran isn't that old as far as things go.

What I also don't get is how people jump from 'Bible is old' to 'Christianity is oldest' you not only change the old reference to oldest, but also make a bit of a leap by thinking that the Bible is the exclusive domain of Christians - while they don't call it that (and given you assert stuff about world religion, I can assume you know some things about it), having a non-Greek routing for their word to explain the collection of works that is the 'Old Testament', Jews claim those writings as their scripture. Judaism is generally considered old when it comes to recorded history.

You intolerantly kneejerk as soon something vaguely alluding to anything religious is mentioned (ironically bringing religion up) - ditto deanj.

Premise 1: Every civilisation has had some concept of citizenship
Premise 2: A collection of old writings has it - even older stuff has it

I read a lot of stuff elsewhere where religious points are made, and I am struggling to see anything resembling it except from those attacking SP Cook for mentioning the B-word.

If it's come to a point where anti-religion intolerance has come to a point where even mentioning religious writings for non-religious reasons fires up the "SUPPRESS IT" sirens, then we've come to a bad place. I totally agree that not all Americans are Christian, and that Christian morality shouldn't be imposed on everyone by rule of law". Rubber stamping laws simply as they find support in the Bible is something that none of us discussing this here have made a preference for at all. No one here seems to be wanting a theocracy - I definitely don't. However, just as totalitarian is this whole "religious viewpoints have no right to be discussed when it comes to law" thing that seems to have been espoused here - it's not blocked by the first amendment at all to have your political views shaped by your religious ones - in fact to block such a thing (and establish secularism as the state's religious viewpoint) is against the first amendment (both parts, as you are also stopping free exercise of religion). Such a disenfranchising of the views of those who disagree with you on the role of religion in the public square is imposing your morality and religious views.

Quote from: english si on May 02, 2010, 04:40:30 PM
Would you have preferred it if there was the more obscure The Republic by Plato (also rather old), or some Egyptian/Indian/Sumerian work?

Perhaps it's different in the United Kingdom, but in the United States, the majority of folks don't know that there is in fact any other religion in the world outside of Christianity.  My response was knee-jerk, and it's from the fact that 90% of the people that I am around think that the Bible is in fact the oldest (and only) religious text in the world.  This is not the case.

Quote from: english si on May 02, 2010, 04:40:30 PM
What's the largest then? AFAICS these two, in nominal terms (people applying the label to themselves) takes up 2.2 billion and 1.6 billion respectively. Hinduism comes third at 1.2 billion (lower end estimates for these three are 2.1 billion, 1.3 billion and 828 million). The top end estimates leaves just over 1.8 billion for such a bigger religion (so it's smaller than Christianity) if everyone else subscribed to the same religion (which they don't). The lower end figures leaves just under 2.5 billion, so it's possible if no more than 400 million of the rest doesn't subscribe to other things. 500 million say that they believe in Folk Religions and 500 million say that they are Buddhists. Seems like (nominally) they are the two largest religions.

I stand corrected, but again, my point was to illustrate that Christianity in itself is not the singularity in this world.  There seems to be this assumption in American social, professional, and political circles that all Americans identify with Christianity. I would just like for folks to not make those assumptions.

Quote from: english si on May 02, 2010, 04:40:30 PM
Judaism is generally considered old when it comes to recorded history.

Indeed.  Although they share historical roots, Judaism is also a separate religion from Christianity (and Islam).  Both of these religions began with Judaism, with different "prophets" (Jesus Christ, Muhammad ibn Abdullāh) respectively seen as the chosen messiah.  However, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and others are generally accepted to pre-date the Abrahamic religions. 

All of these things, however, are not germane to this discussion, and you're right that SP Cook's mention of this was probably just to establish historical credibility for his point. However, considering that two other folks also had the same misinterpretation of the comment, I think it's probably reasonable to say that it should have been clarified.

Quote from: english si on May 02, 2010, 04:40:30 PM
You intolerantly kneejerk as soon something vaguely alluding to anything religious is mentioned (ironically bringing religion up) - ditto deanj.
I read a lot of stuff elsewhere where religious points are made, and I am struggling to see anything resembling it except from those attacking SP Cook for mentioning the B-word.  If it's come to a point where anti-religion intolerance has come to a point where even mentioning religious writings for non-religious reasons fires up the "SUPPRESS IT" sirens, then we've come to a bad place.

Have you lived in the United States lately?  I really don't see Christianity in any danger of losing its strong foothold on American society, government, and politics any time soon.  Our separation of church and state is the biggest dotted-line separation I've seen, but my thoughts on our American society is probably a topic for some other discussion.

I do agree that it was a knee jerk reaction to SP Cook, and I apologize for that.  It's really fine to mention the Bible...but let's just remember that there are also other people with differing beliefs in this world (and surprise, surprise even America). 

Let's not discuss this religion stuff in this thread. We're not going to discover anything new by discussing it. Take it to PM if you must.

The thing that has people pissed about the immigration law is not that it causes illegal immigrants to be deported. That's been the law, and most people probably support that. The problem is that this establishes suspicion of foreign status as an acceptable reason (probable cause) to perform a search or arrest. This is a problem because this is less obvious than other kinds of probable cause. If you're veering off the side of the road, that's a red flag that shows you may be committing a crime (DUI). If they pull you over for speeding and you've got something other than keys stuck in the ignition, that's a red flag that shows you may be committing a crime (car theft).

So what's probable cause for detaining an illegal immigrant? Here's the issue: immigration status is independent from someone's appearance or actions. The only way you can tell for sure if someone is not a United States citizen is if you're actually looking at their documentation, and to see that documentation you need...probable cause. This attempts to short circuit that by saying "if they look illegal, detain them". That leads to the authorities equating "Mexican-looking = illegal". But that's not the case: there are tons of people of Mexican descent that are full United States citizens.

If you are in favor of this law, then how do you reconcile this?

This is really pretty simple, and it really does not go far enough.

This is, more than anything, about traffic.  Probable cause is not really an issue, because the law says that when law enforcement is already dealing with someone for another reason, it can inquire into citizenship and take appropriate action.  Clues?  People that do not have a US DL and cannot then produce a passport with an entry stamp.  People that are driving around with Mexican plates (it is very common for long term criminal aliens to register cars "back home" where taxes are tiny by US standards).   Currently law enforcement does nothing about this, because the federal government will not take custody and it ends up costing the state or county money.  If you move to Phoenix and keep your California plates (which is a crime) and drive too fast (which is a crime) you are in trouble.  If you have an unpaid ticket when you are pulled over, you will probably be arrested.  If you sneek illegally into Phoenix from Baja California, and have no right to be there, if you do those things, the police will, as a matter of economics, let you go.  You can drive with impunity.  That is dangerous and stupid.

This is just treating this crime like any other.

It really does not go far enough.

Currently, in this country, these fugitives from justice can:

Appear in state courts, as defendants, as plaintiffs in civil cases, as witnesses, etc.

Sue one another for divorce, child support, etc.

Go into county welfare offices and apply for various programs.

Send children to schools.

Attend college as "state residents" (that is right, my niece who lives 0.4m from the Virginia line pays out-of-state tuition in Virginia, but a criminal with no right to live anywhere in the USA, walks into that same classroom, past the campus cops, and pays in-state).

Open bank accounts, apply for loans, record deeds and wills at courthouses.

None of those things could be done by someone who was, say, wanted for a misdemeanor traffic offense.  All this law says is that when you interact with someone who is commiting a crime, you call the cops, and the cops do what is right.

All this reasonable and limited law does is treat this crime like any other.  Because, IMHO, the federal government is not serious about enforcing this law, or, as others feel, is unable to do so.  Those who oppose it, either really do not understand it, or really oppose the concept of national citizenship.

I am quite sure someone who is wanted for a misdemeanor traffic offense can appear in court...

maybe it's time to attack the problem where it is abused - namely, the welfare office and other places where people apply for benefits.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2010, 11:03:03 AMmaybe it's time to attack the problem where it is abused - namely, the welfare office and other places where people apply for benefits.

It is often claimed that illegal immigrants apply for benefits and even register to vote.  Where is the proof that this actually happens?  Do any of you have actual, firsthand experience of the process for applying for welfare benefits?

Edit:  the Washington Post has an editorial article by Michael Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter with whom I tend not to agree very often, which is surprisingly and sharply critical of the Arizona law:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/the_authors_of_arizonas_immigr.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Valentine to Jeb Bush it may be, but it makes some cogent points.

Interesting enough, Pima County (Tucson) Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, who is the longest standing sheriff in Arizona and is only 100 miles from the border has responded to the legislation by saying "he doesn't want this new law, he doesn't need it, and he is not going to enforce it."  

I do think, however, that this law even further highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and as mentioned by many people in this forum...Arizona is enacting this legislation as what they see as a 'last-ditch-effort' since they don't feel that the federal government is providing the support that they want.  

I'm hoping that the law will be repealed (as it would most likely be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), but be replaced by a much more effective federal solution that doesn't invite racial profiling, bullying, and create serious constitutional concerns.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2010, 11:03:03 AM
I am quite sure someone who is wanted for a misdemeanor traffic offense can appear in court...

maybe it's time to attack the problem where it is abused - namely, the welfare office and other places where people apply for benefits.

The abuse isn't at the welfare office, its the employers, across the United States, who use illigals because they'll work cheaper, won't question orders (all the boss has to do is threaten to deport any worker who questions their authority), and can be toss aside whenever they're no longer needed.
Just like coal miners in West Virginia.

BTW, if you have a couple of hours to kill and like movies, check out Lone Star.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116905/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116905/)
Illegal Immigration from Mexico to Texas is one of the themes (but not the main story) in this movie

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 03, 2010, 11:48:39 AM
Do any of you have actual, firsthand experience of the process for applying for welfare benefits?

Umm, yes.  Worked for state welfare department for several years until taking a better job recent.  You can confirm any of this on line with whatever state you wish to. 

Food Stamps, which is a form of welfare, (now called SNAP) are based on household size and income.  Pretty simple concept, really.  Except there are several catigories of people in households who do not count, for various public policy reason.  Drug fellons, people who have lied to the welfare office in previous cases and have been decleared ineligiable, what is known as an "ABWOD" which is government speak for somebody that just will not work for a living (Able Bodied Without Dependnets), full-time college students, and what they call "ineligiable aliens".  An "ineligiable alien" is an illegal alien.

Now technically, does that criminal get food stamp welfare?  No.  But he (or more often) she, can get them for her citizen children.  Do what?  You mean the government has certain knowledge of the exact residence of a person with no right to be here, who is commiting a crime every second of every day and the first thing it does is not to call the police?  Yes.  Cannot call the police.  Federal government policy.

Another welfare benefit (run in my state by the welfare department, it varries in other places) is child support enforcement.  (Which means if you are having trouble collecting child support, a welfare department employee will enforce the law for you, rather than you having to get an attorney).  In my state we have hundreds of cases where an illegal alien female appears in court to get support (or an order which will probably never be enforcable) from an illegal alien male, for their mixture of illegal alien and citizen children. 

Do what?  A person can walk into an American courtroom, commiting a crime every second by simply being there and the judge will not simply direct the bailiff to arrest her?  No.  Cannot by federal policy.

Substitute "wanted for any other crime" for "criminal alien" and you see the absurd nature of the special treatment of this crime differently from all others.

QuoteNow technically, does that criminal get food stamp welfare?  No.  But he (or more often) she, can get them for her citizen children.

I don't suppose you want a one-year-old to fill out the forms himself?

I recently read a piece in the New York times that the whole uproar about illegal immigration has little to do with immigration but is instead part of a movement to prevent the racial demographics of the US from changing.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 04, 2010, 06:49:05 AMNow technically, does that criminal get food stamp welfare?  No.  But he (or more often) she, can get them for her citizen children.  Do what?  You mean the government has certain knowledge of the exact residence of a person with no right to be here, who is commiting a crime every second of every day and the first thing it does is not to call the police?  Yes.  Cannot call the police.  Federal government policy.

I don't see what your problem here is.  The illegal alien is not eligible for food stamps; he or she is not getting them; what is the problem?  The illegal alien's US citizen children are eligible for food stamps; they are getting them; what is the problem?  Are you seriously suggesting that it is good public policy to deport the parent and break up the family?  This flies in the face of state policies which have as their explicit goal the preservation of functioning family units.  Or are you suggesting that parents and US citizen children should be deported to Mexico, notwithstanding the US citizen children having little to no experience of Mexico?  Been tried before (1930's), didn't work, was cruel, let's not go there again.

QuoteAnother welfare benefit (run in my state by the welfare department, it varies in other places) is child support enforcement.  (Which means if you are having trouble collecting child support, a welfare department employee will enforce the law for you, rather than you having to get an attorney).  In my state we have hundreds of cases where an illegal alien female appears in court to get support (or an order which will probably never be enforcable) from an illegal alien male, for their mixture of illegal alien and citizen children.

Enforcement itself is not really a benefit.  To the extent that it is a charge on the state for a specific public policy purpose, what is the problem with delinquent parents--whether US citizens or not--being required to pay child support for their US citizen children?

QuoteSubstitute "wanted for any other crime" for "criminal alien" and you see the absurd nature of the special treatment of this crime differently from all others.

I don't see the absurdity.  Being here illegally is an administrative violation.  Speeding, trespass, robbery, murder etc. are actual criminal offenses.  I don't ask to be protected from those here without papers; I ask to be protected from those who would do me genuine physical injury.

Another interesting angle to this debate is even simpler than most of the discussion up to this point.  Supply and Demand.  One of the reasons that Americans enjoy cheaper goods & services is the underground machine that allows individuals & corporations to continue employing illegal immigrants at a cut-rate hourly wage without health insurance/benefits/etc.  If all of the illegals are deported, will this need just magically go away?  I think not!  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Americans going south of the border to entice Mexicans to "jump the fence" in order to fill their under-the-table labor demands.

So I ask you...who's the real criminal in this situation?  What about the enforcement of laws regarding employing illegal immigrants? 

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 02, 2010, 06:29:52 AM

Quote from: mightyace on May 01, 2010, 07:42:11 PMWell, at the moment, it is.  And therefore, if you are a law enforcement officer, you are bound by duty and the law to uphold the law.  Whether you like it or not does not matter.  If you cannot enforce it in clear conscience you should resign.

That does not work in practice or even principle.  By the same logic, a police officer should have zero discretion to let you off without a ticket when you are clocked above the speed limit.

Unless the law gives the officer discretion, he/she should not let you off.

I've been pulled over twice for minor traffic offenses in the last 3 months and was let off with a warning both times.  I have to admit I felt both relieved and guilty when that happened.  i.e. The conflicting emotions joy for not be punished but feeling that I should have.  And, I cannot help but wonder if I was not a Caucasian, would I have gotten a ticket?  (Both traffic stops were in primarily white suburbs of Nashville.)

discretion in enforcing the law is the mark of a reasonable society.  Taken to its logical extreme, one shouldn't be jailed for stealing a loaf of bread.

Quote from: deanej on May 04, 2010, 01:08:55 PM
I recently read a piece in the New York times that the whole uproar about illegal immigration has little to do with immigration but is instead part of a movement to prevent the racial demographics of the US from changing.

boo M. F. hoo.

if Whitey is headed for extinction, so be it.  I'm doing my part by not reproducing!

Could somebody please put a lock on this thread?

This is turning my stomach and I now think less of some people than I would have before this.  And, I'm sure some can say the same of me.

This alleged "discussion" is not doing anything constructive. IMHO.

I thought that most people on this thread could discuss/argue/debate constructively.  Apparently, I am mistaken.

It makes me wonder whether or not to continue being a part of this forum.  Of course, some of you might say, don't read this thread.  This is true, but the damage has already been done.

Quote from: mightyace on May 04, 2010, 08:38:54 PM
I thought that most people on this thread could discuss/argue/debate constructively.  Apparently, I am mistaken.

on the contrary, other than the occasional flip remark referencing Whitey, and one unfortunate veer towards the absurdly theological (which was quickly moderated back to a sensible course), I think the discussion has been quite civil.

yeah, I generally think that this has been a productive debate.

QuoteThis is turning my stomach and I now think less of some people than I would have before this.  And, I'm sure some can say the same of me.

This alleged "discussion" is not doing anything constructive. IMHO.

I thought that most people on this thread could discuss/argue/debate constructively.  Apparently, I am mistaken.

This is an immigration debate on a road forum on the internet. It means nothing. Nothing! None of us have any political pull whatsoever, and like most political issues people have their minds made up one way or another, right or wrong. Nobody is going to change their minds on anything.  Constructive debate is out of the question here, the best one can hope for is civil, and I think that's been the case here.

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2010, 08:53:45 PM
Constructive debate is out of the question here, the best one can hope for is civil, and I think that's been the case here.

If this is civil debate, then I certainly don't want to see uncivil.

Quote from: mightyace on May 04, 2010, 08:55:39 PM
If this is civil debate, then I certainly don't want to see uncivil.

don't go to 4chan, then.

what precisely is uncivil about it?  (other than the religious stuff, which has already been dealt with)

Quote from: mightyace on May 04, 2010, 08:55:39 PM

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2010, 08:53:45 PM
Constructive debate is out of the question here, the best one can hope for is civil, and I think that's been the case here.

If this is civil debate, then I certainly don't want to see uncivil.

I think this has been a very civil debate; religious tangent aside.  I've seen some interesting points from both sides of the argument.  I, for one, would gladly prefer a healthy debate over political topics vs. being completely uneducated about what's going on in the world around us.   :spin:

Quote from: deanej on May 02, 2010, 11:27:04 AM
You probably should have clarified that.  It looked like you were saying "the Bible says so, so it's LAW".

Sadly, I know many folks (Roadgeeks included) who feel that way. :(

Quote from: mightyace on May 04, 2010, 06:31:03 PMUnless the law gives the officer discretion, he/she should not let you off.

I've been pulled over twice for minor traffic offenses in the last 3 months and was let off with a warning both times.  I have to admit I felt both relieved and guilty when that happened.  i.e. The conflicting emotions joy for not be punished but feeling that I should have.  And, I cannot help but wonder if I was not a Caucasian, would I have gotten a ticket?  (Both traffic stops were in primarily white suburbs of Nashville.)

I don't see anything wrong with letting you (or, in other contexts, me) off without a ticket in contexts similar to the ones you describe.

It is important to distinguish between duties and powers.  A duty is an obligation on someone in authority to perform a specific thing.  It precludes the exercise of discretion.  A power, on the other hand, is the legal capacity to do something, without necessarily being obliged by law to do so.  Typically, the police have powers but not duties to enforce the law.  Similarly, highway agencies have powers but not duties to maintain the highway network.  (Highway agencies even used to have sovereign immunity.  In other words, if your car was damaged through no fault of your own but rather a defect in the highway which the agency had the option of repairing, but chose not to repair, you had no right to sue.)

In carrying out functions which are supported by legal powers (but not duties), agencies generally have an obligation to exercise discretion reasonably.  In other words, if I am a police officer, I can decide to let some drivers go and write other drivers up based on my perception of the relative seriousness of each offense, but I am not (for example) allowed to write up all the black drivers, and let all of the white drivers off.

The problem with the Arizona law is that it tries to convert what is in effect a power (to check the legal status of people who might have come from abroad) into a duty, by allowing persons and groups to sue the police for not exercising that power.  Moreover, notwithstanding the recent amendment to the law to explicitly ban racial profiling, it is not clear what the police can go on other than the skin color of the potential immigrant.  If the police proceed on a basis of "looks Mexican, maybe illegal," that pushes them into an unreasonable exercise of discretion which puts them in violation of federal civil-rights statutes.  There is no way for the police to win and that is why SB 1070 has been opposed by police chiefs and middle-ranking police brass.

Quote from: deanej on May 04, 2010, 01:08:55 PM
I recently read a piece in the New York times that the whole uproar about illegal immigration has little to do with immigration but is instead part of a movement to prevent the racial demographics of the US from changing.

Nah, this isn't about racial demographics. It is, however, very much about political demographics.
See, here's the thing: statistically, minorities tend to vote Democratic. If the currently illegal Latin American immigrants were to become citizens, they would gain the right to vote, and the electorate would presumably turn bluer. As such, conservatives tend to want to deport them while liberals tend to welcome them with open arms.

Quote from: Duke87 on May 05, 2010, 12:55:19 PM
Nah, this isn't about racial demographics. It is, however, very much about political demographics.
See, here's the thing: statistically, minorities tend to vote Democratic. If the currently illegal Latin American immigrants were to become citizens, they would gain the right to vote, and the electorate would presumably turn bluer. As such, conservatives tend to want to deport them while liberals tend to welcome them with open arms.

In general, you're correct, although the Hispanic minority is not so clear-cut....

The past few elections have witnessed an increased variation of votes across racial and ethnic identities, especially with regard to Latinos. Using the 2002 National Survey of Latinos (with its representative sample of nearly 3,000 Latinos), it is found that in addition to traditional measures of party identification,  Latinos are significantly and considerably more likely to identify themselves as Republican versus Democrats based on their retention of traditional Latino family values and ideals, their self-identification along ethnic lines, and their overall trust of politicians and view of politicians' concern for Latinos.

This legislation, however, seems to be making many Latinos consider abandoning the GOP.  In fact, this latest move in Arizona may have actually shifted more Latino votes to the Democrats than the Republicans, ironically enough.  

I would like to add, however, that neither major political party has outlined any type of definitive strategy on how to reform immigration policies.  Traditionally, I would expect the Democrats to be more supportive of immigrant rights, but they know that they're walking a fine line so they've also been skirting the issue.  I think it's time for both parties to come out and state their intentions.  It will be interesting to see how this issue affects the congressional elections in November.

Quote from: shoptb1 on May 05, 2010, 01:47:53 PM
In general, you're correct, although the Hispanic minority is not so clear-cut....

This is true. My girlfriend is of hispanic and chinese origin (her parents are Nicaraguan-born and moved here in the early 80s). Her family is extremely Republican, which I was actually kinda surprised to find out about. My girlfriend is actually very passionate on the whole illegal alien issue and she agrees with this new AZ legislation 110%. The way she (and I) see it is that it's insulting to those who did come here legally for illegal aliens to get off scott free. My girlfriend actually dislikes Mexicans, but I've never asked her why. I guess it could be because of this issue.

Quote from: Marc on May 11, 2010, 01:38:05 AMThe way she (and I) see it is that it's insulting to those who did come here legally for illegal aliens to get off scott free.

I'm not insulted if someone gamed the system.  If I were insulted by other people's business on a frequent basis, I'd never get anything accomplished!

I don't know much about the situation but here's my opinion:

To my knowledge, the USA is the only first world country that directly boarders a third world country. (This is not to be confused with developed/developing countries as they have to boarder with each other at some point.)

Thus, something should be done. Since more than one state boarders Mexico, it should be a collaborative effort between these states or a federal effort. What Arizona is doing is just as illegal as those crossing the boarder illegally. People have come to the US without much for centuries and this is just a modern take on it. The only difference here is that you want papers now, something that was much more difficult to organize back in the day.

If you want to keep the illegal Mexicans out, do what the Chinese did to keep the Mongolians out.  Build a great wall with limited access points and have frequent patrols. You could also take advantage of modern technology and use it to aid your situation (example: satellite tracking/imagery).

A radical alternative is to break through the barriers and implement incentives addressing why illegal crossing happens in the first place. By improving things on the other side of the boarder, you can greatly reduce this problem. However if it involves sending a lot of money and resources to another country I doubt the public would be very pleased with it. This is especially true when the US economy is in a recession and manned spaceflight is coming to an end with the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet and due to a lack of funds.

Quote from: haljackey on May 11, 2010, 01:59:53 AMTo my knowledge, the USA is the only first world country that directly borders a third world country. (This is not to be confused with developed/developing countries as they have to border with each other at some point.)

Not quite true--Spain has a land frontier with Morocco, Poland has borders with Belarus and Ukraine, South Africa borders with Zimbabwe (and has a burgeoning illegal immigration problem of its own owing to Mugabe's farm confiscations), etc.  Cross-border migrant flows are (as noted upthread) an especially bad problem in Ceuta and Melilla.

QuoteThus, something should be done.

Sorry, no, cannot accept that as a starting point.  In order to argue that "something must be done" you must be able to show that there are solutions which will lead to more utility than the present situation projected into the future without intervention.

QuoteSince more than one state borders Mexico, it should be a collaborative effort between these states or a federal effort.

That has already been underway for decades (notably with regard to commercial vehicle inspections at the border).

QuoteIf you want to keep the illegal Mexicans out, do what the Chinese did to keep the Mongolians out.  Build a great wall with limited access points and have frequent patrols. You could also take advantage of modern technology and use it to aid your situation (example: satellite tracking/imagery).

Already been tried.  Most of the border is fenced.  (Shopbt1 has said upthread that Arizona has a lot of unfenced mileage; I am not fully au fait with fence construction, but I would expect that much of this mileage is in the Tohono O'odham reservation, which straddles the border, and has its own nationality and citizenship issues partly because we are not willing to give members of the tribe citizenship based on tribal membership rather than birth on US soil.  This leaves many members of the tribe in legal limbo because they have no way of proving where precisely they were born.)

Another aspect is cost.  The "smart fence," which is now generally considered to have failed, was proposed in the first place because it was thought to be cheaper than an actual physical fence.  It is certainly possible to build a "Great Wall" on the southern border, but is that really a good use of tax money?

QuoteA radical alternative is to break through the barriers and implement incentives addressing why illegal crossing happens in the first place. By improving things on the other side of the border, you can greatly reduce this problem. However if it involves sending a lot of money and resources to another country I doubt the public would be very pleased with it. This is especially true when the US economy is in a recession and manned spaceflight is coming to an end with the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet and due to a lack of funds.

We do already send Mexico a considerable amount of direct aid, and have been doing so for decades.  What we cannot do, for a variety of legal and constitutional reasons, is take on the responsibility of developing Mexico to the extent that standards of living in Mexico are comparable to those in the US.

One factor that is commonly ignored in the illegal immigration debate (especially recently, with the new primacy of "secure the border first" arguments) is that immigrants come to the US because there are jobs in the US for which employers want cheap labor.  It is really quite two-faced of us to say that illegal immigrants are committing some kind of great crime against the state and then sit back and enjoy the (literal) fruits of their cheap labor.  I eat fruit with a clean conscience because I have never supported aggressive border enforcement; it is the ones who support it that I suspect of hypocrisy.

However, the illegal immigrant "problem" persists because nobody in Congress with any sense imagines that the American public will accept expensive fruit and vegetables, having to carry biometric citizenship proof just to get a job or access basic public services, etc. just to close the economic niche for illegal immigrants.

To me the only argument against illegal immigration that makes sense relates to dignity of labor.  If you have a job that can be done by machines, it is basically dehumanizing to hire humans to do that job even if short-run market conditions mean that the humans can do it more cheaply.  But in the agricultural sector the technological scope for substitution of humans by machines is probably not great enough to eliminate illegal immigration from Mexico (and Latin America) altogether.  And you can be sure that the fruit growers will defend their short-term profits by lying about the extent of the substitutability (as happened during a previous enforcement push during the Clinton administration when the Florida orange growers complained about their labor supply drying up, the Clinton officials went ahead anyway, and the growers suddenly "discovered" they could mechanize).

Exactly. I didn't say something "must" be done, but if you don't like the current situation, than you "should" do something to help correct the problem.

That's why I didn't say developed/developing countries. The nations you mentioned are more second world nations bordering third world nations. The US is a first world nation. Spain doesn't count because it doesn't presently directly land boarder Morocco. Anyways that's another topic.

Throwing money at the problem isn't the answer, I agree with that. I also agree that someone has to do the dirty/labour intensive jobs, which is what a lot of these immigrants do for a living. Even here in Canada we import labour from elsewhere because very few want to work on the farm anymore.

Quote from: haljackey on May 11, 2010, 11:13:44 AM
Exactly. I didn't say something "must" be done, but if you don't like the current situation, than you "should" do something to help correct the problem.

That's why I didn't say developed/developing countries. The nations you mentioned are more second world nations bordering third world nations. The US is a first world nation. Spain doesn't count because it doesn't presently directly land boarder Morocco. Anyways that's another topic.

Spain DOES have a direct land border with Morocco.  See:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.885295,-5.356522&spn=0.080944,0.175781&t=h&z=13

Cueta is in Spain and the border (an EU/Schengen frontier with Muslim North Africa) runs northwestward from that 'N-352' marker.  It is fenced like a maximum-security prison, complete with guard towers, floodlights, electronic sensors and loads of razor wire.

Also, that AZ law simply allows the state to enforce existing federal immigration laws and contains numerous safeguards against misuse and abuse.  It is *HUGELY* popular among state residents, including legal immigrant USA citizens.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on May 14, 2010, 11:11:48 PMSpain DOES have a direct land border with Morocco.

that's gotta be one of the most senseless exclaves ever.  I'm surprised that sometime between the 1400s and now, Spain didn't simply say to Morocco, "oh, what the Hell, have it back, it's too much of a pain in the ass for us when the Mediterranean Sea forms a perfectly good border".

QuoteIt is *HUGELY* popular among state residents, including legal immigrant USA citizens.

the best way to defeat that sort of popular opinion - wait for them to die.  In 50 years, we'll look at today's social conservatives the way we look at Dixiecrats today.

Presumably Spain thought that having control of both sides of the Mediterranean at that pinch point was a good enough reason to keep that up.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 14, 2010, 11:16:55 PMthat's gotta be one of the most senseless exclaves ever.  I'm surprised that sometime between the 1400s and now, Spain didn't simply say to Morocco, "oh, what the Hell, have it back, it's too much of a pain in the ass for us when the Mediterranean Sea forms a perfectly good border".

Ceuta and Melilla have been Spanish since the sixteenth century at least.  Morocco is a recent (1950's) creation and Spanish holdings in North Africa were originally much more extensive (don't mention the Battle of Annual! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_of_Annual))!

In regards to the Arizona law, several people in this thread have already pointed to the extensive support it has among legal immigrants as a justification for it.  But it is only to be expected that legal immigrants would support it.  It is usually recent immigrants who tend to be vocal supporters of immigration protectionism, and quite a few Border Patrol officers are in fact second-generation immigrants (including many whose parents immigrated illegally and were later given an amnesty).

This phenomenon is seen everywhere, not just in the US--in Britain recent immigrants are just as eager to "pull up the ladder."  For this reason I am unwilling to accept "the recent immigrants support it" as a persuasive argument in favor of SB 1070.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2010, 02:17:27 AM
Ceuta and Melilla have been Spanish since the sixteenth century at least.  Morocco is a recent (1950's) creation and Spanish holdings in North Africa were originally much more extensive (don't mention the Battle of Annual! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_of_Annual))!

Certainly Morocco is a new political entity, but "the Moors" have been giving and taking land with respect to Spain since the 7th century.  To have precisely two tiny spots of land in North Africa remain Spanish is frankly absurd.  Either have a holding of sensible size (i.e. where the cost of securing the perimeter isn't a significant portion of the value derived from the area) or just stay on one side of the Mediterranean.

QuoteIn regards to the Arizona law, several people in this thread have already pointed to the extensive support it has among legal immigrants as a justification for it.  But it is only to be expected that legal immigrants would support it.  It is usually recent immigrants who tend to be vocal supporters of immigration protectionism, and quite a few Border Patrol officers are in fact second-generation immigrants (including many whose parents immigrated illegally and were later given an amnesty).

I've always noted, with quite a lot of bemusement, that a good proportion of the people that stop me at checkpoints speak English with distinct Hispanic accents, and have last names of distinct Hispanic origin - so they may even be first-generation immigrants.  I want to mention the concept of hypocrisy to them, but I figure I'm already getting hassled, the least I can do is avoid further trouble by mouthing off.

QuoteThis phenomenon is seen everywhere, not just in the US--in Britain recent immigrants are just as eager to "pull up the ladder."

Am I the only one here who is a first-generation immigrant that thinks "screw the ladder, it would be level ground if we let it"??  

I've officially decided that:
A) This is all much ado about nothing.
B) Since I don't live in Arizona (or anywhere near it), the law is really none of my business, anyway.

As for all the boycotts and "buycotts", I'm rolling my eyes likewise at both.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2010, 11:02:48 AMCertainly Morocco is a new political entity, but "the Moors" have been giving and taking land with respect to Spain since the 7th century.  To have precisely two tiny spots of land in North Africa remain Spanish is frankly absurd.  Either have a holding of sensible size (i.e. where the cost of securing the perimeter isn't a significant portion of the value derived from the area) or just stay on one side of the Mediterranean.

Treating Ceuta and Melilla as an area-versus-boundary problem misses the point.  To illustrate what is involved, consider the case of Gibraltar.  Unlike Ceuta and Melilla, which are considered part of Spain proper, Gibraltar is not part of metropolitan Britain, is a tax haven, and has its own distinguishing sign for vehicles (GBZ rather than GB for the UK home islands, including Northern Ireland).  Britain has even less reason to hold onto Gibraltar than Spain has to hold onto Ceuta and Melilla because Gibraltar is much further from Britain than those two enclaves are from mainland Spain, and the military necessity to control the passage between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic has more or less vanished with the emergence of the European Union.  But, as the saying goes, referenda on folding Gibraltar back into Spain deliver "110% majorities" for staying British.  (In practice this means the four or five people who vote for unification with Spain are known to the other Gibraltarians, who then firebomb their houses and yachts.)  Spain is nowadays a modern liberal democracy (women have equal rights, gays have been emancipated, etc.) with an efficient public administration, but to hear Gibraltarians talk you'd think their neighbor was still in the dark days of the Primo de Rivera dictatorship.

QuoteI've always noted, with quite a lot of bemusement, that a good proportion of the people that stop me at checkpoints speak English with distinct Hispanic accents, and have last names of distinct Hispanic origin - so they may even be first-generation immigrants.  I want to mention the concept of hypocrisy to them, but I figure I'm already getting hassled, the least I can do is avoid further trouble by mouthing off.

They have elaborate rationalizations.  If they came legally:  "Well, I went to all of that trouble to be legal--why should the illegals have it easy?"  If they or their parents came illegally:  "Times were different back then, and the US economy no longer has the capacity to absorb illegal immigrants.  Mexico is also a lot better now than it was for the older generation, and these people should stay behind and help Mexico develop instead of coming to the US and breaking the law," etc.

But in general it is sensible not to mouth off.  I just pretend to be bored and slightly stupid when I go through these formalities.

QuoteAm I the only one here who is a first-generation immigrant that thinks "screw the ladder, it would be level ground if we let it"??

It is certainly an unusual position to espouse openly.  At the same time, pretty much every cultural group that has immigrated to the US has depended to some degree on the moral and logistical support of a small cadre of community-minded previous arrivals.  I tend to think we hear relatively little from these people because they are too busy doing what really matters--helping new immigrants integrate into the US--to waste time grandstanding about illegal immigration.

Ultimately, that is what SB 1070 is about--grandstanding--since a number of police departments in southern Arizona have said up front that they have no desire to be sidetracked from their primary responsibilities to deal with illegal immigration.

Quote from: Duke87 on May 15, 2010, 12:25:12 PM
I've officially decided that:
A) This is all much ado about nothing.
B) Since I don't live in Arizona (or anywhere near it), the law is really none of my business, anyway.

Not all of us can take the abstentionist position you are urging.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 14, 2010, 11:16:55 PMI'm surprised that sometime between the 1400s and now, Spain didn't simply say to Morocco, "oh, what the Hell, have it back, it's too much of a pain in the ass for us when the Mediterranean Sea forms a perfectly good border".

I don't think that is gonna happen as long as Great Britain isn't going to simply say to Spain: "oh, what the Hell, have Gibraltar back, as we found out we haven't got a reason left to keep it"

Quote from: aswnl on May 15, 2010, 02:58:14 PM
I don't think that is gonna happen as long as Great Britain isn't going to simply say to Spain: "oh, what the Hell, have Gibraltar back, as we found out we haven't got a reason left to keep it"

yep, yet another pointless exclave, but at least relations between England and Spain are a bit better than they were in the 1400s.  Is it an open border between Spain and Gibraltar?  (For that matter, is the Chunnel an open border?  I know Britain doesn't use the Euro, are there any other situations in which they are not fully compliant with EU regulations?)

given that Gibraltar is already home to its own special laws, what do the yacht owners care if they are paying extremely little in taxes to the British or the Spanish government?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2010, 03:47:24 PMIs it an open border between Spain and Gibraltar?

Nope.  Gibraltar is not in the Schengen zone.  Spain has a reputation for "working to rule" or doing a "go-slow" at the Gibraltar border as a tactic to pressure the British to give it up, but I don't know if that is still going on.

QuoteFor that matter, is the Chunnel an open border?  I know Britain doesn't use the Euro, are there any other situations in which they are not fully compliant with EU regulations?

The UK is fully compliant with EU regulations, except for the instances where it isn't, which don't have to do with the euro or Schengen.  It is possible to be a full EU member without being in Schengen or the eurozone.  Because the UK and Ireland are not in the Schengen zone, travellers between either country and Schengenland need to clear passport control.  At airports this is done in the normal way (separate queues for EU and "all other countries").  On rail journeys between Britain and France via the Channel Tunnel, it is done through "juxtaposed checks"--you clear French immigration in London (the Schengen stamp says "Londres") and British immigration in Paris (the stamp says "Paris").  (I am not sure about Belgium because the Belgians haven't implemented juxtaposed checks.)

The UK and Ireland have an informally defined "Common Travel Area" which allows people to pass between the two without going through passport control.  However, it is common to operate mobile checkpoints near the border--I personally haven't run into one in NI, but when I visited Ireland in 1999 I was coming from NI and had to stop at a Garda checkpoint about a mile south of the border.  Tensions tend to be high during the week of 12 July because that is when all the (Protestant) Orange Lodges do their marches to commemorate the Battle of the Boyne.  I crossed on 10 July, and had just come from a loyalist street party in the Newtownards Road (which really raised the hairs on my arms since my background is Catholic).

Quotegiven that Gibraltar is already home to its own special laws, what do the yacht owners care if they are paying extremely little in taxes to the British or the Spanish government?

They don't want to lose their special status.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2010, 04:32:11 PMOn rail journeys between Britain and France via the Channel Tunnel, it is done through "juxtaposed checks"--you clear French immigration in London (the Schengen stamp says "Londres") and British immigration in Paris (the stamp says "Paris").  (I am not sure about Belgium because the Belgians haven't implemented juxtaposed checks.)

this implies that you have to clear outgoing customs far away from the border - say, in Paris if you are heading to England - then make your way over to Calais and then head to England?

what's to prevent someone from getting their passport stamped by British immigration in Paris, then staying in France for a while, without accruing those dreaded "days spent inside the Schengen zone"?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2010, 04:43:34 PMthis implies that you have to clear outgoing customs far away from the border - say, in Paris if you are heading to England - then make your way over to Calais and then head to England?

Once you clear immigration under a juxtaposed check regime, you are in effect in a sealed corridor.  Many Eurostar services between London and Paris are nonstop and even when Eurostar stops at an intermediate station in the country of departure, like Ashford in Kent (coming from London) or Calais (coming from Paris), it is not possible to leave the train without going through passport control again.  I haven't checked, but I would also guess that it is not even possible to buy tickets on Eurostar for purely in-country travel--I'd expect you to be able to travel between Paris and Calais via TGV, for example, but not Eurostar, and similarly it would be a bit strange to take Eurostar just to get from London St. Pancras to Ashford.

Quotewhat's to prevent someone from getting their passport stamped by British immigration in Paris, then staying in France for a while, without accruing those dreaded "days spent inside the Schengen zone"?

Simple--you can't board the train until you have been cleared to enter Britain and you can't leave the train without passing through passport control (and thus getting a Schengen entry stamp) until you are actually on British soil.

If I were trying to play a numbers game with immigration, I wouldn't do it on Eurostar anyway because it is too tightly policed.  The traditional scam involved a trip to Switzerland before it was in the Schengen zone (the countries bordering Switzerland tended not to check passports at the land frontier).  That no longer works because Switzerland is now in Schengen.  Depending on whether the UK immigration authorities take account of Irish entry stamps, it might be possible to work something by arriving in Ireland and crossing the unsupervised land frontier, but for US passport holders the game isn't really worth the candle.

ah okay, I did not know that is how the corridor worked.  So if the train stops in, say Ashford in Kent, do passengers get on?  You mentioned getting off would be silly, but if so, getting on would be the only reason to stop the train. 

If they get on, do they get London stamps or Ashford in Kent stamps? 

What about those who drive between Dover and Calais?  Do they get processed traditionally upon setting foot on the new country's soil?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2010, 06:40:38 PMWhat about those who drive between Dover and Calais?  Do they get processed traditionally upon setting foot on the new country's soil?

No one drives between Dover and Calais, except the Top Gear team and some others who have used amphibious cars... ;)

If you take the ferry, then the checks are on both sides, to some extent (the French actually bother a bit with Calais) and done as part of the ticket checks - like with planes. Officially passport control is on the side of arrival.

With the Channel Tunnel vehicle transporting trains, passport control is also technically on the new countries soil, but on the departure side. I don't think it's the situation with Gare du Nord, Lille Europe, Ashford and Waterloo (I doubt very much they would have changed it to St Pancras, added Ebbsfleet or would have bothered with the S of France/Alps specials), but with the vehicle terminals, a small part of each one was given to the country on the other side of the English Channel/La Manche, so you enter France (or England), have your passport checked, re-enter the country you were in before, drive onto the train, cross the channel and drive straight off into the country of arrival.

Eurostar trains fill up on one side of the Channel, empty on the other. Ebbsfleet and Ashford are exit-only London-bound and no-exit Paris/Brussels bound. I'm not sure about Lille, but I think that there would be restrictions on entering/leaving trains the wrong way and in any case, you have to go through Passport Control to get on a Eurostar wherever you are going and there are frequent TGV/Thalys services anyway. The boarding/disembarkation restrictions occur elsewhere, where there aren't borders and so on - for instance to try and stop commuters boarding intercity trains to do a London-Watford commute (or to deal with competition clauses built into franchises - Virgin have to have a monopoly on Wolverhampton-London services, so Wrexham&Shrewsbury trains are pick up northbound/drop off southbound only so as to not impinge)

I haven't asked any non UK passport holders what the stamps say - there's no stamping between the UK/Ireland and Schengen - I've asked before for a stamp and got an odd look.

Quote from: english si on May 15, 2010, 07:23:06 PM
a small part of each one was given to the country on the other side of the English Channel/La Manche

sheesh, talk about odd exclaves.  Is there some French land in London, too, for French Immigration, and vice versa in Paris?  I am figuring they work on the same principles as an embassy, which is technically land that belongs to the country being represented, but is never counted formally as an exclave.

No only at Cheriton and Coquelles. I think they do get treated like embassies - but they are deliberately the same area, so neither country lost land.

Quote from: english si on May 16, 2010, 04:28:06 AM
they are deliberately the same area, so neither country lost land.

overthinking it much, England and France?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2010, 06:40:38 PMah okay, I did not know that is how the corridor worked.  So if the train stops in, say Ashford in Kent, do passengers get on?  You mentioned getting off would be silly, but if so, getting on would be the only reason to stop the train.

Yes, passengers do get on.

QuoteIf they get on, do they get London stamps or Ashford in Kent stamps?

I am not sure, but I think they get Schengen stamps with "Ashford" as the location.  It really depends on whether the French (whose stamps go in passports) consider their checkpoint at Ashford to be a separate POE.

QuoteWhat about those who drive between Dover and Calais?  Do they get processed traditionally upon setting foot on the new country's soil?

I am not sure about the current position, but the last time I travelled between London and Paris via coach--which involves boarding a vehicle/passenger ferry as a foot passenger--the passport checks were actually only on the British side.  At the time (1999) there were problems with illegal immigrants destroying their documentation in order to be able to claim asylum on a "benefit of the doubt" basis, so British immigration verified that you had documents valid for re-entry to the UK as you left the UK, and then there was a passport check in the normal way on return to the UK.  There were no checks on French soil coming into France but French Customs did occasional checks on buses returning to the UK (generally by flagging them aside at a tollbooth on the A1 autoroute).

The French do have an obligation under Schengen to have a proper frontier checkpoint for traffic coming from the UK by coach.  They can't carry on as they did in 1999 and still fulfil that obligation, so that may be the explanation for the checks at Calais which Simon describes (on the basis of, I would presume, more recent experience than mine).

Quote from: english si on May 15, 2010, 07:23:06 PMThe boarding/disembarkation restrictions occur elsewhere, where there aren't borders and so on - for instance to try and stop commuters boarding intercity trains to do a London-Watford commute (or to deal with competition clauses built into franchises - Virgin have to have a monopoly on Wolverhampton-London services, so Wrexham & Shrewsbury trains are pick up northbound/drop off southbound only so as to not impinge)

My understanding is that the privatized railways don't do free upgrades, but they do allow free downgrades.  For instance, if you buy a ticket valid for the Gatwick Express between Gatwick and London Victoria, and then are foolish enough to board a Southern Trains stopping service, no-one will prevent you.  On the other hand, you can't board the Heathrow Express between Paddington and Heathrow on just, say, a Tube travelcard.

QuoteI haven't asked any non UK passport holders what the stamps say - there's no stamping between the UK/Ireland and Schengen - I've asked before for a stamp and got an odd look.

You wouldn't get a Schengen stamp because you are an EU citizen.  As a non-EU citizen, however, I have to be stamped every time I enter and exit the Schengen zone.  The main elements of a Schengen stamp are distinguishing sign of country operating the port (within the EU thirteen stars), name of port, date of clearance, whether it is an arrival or departure, mode of travel (air, boat, rail, car), and an identifying code which is particular (I am not sure which) to the immigration officer, the stamp, the port, or the clearance desk.

Samples of Schengen stamps can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_stamp#Schengen_zone

As an aside, the stamps used by UK immigration are similar to the extent that they have the name of the port and date of arrival (the UK does not have formal exit checks although passports are occasionally checked on exit), as well as an identifying code which is personal to the immigration officer.  There is a separate standard stamp which is used for six-month tourist leave to enter.  If leave to enter is granted for a length of time other than the standard six months (typically upon interview by an immigration officer), a different standard stamp is used and a date of expiry is written in ink.  People who obtain leave to enter through a visa process (rather than just showing up at the port of entry) have different notations put in their passports and also have to get biometric identification.  The latter involves booking an appointment for fingerprinting, etc. at a special Home Office enquiry center.  (This process nearly went pear-shaped for a friend of mine who does not have sufficient ridge detail on her fingertips to take usable fingerprints.  The Home Office refused to reassure her that this would not be used as a basis for denying her visa.  When her ID card was issued, the name of her hometown in Japan was misspelled.  As she put it, "Britain is a crap.")

The US did not used to stamp US citizens on re-entry to the US, but now it does.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2010, 04:31:12 AMoverthinking it much, England and France?

Maggie negotiated it . . .

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 16, 2010, 06:37:46 AMThere were no checks on French soil coming into France but French Customs did occasional checks on buses returning to the UK (generally by flagging them aside at a tollbooth on the A1 autoroute).

the A1? that's quite a way from Calais! More likely would be the A26, I would have thought. It's worth pointing out that just because you weren't checked doesn't mean that there are no checks. France hasn't cared about those coming from the UK and Ireland by sea for years, keeping a skeleton staff in passport control there. Of course, I've tended to cross the channel by car, not coach (did Portsmouth-St Malo and Roscoff-Plymouth by coach as part of a school trip in 1998 - as a large group of 12 year olds, the teachers handled it: "here's 50 kids passports" "Oh, OK, welcome - come aboard kids" kind of thing). I seem to recall going through passport control in France, and it being the case that you wave the right number of passports at the man, if he's there (St Malo's passport control have never staffed the Portsmouth-St Malo ferry arriving at 7am French time in the many times I went there from the early 90s to early 00s), and get waved on.

QuoteMy understanding is that the privatized railways don't do free upgrades, but they do allow free downgrades.  For instance, if you buy a ticket valid for the Gatwick Express between Gatwick and London Victoria, and then are foolish enough to board a Southern Trains stopping service, no-one will prevent you.  On the other hand, you can't board the Heathrow Express between Paddington and Heathrow on just, say, a Tube travelcard.

Actually I don't think that's true - however because Gatwick Express is a sub-brand of Southern, they let you, as they get the money (and the premium) anyway - it wouldn't work on a First Capital Connect train if you had a Gatwick Express Only ticket due to the company getting no money from the ticket - an any permitted ticket (which costs more) would be allowed on any train as the money is spread out via some sort of algorithm, but is pretty pointless buying one during the day, due to all companies running frequent services, so you buy the most practical for you and wait, at most, 15 minutes. I do think it's a bit excessive to have 4 ticket prices (ignoring peak/off-peak, cheap day returns, saver returns and so on) for Gatwick to London Terminals (Southern only, FCC only, Gatwick Express only, any permitted). I think they have changed it though with the merging of the Gatwick Express and Southern franchises, but I'm not sure.

A Birmingham Stations to London Terminals tickets have a via Banbury cheaper option (which allows you to change at Reading as well as use Chiltern), and with that you cannot go on Virgin via Milton Keynes, but an any permitted costs more and is allowed on either route, but Chiltern wouldn't allow any Virgin special offer tickets, meant only for Virgin (I don't think they offer that though). Wrexham and Shropshire might have the restrictions on Wolverhampton because of not getting money from the tickets, rather than something DfT mandated (and I'd also strongly argue that, despite taking quite a bit longer, W&S is a premium service over Virgin!).

Also anything involving the Heathrow tunnel is a special case as the tunnel isn't part of the National Rail, or London Underground networks, hence the premium.

QuoteYou wouldn't get a Schengen stamp because you are an EU citizen.

I know, I've tried pleading, but they won't give me one! Likewise UK passport control. All I wanted to do was add to my passport stamp collection :(

To drag it back more on the topic of the original drift - the wikipedia page linked to above shows "Paris" and "Channel Tunnel" UK stamps, and a "Londres" Schengen stamp.

Quote from: english si on May 16, 2010, 08:16:47 AMthe A1? that's quite a way from Calais! More likely would be the A26, I would have thought.

Yes, the A1, not the A26, and yes, I would expect it to be on the A26 too except that proximity to Calais does not seem to be a consideration for the douaniers who run these checks--I think they look for scheduled services which are nonstop between Paris and the ferry.

QuoteIt's worth pointing out that just because you weren't checked doesn't mean that there are no checks. France hasn't cared about those coming from the UK and Ireland by sea for years, keeping a skeleton staff in passport control there. Of course, I've tended to cross the channel by car, not coach (did Portsmouth-St Malo and Roscoff-Plymouth by coach as part of a school trip in 1998 - as a large group of 12 year olds, the teachers handled it: "here's 50 kids passports" "Oh, OK, welcome - come aboard kids" kind of thing). I seem to recall going through passport control in France, and it being the case that you wave the right number of passports at the man, if he's there (St Malo's passport control have never staffed the Portsmouth-St Malo ferry arriving at 7am French time in the many times I went there from the early 90s to early 00s), and get waved on.

I didn't claim there were no checks at all, but the fact that I was able to get from London to Paris without once having to show my passport to a French immigration officer in itself indicates that, at that time, the French were not operating an inspection regime for cross-Channel movements which gave them the opportunity to inspect and affix Schengen entry stamps to the passports of all non-EU citizens entering France.  It is my understanding that the Schengen treaty now requires France to impose this regime of control for all movements between France and other countries outside the Schengen zone, so I would not now expect to be able to make a coach trip between London and Paris without having my passport stamped by the French at some point.

QuoteTo drag it back more on the topic of the original drift - the wikipedia page linked to above shows "Paris" and "Channel Tunnel" UK stamps, and a "Londres" Schengen stamp.

I went to Paris last July (Eurostar in both directions).  The UK entry stamp for the return journey says just "PARIS."  The French entry stamp says "LFT - LONDRES" while the French exit stamp says "LFT - PARIS NORD."  I am not sure what the "LFT" stands for.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 16, 2010, 06:41:08 AM

Maggie negotiated it . . .

taking time out of her busy "shoot Mr. Burns" schedule, apparently.

perfectly good taxpayer money being used for that negotiation.  Hours upon hours that the government could've spent solving actual problems.

Customs formalities on international airline flights from Canada to the USA are handled in much the same way as on the Eurostars - you clear USA customs at the departing airport in Canada and the flights are then treated as 'domestic' flights within the USA - able to land without further formalities at ANY commercial airport in the USA.  Also, if the flight is delayed and you want to head back to the rest of the terminal or back into town you have to re-clear Canadian customs.  Flights to Canada clear Canadian customs in Canada.  This makes economic sense in that there are far fewer airports in Canada than there are in the USA where such flights call and the fewer points of entry in Canada mean that many fewer customs guys needed by the USA.

Mike

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2010, 02:17:52 PMperfectly good taxpayer money being used for that negotiation.  Hours upon hours that the government could've spent solving actual problems.

It's a question of joint costs.  It is very easy to reach a decision quickly if both sides supply a clear political mandate, and François Mitterrand would have agreed readily to an equal-area agreement (if it was not in fact already suggested by his side) just to avoid being outflanked by the Gaullist right.  My guess is that the negotiations were dominated largely by the essentially technical process of calculating how much surface land was required to build and operate the tunnel safely.

Which crossing proposal to build would have been a lot of the negotiations, as would who will built it - locals or export some navvies in, as well as which company.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 18, 2010, 10:35:40 AM
to avoid being outflanked by the Gaullist right. 

further oh-so-great uses of taxpayer dollars.

"sacre bleu, we gave England thirteen square inches more land than they gave us!"

hooray for extremist nationalism.