Anyone avoiding Arizona?

[vdeane]

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).

[florida]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

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!

[mightyace]

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:

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? 

[Scott5114]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[bugo]

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. 

[agentsteel53]

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?

[tmthyvs]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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...

[mgk920]

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

[agentsteel53]

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...

[Scott5114]

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.

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[realjd]

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!

[Brandon]

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.

[huskeroadgeek]

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.

[J N Winkler]

As 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.

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).

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.

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 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.

[corco]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

[shoptb1]

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:



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? 

[bugo]

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.