Anyone avoiding Arizona?

[yanksfan6129]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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).

[BigMattFromTexas]

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

[mgk920]

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

[SP Cook]

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. 

[Scott5114]

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?

[J N Winkler]

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."

[english si]

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.

[shoptb1]

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

[vdeane]

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.

[mightyace]

"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.

[lamsalfl]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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...

[yanksfan6129]

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).

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

[SP Cook]

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.

[shoptb1]

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.

[J N Winkler]

Arizona 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?

[BigMattFromTexas]

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

[SP Cook]

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.

[vdeane]

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

[yanksfan6129]

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

[shoptb1]

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.

I'm sorry references to historical documents offend you.

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

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

[english si]

How 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.

And 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.