This strikes me as ridiculous fear mongering. The point of the law is "attrition through enforcement" - the idea being that illegal immigrants will leave Arizona if they see that the state is serious about enforcing immigration law. Are we to suppose that people will continue to live in Arizona illegally, given the knowledge that there are now real penalties? The article also uses scare language like "The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before" to make it sound like there's some grand plan to hunt down and lock up every illegal immigrant, so that the prison companies can charge the state for their upkeep. And yet the bill only provides for a maximum of 20 days in jail for a first offender, and 30 days in jail for subsequent offenses.
"But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.
It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.
It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.
It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.
"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"
This isn't just about illegal immigrants, this is about corporations that get legislation passed for their own financial gain. Granted this happens all the time, but this is so blatantly targeted towards people who have little or no defense. The potential for abuse is obvious. We've already had a U.S. judge busted for receiving kick-backs for sending juveniles to a youth facility. The US already has one of the largest prison populations in the world. This is a crime against humanity in the making.
>>The point of the law is "attrition through enforcement"
It is much more than that.
If you're a US citizen and you're not carrying proof of citizenship, you could get thrown in jail for not having your "papers".
Now, I'm sure many citizens feel that their accent or their skin color or some other attribute protects them from sent to jail and that they don't need to carry their papers with them. However, if a cop thinks that you might be a Canadian, they could throw you in jail for not proving otherwise. .
Do you have a reference for citizens being able to be sent to jail for not carrying papers? I was under the impression that there was nothing in the bill about putting people in jail. I haven't read the link yet, though, so perhaps it has more details.
Even before this law was passed, I can give you citations for American citizens who have actually been deported. I can't see how this law will make deportation any less likely. Here are some of the first few results:
You may notice a common trend among those wrongly deported: they're most often mentally disabled and non-white. It makes the news if and when their family discovers what happened to them. You don't have a right to an attorney if accused of immigration violations (even if you are a US citizen).
I don't believe that a native-born US citizen can be stripped of their citizenship via any means. However, there are ways for naturalized citizens (those born elsewhere who successfully apply for US citizenship) to be stripped of that citizenship after the fact. This usually happens if they lie on their application (and that is the reason they ask questions like "Are you a terrorist?" on that application). There's a discussion of how that works here:
That's definitely a problem (I knew a few people that I've spent time helping out who would probably run the risk of what those links describe), but according to all of those links, the agency in the wrong is ICE, not any particular state - as far as I know (even with the Arizona law), actual deportation and citizenship issues are still handled at the Federal level.
While I don't think that the analysis and worries of "papers please" regarding the Arizona law is wrong (I'm a firm believer in sunlight), I'm not seeing, 6 months in, where the doom and gloom is still coming from. They've revised the laws to remove some of the ambiguities, and I still haven't seen evidence of citizens being throw in jail, nor any onerous requirements on immigrants besides what is defined in Title 9 of the Federal laws.
The big argument today, which the Feds are suing for, seems to be that the state law preempts something which is clearly defined at the Federal level (the aforementioned Title 9). I can understand that particular argument, even if I think it's relatively ridiculous to make (the Feds have had a hard time enforcing the law there, especially in border states where the drug war is bringing more and more criminal elements into the area).
Well, of course we're not likely to see "doom and gloom." Those of us who are reasonably intelligent are in remarkably little danger of deportation.
What it will do is overwork ICE, an agency that tries to focus its few resources in deporting dangerous criminals (rather than people who overstayed a visa). Given that ICE is nothing but a cost center as far as politicians are concerned, we can already see what is happening when things are done in a cut-rate manner. This will only continue.
Coupled with that is that Arizona's largest county has right now a publicly-elected sheriff (an election I'm inclined to believe should be removed), who for the last decade or so has conducted immigration raids that grabbed headlines during election season. Said sheriff is also currently under federal investigation (he was under investigation long before Obama came to power, incidentally). This is not a good mix.
While I can sympathize with those who want ICE to do a better job, or who want our immigration laws enforced, I think that comprehensive reform is needed before those laws will be enforceable.
It means that we have to focus on the things that really matter (e.g. drug smuggling aliens) and make ICE more efficient so that coming through immigrations isn't a farce that takes a decade and $50k and so that they have the manpower to go after the people out there committing crimes.
That said, I sincerely wish you'd remove the word "amnesty" from your vocabulary. It's a stop word, just like "Republican", "Democrat" and "terrorist." People see those words and they stop thinking and start getting upset.
It so happens that I'm none of those things, if that helps you any.
I'm 110% with you on reforming the whole immigration and naturalization process. If we could make it really easy for legitimate immigrants to become citizens, enforcement would be a much less unpleasant matter. I'm also with you on pulling the politics out of the equation.
Unfortunately, until we can get some actual leadership who cares about real immigration issues, rather than the politicized "opportunities" that the two-party system we have right now sees it as, the border states (and even states farther north of the border, such as my home state of WA) are still hurting. What is their option right now other than trying to deal with the problem themselves?
Please note - I'm not referring to the people themselves as the problem, but rather the burden that a massive influx of non-tax-paying individuals put on public infrastructure, and the unfortunate criminal element that has also come across a s a combined result of non-enforcement and the drug war.
> If you're a US citizen and you're not carrying proof of citizenship, you could get thrown in jail for not having your "papers".
...if you are lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested, you may be held until your immigration status is verified. I don't see why this is a big deal. There is no grand scheme to sweep the countryside and round up everyone with brown skin or a Canadian accent.
Well, the story is about what was in the bill as allegedly drafted by the the prison company, not about the watered-down version that ended up passing. As first submitted to the legislature, it would have allowed for much longer sentences.
The frightening thing is not this particular application, but the broader concepts of (1) extension of an already draconian police power (2) almost entirely brought about by a private profit motive. Capitalism is an evolutionary process and as such is almost beyond the control of human intentions, so seeing it move against individual liberty is highly alarming.
