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.
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).