patrick.net

Sorry if I'm out of the loop on this, but why exactly are people talking about boycotting Arizona? Something to do with illegal immigrants, but I didn't understand what.

Sorry if I’m out of the loop on this, but why exactly are people talking about boycotting Arizona? Something to do with illegal immigrants, but I didn’t understand what.

Yup, you got it.

That's O.K. China will eat Mexico's Big Mac.

Patrick,

Arizona passed a law that police should check the immigration status of people that they find suspect. The definition of "suspect" is apparently up for some degree of interpretation.

The new law is a joke. Pure political posturing. Won't stand up. If anyone wanted to do anything for real about illegals then all they would have to do is go after the employers with substantial penalties, like jail time. Arizona has this on the books already. Only 3 counties in the entire state have charged anyone ever. The toughest county has had 3 whole cases. Without jobs there would be no illegals.

Corporations are against securing the borders and that's why they're still open. Illegal and green carded workers get virtually zero benefits and low wages in this scenario, a major savings enhancing profits for business operations.

I studied in Germany for a year in college and was shocked to find out that's already the law there: you must have something on you to prove your identity at all times. I found out because I had a German girlfriend who didn't have a driver's license, but did have a green "Personalausweis" and asked her about it. She said it was her identity card and she was obligated to carry it, but usually just left it at home. That was back in 1984 though. Hey, kind of funny, 1984.

"Hey, kind of funny, 1984."

By George, are you saying Orwell that ends well?

A humorous angle:

All the "birther" movement members can move to Arizona and sit around and wait for Obama to swing by on a campaign stop. Should make for interesting theatre.

I don't think most the people who oppose this law have actually read it. It has specific requirements as to when the police are allowed to ask for these papers (pretty much the same times that the police currently ask me for for my Arizona Driver's License). It has to be "lawful contact," which terminology was specifically selected by the Missouri Law Professor who wrote the law because it requires the police already have reasonable suspicion the person has committed a crime (they have been pulled over, are being questioned in regard to a current investigation). Currently, when the police apprehend a person and discover them to be an illegal alien, they turn to INS to handle the person's legality, and INS does nothing. Before the law, questions of citizenship were federal questions only, with inconsistent application. This law just makes it against state law as well as federal law to be in the country illegally; a person who is in the country illegally is prosecuted for trespassing. It's not that big of a deal. Here in Arizona, none of my legal citizen Hispanic friends are even remotely worried about it, since they all carry their driver's licenses in their wallets or purses anyway.

The biggest potential downfall is it discourages illegal aliens from cooperating with police investigations, because police ask for identification when interviewing witnesses (I have been interviewed as a witness twice and both times had to produce id; a friend of mine was recently fined because his neighbor was robbed, and when the police interviewed him he produced a suspended license, and evidently he was required by law to obtain an Arizona ID card instead of a license until his license was reinstated). All a concerned citizen need do is carry their id with them, the Arizona id counts as all the proof of citizenship you are required to furnish to police questioning you in regards to this law, and police can easily verify the license because it has a magnetic strip on the back that they can scan to verify your identity.

Living here in Arizona, there are not a whole lot of communities that do not have large Hispanic population, and the purpose of this law is not to damage the existing relationships we have. There are very few Arizonans who do not work with and/or socialize with a wide variety of people (we are certainly more multicultural here than in most areas, come visit any community during Cinco de Mayo and see the community activities of the diverse population) and very few Arizonans desire to see people hassled just because of their ethnicity. People seem to be under the impression that this law was crafted to make Mexican-Americans second class citizens, when it actuality it is popular because it makes all citizens first class citizens, while finding some way to address the immigration issue. Is it perfect? No. Most Arizonans I speak with would prefer a solution that addresses the permeability of the border itself, as evidenced by the brief popularity of the Minute Men. But so far we have gotten zero help from Washington, from Reagan to Bush I to Clinton to Bush II to Obama, and we are fed up.

As for those who think this law won't stand up, it is modeled almost exactly after the federal statute (from a legal standpoint, it's identical). So if you find this unconstitutional the federal statute necessarily goes with it. Could happen, but it seems unlikely.

Proving citizenship to authorities by presenting your papers isn't anything new in Germany. In fact, most of Europe has similar laws. In Europe, they don't play. If you come into the country illegally, they ship you back out straight away and sometimes will bar re-entry for years or if egregious, for the rest of your life.

Arizona has gone too far. We don't have a tradition of forcing everyday citizens who are going about their daily business to prove citizenship when they go to the bank, or anything else. I remember working in Paris and I couldn't even change money without a passport. I needed my passport to get Metro tickets and passes too. But here in the USA I've never had to prove my citizenship outside of finding employment or applying for any governmental license or benefit.

The new law won't stand up in court. There's no precedent in our jurisprudence or law enforcement for forcing people to prove citizenship to authorities on the street by producing papers.

San Francisco goes too far with stuff like this often. I don't know what good San Francisco's boycott is going to do anyone in Arizona. I don't know that it would affect very many people in Arizona. I heard last night that San Francisco's business with Arizona is all of $11 million or so. I'm sure that this is a drop in the bucket for the State of Arizona. Here is yet another example of the attitude of San Franciscans thinking that somehow they are the center of the Universe and that all people should conform to their way of living and their political beliefs. Most people in the rest of the country couldn't care less about San Francisco one way or the other. I didn't care about San Francisco before moving to the "Not the Real" Bay Area in 2002. San Francisco simply had no effect on my life in Illinois, Iowa, or Maryland when I lived in these states. I doubt that the vast majority of Arizonans care about what San Francisco does or doesn't do.

Mainly this is a cynical ploy by politicians in San Francisco to appease immigrant political groups within their jurisdiction. It won't have any effect whatsoever on what Arizona does concerning it's State Laws. What will have an effect is the ACLU or other legal entity bringing the State of Arizona to court over the question of whether or not the law is constitutional. This will happen in due course, I'm sure.

The law in Arizona was created to appease certain elements within certain politicians' constituencies. Also, apparently, it's supposed to be a "wake up call" to the Federal Government to tackle immigration reform.

Our immigration laws and policies make no sense. There really isn't a legal way for any migrant workers coming from Mexico to come here to work where there are jobs waiting for them. There simply aren't enough visas available for a responsible number of migrant workers to cross the border from Mexico to do labor that is here for them to do. It takes years of waiting when seasonal work is what's mainly available for migrant workers. That makes no sense.

And we don't allow very many unskilled workers to come from Mexico to work here in the USA.

There should be a better way to allow legal immigration of migrant workers (temporary workers) and workers who would like to stay in reasonable numbers. Our laws simply cut off almost 99.9% of those who apply coming from Mexico or make them wait years and years. It makes no sense.

@simchaland

I disagree, every time you are asked to provide your Driver's License, you are being asked to prove your citizenship or prove that you are in the country legally. In almost all states this is the case. So if your bank requires your id, they are requiring the same proof Arizona is going to require. I am required to show my id to cash a check, go to the bank, get on an airplane, if questioned by police, if buying alcohol or tobacco, and in a wide variety of other situations. Though not technically for the same reason, the process is the same. Producing your license already serves a great many purposes, this is just one more. I agree that our immigration laws make no sense, and I am a major proponent of increasing the amount of people who are able to migrate legally.

One of the main reasons I think this law finally passed (it has been proposed many times before) is the unemployment rate. Historically, the general assumption has been that many illegal aliens are working jobs no one else wants. But in this economy suddenly people are applying for those jobs.

Again, this law changes little in terms of discovering illegal aliens. The police already had the power to determine the immigration status of the same people they currently can, the central shift is that this makes this not only a federal issue, but also a state issue. It's basically a redundancy, making something that was already illegal at one level illegal at another level.

ahasuerus99 says

@simchaland
I disagree, every time you are asked to provide your Driver’s License, you are being asked to prove your citizenship or prove that you are in the country legally. In almost all states this is the case. So if your bank requires your id, they are requiring the same proof Arizona is going to require.

No, you are quite mistaken. Driver's Licenses in this country aren't proof of citizenship at all. Even people who aren't citizens can get Driver's Licenses so long as they pay the fees, pass the tests, and prove residency in the State issuing the license. State residency is very different from US Citizenship. And there are four States that don't even check that you have "legal presence" in the USA. The other States that require "proof of legal presence" have varying ways of allowing people to prove this.

When I'm asked for my Driver's License at the bank, at the stores when I use a credit card, or when I cash a check, go to the bank, get on an airplane, if questioned by police, or if buying alcohol or tobacco, I'm being asked to prove my identity and/or my age, not my US Citizenship.

We don't have National ID Cards like many European Countries. National ID Cards are used to prove citizenship and identity there. We have no such equivalent. All the State issued Driver's License shows is that you are a resident in the issuing State (very different requirements for State residency versus US Citizenship), you have paid the fees for the license, and you've passed the tests for the license. That's all.

And State issued ID cards simply show that you have residency in the issuing State and that you paid the fees to get the card. Proof of US citizenship isn't universally required to obtain a State issued ID card or Driver's License.

@simchaland

I said the Driver's License in most states proves you are a citizen or in the country legally. I stand by that claim. The vast majority of states licenses do just that. I know of 9 states that do not require a person to prove they are in the country legally before they will issue a license (the states that don't are Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington), and there are probably a couple more (and Arizona will not accept state driver's licenses from these states as identification for obtaining a license here because they do not verify citizenship or immigration status). In Arizona, you must prove you are a citizen or in the country legally before you can get a license, so all you need to do in Arizona (the state with the law in question) is produce a license and you are golden. So functionally speaking, in most states, a driver's license does in fact prove your legal status. Your own state, CA, is supposed to verify the legality of anyone before it issues a driver's license, and the issue there was important enough that it probably helped cost Gray Davis his job. In a state that issued driver's licenses to illegal aliens, I could see a major problem with a similar law because there would be no reasonable document carried by most people that verifies citizenship, but in Arizona (and California) this shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps I am influenced by having grown up here, but Arizonans equate driver's license and legal status to be in the country very strongly. So at least here there is a lot more to it than showing you are a resident of the state who has paid the fees and passed the tests.

For the Arizona identification requirements:

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

Well Ahasy... By the way, did you ever rule Shushan and have a queen named Esther?

Most of the rest of the country doesn't use State issued Driver's Licenses as "proof of citizenship" since, as you pointed out, there are many States that don't verify "legal presence in the US" before issuing a Driver's License.

The only reliable ways of proving your US Citizenship everywhere in the United States of America is to produce an original birth certificate or to produce a US Passport. A Social Security card standing alone isn't reliable either even for "proof of permission to work in the US" on the I-9 form.

So, in order to prove US Citizenship to anyone demanding it, we are required to carry a US Government issued ID like your US Passport or a Birth Certificate in Arizona now. Do we really want to go down that road as a country?

Being Jewish gives me a certain perspective about and an aversion to police being able to randomly stop people on the street to ask for "papers."

@simchaland

Probably don't want to go down that road, where interstate travel would require a passport. And I also don't see how a state such as Texas, which is proposing a similar bill but with vastly different id requirements, is going to handle this. My guess is that you and I would agree on ninety percent potential immigration policy (I think it should be, as a play on famous words regarding a different political issue, safe, legal, and common). I also still don't see how this law lets police stop random people on the street and ask for papers, because as I read the law it can only be used in conjunction with lawful stops.

I would have preferred border enforcement or a simpler solution (I always wondered why we can't just deport illegal aliens convicted of felonies), but I'm willing to give this a try dependent upon how enforcement goes. I think how the police actually use the law will be the determining factor. If they are responsible and use it as a tool (like they're supposed to) when making stops and arrests, the whole thing will blow over and we will all move on with our lives. If the police become draconian about it, there will be a push to stop enforcing it, just as there has been with the national policy (and if it actually hurts tourism, it will go away as well, look at the stupid MLK day incident to see how Arizonans can be shamed by being the butt of a Chris Rock joke). As it is now, it is extremely popular (the governor received a fourteen point bump in popularity after signing it), but that's because of the general concern about the issue. It seems to be popular in national polls as well.

I would be more concerned about the trial and error issue if this law removed due process, but it doesn't. It just allows for a trespassing charge to be filed, and the person still has numerous opportunities to prove their citizenship. And here again, it will come down to how the police enforce it. IF the police are jerks who don't allow people reasonable accommodations to prove their status, it could be a problem. So long as no one is going to be arrested and driven immediately to Mexico, I will keep an eye out for how things are going, and I will be prepared to adjust my opinion accordingly.

So what happens to an illegal alien in Arizona after a police officer discovers that he/she/they do not have proper papers? Are they charged with tresspassing? And taken to jail? Or driven to the border?

Ahasuerus99,

Yeah, I agree that we most likely agree on a great deal of what needs to happen with our immigration laws and enforcement.

Where we differ, is that I'm concerned that this latest law, while not quite as draconian as some make it sound, sets a tone that is "anti-other." And in tough economic times countries often descend into demonizing a group or certain groups of people who are perceived as "other" as perpetrators of the economic distress. It's happened too many times before in our history. Yes, yes, the most famous in most Americans' minds is what happened to the Jews, Gypsies, priests, and other "outcasts" in Nazi Germany.

I'm concerned that we are sliding down a slippery slope into xenophobic reactions to our economic distress. This can lead to more curtailments of freedom as did our people's fears concerning terrorism post-9/11.

The last time I flew internationally, I was shocked and appalled at how we have handed our liberty away in airports due to fear. I was one of the "lucky" few to get a "full body scan" at SFO when checking in to go to London. I felt violated. Somewhere there is a digital image of me naked in TSAland. Does this device make me feel any more safe in flying? No, it makes me more afraid that we as a people are vulnerable to being manipulated by fear into more and more restrictions and violations of privacy in travel just to have the appearance that we are "safe."

Fear is a powerful tool that government can use to control people and that corporations can use to make a buck. (You don't think those body scanners cost nothing, do you? And do you ever wonder if anyone in government or the TSA has ties to corporate "security" firms and manufacturers of "security equimpent?").

Economic instability creates fear. This fear is there, ready and waiting for government and corporations to manipulate people into doing almost anything that appears to deliver more economic stability.

I agree that this law has come out of people's perceptions that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from those who are "legally present" in our country. The fear of continued lack of jobs and fear of the "other" has given birth to this law. My concern is that once the tone is set for reactive xenophobia in the midst of economic distress, it becomes easier for government and corporations to manipulate people into accepting greater intrusion into their lives to "protect" them from the "other."

And you still haven't answered my question about your possible royal lineage.

SF ace says

should not be in the business

I agree with SF Ace. I have been boycotting San Francisco for years. Heck, I have even changed my address to another city because they seem to really love to summon me for jury duty.

I think Mayor Newsome is just trying to gain attention to prepare himself for an upward movement in the political ladder. Sort of like the one coworker that backstabs everyone and sides with senior managers for a promotion.

Will it work? Maybe.

I'm originally from Hong Kong, and even there, you have to carry proof of citizenship/permission to be there.

I for one agree with Arizona's new law. Though as Justme suggested, "suspect" is up for interpretation. I know what the definition of suspect means there lol.

ahasuerus99 says

The biggest potential downfall is it discourages illegal aliens from cooperating with police investigations, because police ask for identification when interviewing witnesses (I have been interviewed as a witness twice and both times had to produce id; a friend of mine was recently fined because his neighbor was robbed, and when the police interviewed him he produced a suspended license, and evidently he was required by law to obtain an Arizona ID card instead of a license until his license was reinstated).

Well in due time, those illegals won't be there to witness anything so I don't see any issue with them not cooperating.

It seems like many people are against having to provide proof of residency/citizenship.

Keep in mind people that this is only the correction phase. Once the streets are clean, the frequency and chance of being asked to furnish proof will go down.

@simchaland

Sorry, didn't notice question before :) Strangely, my wife is descended from Hungarian Royalty. She is a Hunyadi, descended from Matthias Hunyadi (I have always been amused that she wishes she were descended from gypsies instead of royalty). I, on the other hand, have no famous forebears. My family genealogy goes back as far as the Florida swamps three hundred years ago, with no idea where we came from before that. I have always been fascinated by the Wandering Jew Ahasuerus (my favorite poet is E.A. Robinson, but I also love the Romantics).

I share your concern about the "other," and understand its possible implications in this situation. I must admit, it's not something that would have come to mind if you hadn't brought it up though. I have recently been thinking of the same subject in terms of bankers. Our society is coming to demonize them, as if the title carried any inherent meaning, and it makes me think of the accusations against Jews as usurers, and about the fact that there are still a number of Americans who think that American banks are controlled by the Jews (I am amazed at how resilient the Rothschilds are as a symbol to a number of Americans, and the fact that Goldman Sachs has become such a target worries me when many other entities were behaving just as egregiously; the general resiliency of anti-Semitism horrifies me). There has been a lot of damage done by irresponsible behavior by banks, but I don't like the idea that bankers are somehow evil. Most of the bad loans were originated by Brokers who were just doing a job and didn't really understand the implications. Same thing with Realtors. Most of them don't actually know enough about their supposed specialty that I would consider their bad advice malicious. I have been more inclined to be concerned about Italian Fascism (and its basis on social welfare and augmenting the middle class) rather than German, a more class based rather than race based formulation. But the possibility definitely exists for either.

For me, growing up in Yuma, it never occurred to me that people of Hispanic descent would be the other. My High School was sixty percent Hispanic, most my friends growing up were Hispanic, most of my neighborhood was Hispanic. I often forget how different things are just in different parts of the same state. My wife grew up in northern Arizona in a city that the census estimates is 98 percent white.

Politics in this country are becoming more and more aggressively divided, and that concerns me greatly. That is one of the reasons I come to this board, because I think the best thing we can do is engage each other civilly and discover common ground. The media makes its money accentuating the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives; I prefer to remind myself and others how much we have in common, and that even when we don't have things in common, there is almost always validity to the other side. To me, the most noticeable thing about politics these days is that each party runs on the idea of undoing the power grabs of the other party (Obama running against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Patriot Act but not ending any of the above, Bush running on a platform of reducing government spending but raised government spending and getting government out of things it didn't need to regulate but passing NCLB and the Patriot Act) but when in power always seem to extend or at least maintain the very programs they promised us they would get rid of.

I agree with Bob--we should be going after the companies that hire illegals. Much easier than trying to build a fence... If there are no jobs, there is no reason to come to the States.

Krugman talks about the split in the Republican party: The corporate lackeys want the cheap labor, but the tea-party crowd wants the illegal immigrants out. And the corprate lackeys are losing control of the party ...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

Amusingly, he also just posted an article about the right wing often do not like the truth when it is spoken by the "wrong" people (meaning himself and other progressives).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/epistemic-closure-in-macroeconomics/

Here's a snippet:

There’s been a huge outpouring of blogospheric discussion about “epistemic closure” on the right: a complete refusal to look at evidence or arguments that don’t come from the like-minded. I don’t have much to say about all that aside from the fact that it’s obvious, and has been going on for years.

So, what' arizona police would do when they found suspicious person who do not have a proof of legal residence at the time? Will they get another chance of bringing the proof later?

Sorry guys. For some reason I don't know, I feel like this guy would be in big troble if he got caught in AZ. :)

If the fed did their job this would not be an issue. Funny how when a state just wants to enforce the laws already on the books for the fed it’s a problem.

ahasuerus99 says

I know of 9 states that do not require a person to prove they are in the country legally before they will issue a license (the states that don’t are Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington),

New Utah rules for getting a driver's license:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
Effective January 1, 2010, ALL applicants for a Utah driver license (original, renewal or duplicate) or Identification card will need to visit one of our licensing offices and provide:

Proof of identity by showing evidence of original or copies certified by the issuing agency;
Legal/lawful presence;
Social Security Number or ITIN;
Two proofs of Utah residence address, if it is different than the address on your current Utah record; and
Evidence of name change, if applicable

So you can take Utah off that list. I think it's a federal thing but I'm ill informed in this area.

The problem with the AZ law is that it gives the idea that people who look "foreign" will get pulled over or stopped merely because of their appearance. While some people don't believe that will happen, of course it will! There have been rumblings of different cities and companies avoiding travel to AZ because of the law. I don't think it's going to affect Arizona - tourist wise - but it's bad publicity. I don't think they care, tho.

We have to carry a license or ID at all times, because if we can't prove our identity we can be held until it can be proven. That sucks, but it's the truth.

BTW, I was pulled over in LA a couple of years ago, the cop said that I swerved and tried to accuse me of DUI. I was speeding, driving with traffic though, and he told me that he could pull me over for speeding. He also said that if I'd been driving the speed limit he could have pulled me over for impeding traffic - his comment was that he could pull me over for anything. And that he could find a reason to take me in if he looked hard enough. My point is that his happy ass profiled me because I drove a Utah car on a Monday in LA on the 14 to Palmdale - and he profiled me, pulled me over and I was at his mercy. He let me go because I didn't appear to be a threat, could have been the bag of yarn in the back seat or my long blonde hair and the fact that I look like a mom. It sucked and I felt victimized.

However, in the same situation in today's Arizona, if I had dark brown hair, looked "foreign," I'd have to prove I was in the country legally. That would suck worse.

I lived as an immigrant in Japan for 8 years and I don't have a problem with this AZ thing.

As your basic socialist I feel the welfare state is a good idea, but we can't support millions of immigrants coming over.

I think legal immigration with limits is perfectly fine, though it should probably be on a 1:1 exchange basis : )

Profiling is fine, too, but speaking English like a native should be enough to not get any hassle from the law.

Legal immigrants shouldn't have a problem with this added hassle if it eliminates their illegal competition for jobs.

Illegal immigrants can f--- right off.

I think AZ went little to extreme though, I am kind of agree with Troy's opinion.

Illegal immigrants can f--- right off.

Many of you already knew that foreign people who have legit status and reason are paying fees, going thru background checks, spending years of time to be legal immigrant of US, thanks to freakin slow to hell INS. That's what it takes to be a legal immigrant. If anyone doesn't want to go thru this and want to live like legal immigrant, they can f--- off. It is unfair when citizens and legal immigrants are having hard time with medical bills and insurance, and illegals have no problem producing 10 babies in a row with tax payers money. They can f--- off too.

Only problem when all of them got departed is... we may find deli workers, home builders, cleaning ladies, gardeners, nannies... quite lot of them are gone. Holy crap. Are we gonna do those shitty things?

I think US can cut numbers of illegal immegrants dramatically if the law only permits the kids from citizens and legal immegrants can be US citizen in the future.

If and when the new Arizona law goes into effect, the results will be the same as our current scenario:

1 Local police take two men into custody: Mr. A and Mr. B
2 Local police turn Mr. A and Mr. B over to ICE.
3 ICE deports Mr. A to Mexico.
4 ICE determines that Mr. B is "other than Mexican", releases him on his own recognizance, and gives him a future court date.
5 Mr. A returns to Phoenix a week later, through our very porous border
6 Mr. B ignores his court date, is ignored by ICE, and continues to live in Arizona
7 Repeat

Our national leaders to not want to spend money to secure the border, our corporations do not want to lose cheap, exploitable labor, and our neighbors in Mexico do not want to lose billions in $$$ remittances

Obama is upset that "misguided" Arizona spoiled his plan--full amnesty for those in the country, allow family members to come over to join them and the 100 new citizens will save Social Security!!

Correction, should read 100 million new citizens...

Zlxr says

I guess it won’t be long before everyone stupid and lazy will just have to go get on Welfare.

Welfare isn't available to everyone, whether they're stupid and lazy or educated with advanced degrees. There are many misconceptions about welfare programs - since many posters here are from California, your views are a bit skewed because California has more welfare-type programs than do many states.

For instance, if someone goes to a welfare office asking for G.A. (general assistance) in Contra Costa County, they can get a maximum of $336 per month for three months in any 12 month period as long as they can find a landlord who will accept that amount to keep them housed for an entire month. The landlord must be an owner or qualified agent - can't be a family member or other renter without the apartment manager's permission - and have to be looking for work and prove that they are. They also can't have any other income. It takes hours to stand in line, get the information, etc to get this amount. This is the type of assistance that people who did construction, were independent contractors and therefore not eligible for unemployment benefits or those who've exhausted their benefits can possibly get. It's a demeaning and tedious process. But it's something.

In Clark County NV, you can't get an application for Direct Assistance (general assistance everywhere else but Clark County's social services calls it DAS) unless you go to the county social service office, wait in line often all day starting at 5:00am, finally get an application. Then you go and do 10 job searches the first month and 40 every month thereafter, get the rental agreement signed by a landlord who will accept the rental amount and is owner or has permission... The county worker, who is currently in danger of being laid off btw, calls some of the places that the applicant listed as where they applied - the place has to be hiring and the applicant has to have been serious about the application. The applicant has to get the signature of the person they've spoken to - so if they had a chance at a job, the hiring person might not be thrilled about signing a form saying that the person is applying for welfare and using their name.

In Vegas, jobs are scarce. This means that the applicant has to work very hard to find 40 places that are hiring, almost impossible to do. Especially if you can't afford transportation all over to do so. But, after they've applied 40 different places they return to the county and wait in line again - no appointments are allowed - and it's possible that they won't be seen that day and have to return again. They only let so many people in the lobby at a time, so rain or 110 degree heat, people are waiting outside for help.

Medical assistance is hard to get to. People ages 18 to 65 don't qualify for Medicaid in most states, unless they have kids (and then the kids get the help).
------------------------------------------
They say that the Arizona law is designed to help with the huge cost of illegal immigration. But it opens the door to racial profiling.

Zlxr says

People who understand English and our customs won’t stick out so much - unless they are in the wrong place doing suspicious things.

Suspicious things such as breathing, walking, sitting in public, and looking hispanic. Off with their heads!

And don't forget that G.A. in California is actually a loan. So it's a maximum loan of $336 for three months. When you get work, they garnish your wages until your full balance is paid off.

Does anyone know what the immigration policy is in Mexico??? Well, to begin with, to be in Mexico illegally is the equivalent of a felony and gets worse from there.

Look it up and you find that the new Arizona law is very compassionate by comparison.

Zlxr says

Geez Ellie - I meant the part about Welfare sarcastically.

Yea, I get that. But do other people? It's a choo choo (train of thought, I've spent a little too much time around little kids in the past few days). So far as the "loan" part of it, ditto for those people who receive GA while waiting for disability. If/when their disability is awarded, the check is first sent to the agency that paid out the GA. It delays the recipient getting it by several weeks to months - and there's no GA while the agency is being paid back (yet no $ in the recipient's pocket).

The comment I made above about Utah's new Driver's license law is part of the federal Homeland Security Real ID law.

http://www.dhs.gov/files/laws/gc_1172765386179.shtm

here's another take on the immigration law, thats its a continuation of the policies that were started as policy during the bush years, of disenfranchising and harassing a block of voters who traditionally vote against the party currently making these decisions in Arizona:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25320.htm

the point is that it has very little to do with actually policing the borders, which sounds about right considering how insanely difficult it will be to police and legally support the law, but that it sets the stage for dropping people of the wrong color from the voter rolls in the next election, the wrong color in this case being "blue".

rpanic01 says

If the fed did their job this would not be an issue. Funny how when a state just wants to enforce the laws already on the books for the fed it’s a problem.

It's like an employer letting 1 employee go for being late every day, but trying to crack down on another. The employer 'claims' they didn't see it. But in reality, they wanted to let one go and target another. Now how do you think the employer will feel if you as an employee was trying to write another co-worker up for being late? LOL

Same deal here.

The fed wants illegals. They choose now to uphold the law.

Vain says

Same deal here.
The fed wants illegals. They choose now to uphold the law.

I beg to differ. The fed wants illegals, but wants the states to uphold the laws. However, they don't want to come get 'em when they're arrested a lot of the time. I recall an event a couple of years ago where some illegals were held in the hot sun while the sherrifs waited for an INS agent - and then the illegals were let go because there's not enough agents in the area. Our jails are overflowing from meth users and we don't have enough room to house aliens while INS takes its time figuring out what to do.

IMHO, of course.

Maybe Obama can issue a tax credit (pay out) for the illegal immigrants to leave :)

We could put them in jail and make them watch some bad American teevee. That'll make 'em go home.

Excerpt
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf