PDA

View Full Version : Tough stance on Immigration



flowerseverywhere
9-29-11, 8:37am
I have been reading about the Alabama immigration law and the Arizona law that was recently passed. I don't live in one of the border states that seem to be up in arms about this issue which I think will play a factor in the coming election. At the republican debates at least Bachmann wanted to build a big fence across the entire border.

What effect do illegal immigrants have on local economies? Do they take jobs that citizens or legal immigrants would be willing to take? Are there problems with collecting benefits? Are school populations burdened with children who have no legal right to attend? Are there crimes committed?

The spin of the media makes it really hard to understand what exactly is going on. Are these lawmakers trying to protect their citizens, be mean, or what?

LDAHL
9-29-11, 8:52am
I have been reading about the Alabama immigration law and the Arizona law that was recently passed. I don't live in one of the border states that seem to be up in arms about this issue which I think will play a factor in the coming election. At the republican debates at least Bachmann wanted to build a big fence across the entire border.

What effect do illegal immigrants have on local economies? Do they take jobs that citizens or legal immigrants would be willing to take? Are there problems with collecting benefits? Are school populations burdened with children who have no legal right to attend? Are there crimes committed?

The spin of the media makes it really hard to understand what exactly is going on. Are these lawmakers trying to protect their citizens, be mean, or what?

Shouldn't it be enough that illegal immigrants are breaking our law? Why does this particular law need to be cost-justified?

flowerseverywhere
9-29-11, 9:14am
Shouldn't it be enough that illegal immigrants are breaking our law? Why does this particular law need to be cost-justified?

I did not say it had to be cost justified. When you don't understand what exactly the issues are you ask questions and seek answers instead of remaining uninformed. The issue may very well be that they are breaking the law, plain and simple, or there may be multiple factors involved. I don't know. Do you?

creaker
9-29-11, 11:28am
I did not say it had to be cost justified. When you don't understand what exactly the issues are you ask questions and seek answers instead of remaining uninformed. The issue may very well be that they are breaking the law, plain and simple, or there may be multiple factors involved. I don't know. Do you?

I'm not sure breaking the law is actually the issue - if it was, it would be much easier going after those employing illegal aliens. It's an easy way to locate clusters of illegal aliens and would remove the primary reason people come here or stay illegally - jobs.

But they don't.

I think it's all a big dance to create a subclass of very low wage workers. Period.

ApatheticNoMore
9-29-11, 12:14pm
I think it's all a big dance to create a subclass of very low wage workers. Period.

+1 Noone will admit it, it's not PC. For some things like agriculture there may be no choice. As in yes we could pay agricultural workers at least minimum wage. But the only result would be then agriculture would be completely outsourced, and this is a loss I wouldn't like to see. Why? Because people are sometimes unable and often just unwilling to pay at the counter for a living wage, much less sustainability or anything.


What effect do illegal immigrants have on local economies? Do they take jobs that citizens or legal immigrants would be willing to take?

I think they take some jobs citizens would take yes. Granted agriculture at current wages may not be it, but they take urban jobs too.


Are there problems with collecting benefits?

Well they often aren't paying many taxes, so they might well cost the taxpayer more than they pay in. Not necessarily in sitting home collecting welfare or anything like that, I absolutely don't think immigrants are lazy!!! They actually have tremendous work ethic. But in terms of usage of things like roads, not to mention usage of the health care system. That costs money. Those types of things require a population willing to shoulder a certain tax burden to pay for them. If whole swaths of the population aren't ....


Are school populations burdened with children who have no legal right to attend?

absolutely


Are there crimes committed?

Nah, most immigrants aren't criminals. They want to work. Really good people in general IMO. The problem is if jobs are going to those working below the legal minimum wage, and inadequate taxes are paid for services ....

The states that really don't have a lot of poverty aren't border states, even a state with a decent tax burden indeed, somewhat (though not fully at all!!!) liberal like California, has major financial problems. Not all immigrants fault, of course! But I'm not sure it helps and the unemployment rate for decades has exceeded the national average. Although again immigrants are probably absolutely necessary for a few things like keeping American agriculture financially viable.

freein05
9-29-11, 12:47pm
Immigrants and illegals working in agricultural in many cases do not even make minimum wage. They are paid in many cases by how many boxes or creates of X food product they pick. An interesting positive side affect of illegals is the effect on Social Security. Most of them pay into SS but will never receive any benefits from it. When I managed a bank in the Central Valley of California on payday there would be many Mexicans coming in to cash their checks and they would all have the same SS #. This was in the 1980s. We would joke that there is a person out there with one big amount of money in their SS trust fund.

loosechickens
9-29-11, 2:57pm
Flowerseverywhere, since this subject is so emotionally charged, so subject to mischaracterizations, simplistic views, completely incorrect facts and complexity, although you might get some good information here, it might be better to start with something like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrants_(U.S.)

to give you a good, factual, overview of the problem, how it varies among the states, the advantages that illegal immigrants bring, the costs involved, the human picture, etc., as opposed to the very politically polarized emotional hot-button stuff of most discussions of the issue. This Wikipedia article is quite detailed, pretty balanced and factual, and will give you a much more in-depth understanding than any discussion here will supply.

Once you've got the basics, you'll be more able to sort out what views are based on facts, how various populations, i.e., workers, employers, etc. are affected, and why it is such a complex problem.

Although we've spent years in the southwest, and worked directly on border issues, I honestly don't have the time or inclination to get into what will almost certainly devolve into an ugly argument about it. I'd much rather refer you to Wikipedia, at least to get the overview before you dive in.

redfox
9-29-11, 4:06pm
Immigration is a very complex phenomenon. There are several kinds of immigration too: forced immigration, voluntary, mass immigration, individual, temporary & permanent. Each has multiple causes/drivers, multiple effects on both the country of origin and the country of residence. These drivers include economic, political, cultural, and war. Impacts on both countries include economic, political, & policy.

Many people make their careers trying to problem solve these complex things. My niece is doing primary research in forced migration from Arab countries to western Europe as her International Relations BA from the University of Washington, and hopes to get into Oxford to continue her studies as a grad student. She is half Egyptian, and has a deep interest in this topic.

The World Bank, Amnesty International, Sightline Institute, and many, many other NGO's have lengthy papers and long term research about this topic. I don't think we'll solve it here!

I have several lenses through which I view immigration. First is humanistic & moral: how can I understand and work towards a world that works for all? To that end, I connect with immigrants, including my son-in-law and his brothers, my BIL, and many of my neighbors. I listen to their stories. I have consequently developed deep compassion for immigrants to this country, as every one of them tell stories of fleeing economic and political oppression. I also lived in Central America, and witnessed this first hand. My bias is on behalf of those who are suffering and struggling. I have so much unearned privilege, so much comfort, so much status simply by being white and north American. It's astonishing to me how my accident of birth Put me in this position. I feel an obligation to share my privilege.

I also think about my community, and see how immigrants benefit it. I love the fact that our children were raised in a multiple-cultural neighborhood, and will feel much more comfortable in a world of many races & ethnicities as they grow into adulthood. Our country will, by mid-century, be composed of multiple races and ethnicities; Caucasians will no longer dominate. This is a fact; how we each view this fact and decide if it's bad & scary or good & welcomed is dependent upon one's worldview.

I do not think the "they're breaking the law, that's all that matters" stance is of much use. It is a super simplification of a very complex situation, and only serves to shut down discussion.

redfox
9-29-11, 4:43pm
Got back from lunch, opened the NYT, and this article popped up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/world/asia/getting-tough-on-immigrants-to-turn-a-profit.html?_r=1&hp

Weston
9-29-11, 5:02pm
Are school populations burdened with children who have no legal right to attend?. ?

Yes and no. Yes school populations are burdened. And no to your premise that the children have no legal right to attend.

This issue was addressed exhaustively, and decided conclusively, by the Supreme Court almost 30 years ago in the case of Plyler v. Doe which ruled that illegal children do in fact have a legal right to attend public school. People may disagree with the ruling, but that doesn't change the fact that those kids do in fact have a legal right to attend.

LDAHL
9-29-11, 5:25pm
Its very simple from a policy standpoint. If someone is here illegally, they should be deported. A sovereign nation has a right to control who crosses its borders and takes up residence. There are billions of sad stories out there, but if we’re going to be ruled by law rather than men we need to observe the law as written and apply it to everyone equally. Violating that principle, even for the most benevolent of reasons, undermines our ability to govern ourselves. If you don’t like a particular law you can work to change it.

flowerseverywhere
9-29-11, 5:46pm
Yes and no. Yes school populations are burdened. And no to your premise that the children have no legal right to attend.

This issue was addressed exhaustively, and decided conclusively, by the Supreme Court almost 30 years ago in the case of Plyler v. Doe which ruled that illegal children do in fact have a legal right to attend public school. People may disagree with the ruling, but that doesn't change the fact that those kids do in fact have a legal right to attend.

thanks for clarifying that Weston- I had no idea. There is so much I don't understand as there is so much misinformation out there. I did read the Wiki notes that Loose referred to before I wrote my original question. I know it is a very complex issue. Around me, close to the Canadian Border we have farmers that bus men from south of the border all the way up here to help with crops. I never see them in town, they live in a trailer park surrounded by a fence and you see them in the fields or in the yard playing ball. Then they disappear. Some of the local churches have drives to gather things for them to take back to their families. The local farmers have to do extensive paperwork to prove that the jobs cannot be filled with local citizens and complain loudly about it. We have a low unemployment rate here, comparatively.

Thanks as well for the article Redfox, very interesting. I am not looking to solve any problems, just to understand why suddenly there is so much talk about states having crackdowns, wanting to stop people to ask to see their papers, building a wall across our southern border, in other words things that have not grabbed the national attention nearly as much as recently. I think it will be one of the really hot issues in the next national elections, and we know the inaccurate information that is tossed around then.

redfox
9-29-11, 6:25pm
Its very simple from a policy standpoint. If someone is here illegally, they should be deported. A sovereign nation has a right to control who crosses its borders and takes up residence. There are billions of sad stories out there, but if we’re going to be ruled by law rather than men we need to observe the law as written and apply it to everyone equally. Violating that principle, even for the most benevolent of reasons, undermines our ability to govern ourselves. If you don’t like a particular law you can work to change it.

And yet, it is not simple, public policy-wise or from any other standpoint. Deporting massive numbers of undocumented immigrants has not yet been done for structural reasons. These are largely economic. I don't believe that the reason a wholesale deportation hasn't occurred is because of benevolence. Many industries would come to a screeching halt without this labor. If benevolence was involved, undocumented immigrants would be treated as human beings, not low wage chattel and political footballs.

Every law enforcement official has latitude while enforcing the law. Jails release sentenced individuals early to alleviate overpopulation, the local cop likes the smile of that cute blond in the red convertible and gives her a warning or a pass instead of a ticket... etc. Human beings make policy decisions, and human judgment enters the equation, and appropriately so. The law, like every other human institution designed to make human society run well is not an on/off switch, it relies on context and discernment. Far from undermining our system of laws, this human discernment and judgment is the basis of case law, and of changes in the law that keep pace with the times. The law is a system to serve human society, not dictate it.

The right to control our borders and who takes up residence is not a stand-alone policy issue. It's intertwined with all the other complexities of law, policy, economics, beliefs about immigration, etc. If it were simple, it would have been resolved by now.

redfox
9-29-11, 6:32pm
http://www.sightline.org/research/books/misplaced-blame/mpblame

Another very interesting piece on population & immigration.

creaker
9-30-11, 10:14am
Its very simple from a policy standpoint. If someone is here illegally, they should be deported. A sovereign nation has a right to control who crosses its borders and takes up residence. There are billions of sad stories out there, but if we’re going to be ruled by law rather than men we need to observe the law as written and apply it to everyone equally. Violating that principle, even for the most benevolent of reasons, undermines our ability to govern ourselves. If you don’t like a particular law you can work to change it.

Again, it would be much easier going after the employers illegally hiring. But these laws are not often enforced.

LDAHL
10-2-11, 9:33am
Again, it would be much easier going after the employers illegally hiring. But these laws are not often enforced.

And they should be. One would think that if the government is confident it will be able to track down all those outlaws who defy its health insurance mandate that it would have the resources to identify illegals at the point of employment.

Spartana
10-4-11, 4:06pm
I have been reading about the Alabama immigration law and the Arizona law that was recently passed. I don't live in one of the border states that seem to be up in arms about this issue which I think will play a factor in the coming election. At the republican debates at least Bachmann wanted to build a big fence across the entire border.

What effect do illegal immigrants have on local economies? Do they take jobs that citizens or legal immigrants would be willing to take? Are there problems with collecting benefits? Are school populations burdened with children who have no legal right to attend? Are there crimes committed?

The spin of the media makes it really hard to understand what exactly is going on. Are these lawmakers trying to protect their citizens, be mean, or what?

This was posted by me from an earlier tread on illegal immigration - back a few pages on this forum so you might want to look at that too - and explains some financial issues that people have with both legal and illegal immigration. I've personally worked on the enforcement side of illegal immigration while in the coast guard and, while I've see the tragic lives and unbelieveale hardships these people go thru as welll as the desperation, I know that for every one of them that we interdict attempting to enter the country illegally, there are thousands upon thousands more attempting to do the same. And while it was heartbreaking to pick up thousands of people a year in desperate need knowing they would only be deported, I felt that it was the right choice to make. Taking in millions of destitute people each year and supporting them isn't the solution to ending poverty in other nations. The cost to allow everyone who lives in desperate poverty to come live here, to care for them at all levels, would be too much for any one nation to do. At some point a line needs to be drawn. Do we allow the millions of people who illegally enter this country each year to remain even if they broke the law by entering illegally? Do we allow in the millions of starving and ill children from Africa? In India? The politically oppressed in China? In Cuba? The poor and homeless in Haiti? So the bottom line is whether you feel the cost is justified or not. Most conservatives feel it is not, many liberals feel it is.

"There have been protests this last week in L.A. to continue the funding of undocumented (i.e. here in this country illegally) school children. There are approx. a half million children here who recieve full timne education benefits. Also illegal aliens who attend college are allowed to recieve the "in state" tuition rate (very low in Calif). According to some (will find the info) illegal aliens in Calif alone cost more than 10 billion per year of tax payer funds for everything to education to healthcare. Are they honorable, decent, hard working people? Yes. Do they contribute? Yes. Do they deserve to be in this country by illegally? No IMHO. As a foriegn born person of a foreign born parent who entered this country by legal means, and one who lives in an immigrant neighborhood, I do support LEGAL means of immigration but do not support funding for those here illegally. The money needed to support even a hard working, diligent illegal alien/immigrant population is large - that money should be used for citizens ho are in this country legally IMHO."

"One:

"In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year."

Two:

"LOS ANGELES — In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants can be eligible for the same reduced tuition at public colleges and universities as legal residents of the state. "

Three:

"Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost. Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich released new statistics this week showing social spending for those families in his county rose to $53 million in November, putting the county government on track to spend more than $600 million on related costs for the year -- up from $570 million in 2009. Antonovich arrived at the estimate by factoring in the cost of food stamps and welfare-style benefits through a state program known as CalWORKS. Combined with public safety costs and health care costs, the official claimed the "total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers" was more than $1.6 billion in 2010. "Not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education," he said in a statement."'

flowerseverywhere
10-4-11, 4:20pm
thanks redfox and spartana. Very good info that makes me realize why things are so hot right now.

Spartana
10-4-11, 4:33pm
thanks redfox and spartana. Very good info that makes me realize why things are so hot right now.

Here's another from that old tread (pg. 2 "Immigration Case Review" ):

Here's another article from FAIR:

"Economic and social costs of illegal immigration

The economic and social consequences of illegal immigration across the 1,940 mile long America-Mexico border are staggering. An average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent U.S. residents (3,500 per day).

Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S., double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.

FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year." The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000"

Here's an exerpt from the Center for Immigration Studies:

"This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion"

Enforcement and deportation of illegal immigrants may be less costly to the government then amnesty

DonkaDoo
10-4-11, 5:04pm
I am going to be blunt.

If Mexico didn't suck so bad, we wouldn't have this problem. You don't see Canadians rushing the border and it's FREEZING up there.

This is a complicated issue, but my general feeling is the cartels make Mexico miserable and dangerous. It is human nature to flee danger so of course they are going to come here. What choice do they have when their own government is working against them? America puts so much pressure on Mexico to keep fighting the drug war - they have little energy to put toward much else. When we talk about illegal immigration I don't see how we can NOT talk about the drug war and its negative impact on Mexico (and in turn the US).

ApatheticNoMore
10-4-11, 5:17pm
This is a complicated issue, but my general feeling is the cartels make Mexico miserable and dangerous. It is human nature to flee danger so of course they are going to come here. What choice do they have when their own government is working against them? America puts so much pressure on Mexico to keep fighting the drug war - they have little energy to put toward much else. When we talk about illegal immigration I don't see how we can NOT talk about the drug war and its negative impact on Mexico (and in turn the US).

The drug situation in Mexico has gotten worse but I think immigration is actually down. Why? Because the U.S. economy sucks so much! Illegals move here for economic reasons, if there aren't even jobs for illegal aliens they won't move here. So yes the drug war has made a mess of the whole world, but I really think the drivers of immigration are economic far more than safety issues even. So solve all of Mexicos economic problems? :laff:

Spartana
10-4-11, 5:21pm
I am going to be blunt.

If Mexico didn't suck so bad, we wouldn't have this problem. You don't see Canadians rushing the border and it's FREEZING up there.

This is a complicated issue, but my general feeling is the cartels make Mexico miserable and dangerous. It is human nature to flee danger so of course they are going to come here. What choice do they have when their own government is working against them? America puts so much pressure on Mexico to keep fighting the drug war - they have little energy to put toward much else. When we talk about illegal immigration I don't see how we can NOT talk about the drug war and its negative impact on Mexico (and in turn the US).

Even without the war on drugs Mexico has a very high poverty rate - as do many other impoverished nations whose issues don't stem from drug cartels. Mostly it's economic reasons. Part of it is from having a very high birth rate and a population of un-educated people who have no means to better themselves, improve their lives or do more than eck out a bare living. I think education and birth control would go further to free Mexicans from poverty then limiting drug enforcement activities. I believe this would be true for other impoverished countries. There is a large influx of illegal aliens into the US from other countries as well - China being one amongst many - and while most of these are via ship rather than the US/Mex border, they come for reasons that have nothing to do with drugs. As I said in a post above, when I was in the Coast Guard one of our main missions was the interdiction of illegal migrants. Most that we picked up (hundreds and sometimes thousands in just one year on our ship alone - not counting things like the Cuban Boat lift I did) were not from Mexico.

"The only federal law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, the Coast Guard’s enforcement of U.S. laws and treaties focuses on conducting multi-agency counter-drug operations, interdicting illegal migrants and contraband, protecting living marine resources, maritime homeland security and helping to stem weapons proliferation, among other critical tasks"

"Between 1991 and 1995, over 120,000 undocumented migrants from 23 countries were interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard" "In 1996, the Coast Guard prevented over 63,000 migrants from Haiti from illegally entering the U.S." "In addition to the migrant threat from these Caribbean countries, including the Dominican Republic and many South and Central American countries, there has been an alarming increase in the number of migrants from Asia,
most of whom are from the People’s Republic of China. Very often Chinese migrants rely on well-organized, extremely violent, alien smugglers to gain entry into the United States."

So it's not just illegal migrants from Mexico. And while they are only a small % compared to Mexico, it shows that people come here illegally for reasons other than drug cartels.

Of course when the agency that is suppose to be enforcing immigration laws gets busted for hiring illegal immigrants well... then you have a problem :-)

Federal agents arrest 13 illegal immigrants
Thursday, May 25, 2006
By BRENDAN KIRBY
Staff Reporter
Federal agents raided the U.S. Coast Guard's Aviation Training Center in Mobile onWednesday, arresting 13 workers they said were in the country illegally.

iris lily
10-4-11, 8:55pm
And they should be. One would think that if the government is confident it will be able to track down all those outlaws who defy its health insurance mandate that it would have the resources to identify illegals at the point of employment.

ha ha, yep. I've been wondering how that fine in Mass works, now let's see: I don't buy insurance for 10 years @ $6,000 annually, I finally need expensive health care at the public trough, they slap me a fine of $1,000 (or whatever it is. ) I've just saved $59,000. it's kind of a no brainer.

The only auto analogy that works is the one where the state requires you to have auto insurance or be charged .Guess what percentage of people in my city do not? I think it's something like 2/3. Laws mean nothing to law breakers.

creaker
10-4-11, 10:24pm
ha ha, yep. I've been wondering how that fine in Mass works, now let's see: I don't buy insurance for 10 years @ $6,000 annually, I finally need expensive health care at the public trough, they slap me a fine of $1,000 (or whatever it is. ) I've just saved $59,000. it's kind of a no brainer.

The only auto analogy that works is the one where the state requires you to have auto insurance or be charged .Guess what percentage of people in my city do not? I think it's something like 2/3. Laws mean nothing to law breakers.

Actually they nail you at tax time - there's a 1099-HC (I think it's HC, might be something else), which shows what months you had coverage during the year. It affects your MA tax returns, although I've never calculated mine without it to see what the impact was.

Here it is:

What are the penalties?

The 2011 tax penalties for adults above 300% of the federal poverty level are based on half the cost of the lowest priced Commonwealth Choice plan. They are:

$72 each month or $864 for an entire year for individuals aged 18-26 earning more than $32,496
$101 each month or $1,212 for the year for individuals 27 or older earning more than $32,496



The 2011 tax penalties for adults at or below 300% of the federal poverty level are based on half the cost of the lowest priced Commonwealth Care plan available. They are:

$0 for an individual earning up to $16,248
$19 each month or $228 for the year for individuals earning between $16,249 and $21,660
$38 each month or $456 for the year for individuals earning between $21,661 and $27,084
$58 each month or $696 for the year for individuals earning between $27,085 and $32,496

So that fine could more like $12,000 over ten years, depending - and you don't have benefit of health insurance as well. It's anyone's choice whether they buy insurance or pay the penalty.

And you better plan when you finally need expensive health care. If you've been skipping coverage as you laid out, you have to wait for the annual enrollment period (1 month out of the year).

iris lily
10-5-11, 10:02am
c reaker, that explanation of penalties was interesting, thanks. I can see that tying it to taxes would nab a lot of people. In my city, not.

But that's really why it was set up to work in Mass. because the unemployment and deadbeat rate was low, income was high, and citizen responsibility was correspondingly high.

Right now my city is attempting another retro-type action, fining those persons who do not have their pets neutered. It's a ridiculous action because the ghetto dwellers who breed pits won't pay any attention to The Law just as they paid no attention to The Fee for same, just as they paid no attention to The Free Neuter/Spay Service in a truck that drove directly to their neighborhood. Finally that free service was retired due to not enough business.

In the end, I am still intrigued by the Mass. experiment in health insurance and like to think it's out there where we can observe it.

loosechickens
10-5-11, 3:59pm
It hasn't helped (going back to the OP on this thread), that the VERY FIRST PERSON held in jail under the new Alabama immigration law because he was unable to show documentation at the time of arrest, turned out to be here in this country legally. Yep, pretty much all brownish people, and anyone with an accent in Alabama (other than a southern drawl) better start carrying proof they are legal.....because it's clearly "guilty until proven innocent" with these new laws. There are going to be a LOT of unintended consequences of laws like this, and it may not be pretty.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/10/man_detained_in_gadsden_under.html

Alan
10-5-11, 4:10pm
It hasn't helped (going back to the OP on this thread), that the VERY FIRST PERSON arrested under the new Alabama immigration law because he was unable to show documentation at the time of arrest, turned out to be here in this country legally. Yep, pretty much all brownish people, and anyone with an accent in Alabama (other than a southern drawl) better start carrying proof they are legal.....because it's clearly "guilty until proven innocent" with these new laws. There are going to be a LOT of unintended consequences of laws like this, and it may not be pretty.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/10/man_detained_in_gadsden_under.html
That's funny. I thought he was arrested along with several other people during a drug raid where illegal weapons were also seized. Of course, he probably found it convenient to not have any identification on him at a time like that so it was simply unfortunate that after being arrested and identified as a Yemeni national that he couldn't show that he was legally here.

loosechickens
10-5-11, 4:25pm
I think you miss the point, Alan......the others were released when they were able to document they were in the country legally. This guy wasn't able to show papers, so he was held until he or someone in his family or among his friends were able to get a lawyer for him, and the lawyer was able to appear and show proof that he was here legally. It was not based on any crime, only on the lack of ability to prove his legality to be in the U.S. That was why he was held, and the law under which that detention was based.

It wouldn't have made any difference if he had been stopped for a minor traffic violation. His butt would have been in jail unless he was carrying identity papers on him. I can hardly WAIT until some somewhat brownish relative of someone rich and powerful sits a night in a filthy jail because they can't show ID papers. Is that what we are coming to in this country, having to carry our ID papers with us at all times?

I don't know much about this case, but the one or two pieces I read indicated that these guys were not involved in the drug raid, but were considered by the police to have "obstructed" them, so all were arrested. The several who were carrying ID were immediately released, but this one guy was held, and forced to obtain an attorney and sit in jail until proper papers were produced.

Now, they "SAY" they aren't profiling, but if you by any chance take a trip on your motorcycle through Alabama, better make sure you're carrying your passport and/or birth certificate. Because unless they are choosing who to detain based on skin color or accent, which they deny, you may spend a night in the holding tank yourself. And then we can see if you're such a big fan of these laws..... ;-)

jennipurrr
10-5-11, 5:17pm
Loosechickens, I find the bit about the southern drawl offensive, inflammatory and untrue. No law enforcement in this state is rounding up brown people. In my city we have a thriving international community. Somehow its acceptable to characterize Southerners as backwoods racists.

I disagree with many parts of the new law in AL, and I am generally liberal in terms of immigration policy but personally I find the actions of the Gadsden PD in line with what I would like to see enforced on a nationwide basis. Mohamed Ali Muflahi was arrested for obstructing a government operation during a major drug raid which included illegal drug distribution and possession of explosives. He did not have a tail light out...he was not walking down the road minding his own business. He then, after already being arrested on these charges, was unable to produce identification and at that point was charged with the immigration offense. After he produced identification that charge was dropped. He still has charges pending on the original charge, he was just able to make bail. I am all for solutions for workers, children, people generally trying to make a better life for themselves...but don't see why we should be letting people here illegally out on bail when they have been charged with a crime? Shouldn't these people be deported after they are convicted anyway?

Alan
10-5-11, 10:09pm
I think you miss the point, Alan......the others were released when they were able to document they were in the country legally. This guy wasn't able to show papers, so he was held until he or someone in his family or among his friends were able to get a lawyer for him, and the lawyer was able to appear and show proof that he was here legally. It was not based on any crime, only on the lack of ability to prove his legality to be in the U.S. That was why he was held, and the law under which that detention was based.

It wouldn't have made any difference if he had been stopped for a minor traffic violation. His butt would have been in jail unless he was carrying identity papers on him. I can hardly WAIT until some somewhat brownish relative of someone rich and powerful sits a night in a filthy jail because they can't show ID papers. Is that what we are coming to in this country, having to carry our ID papers with us at all times?

I don't know much about this case, but the one or two pieces I read indicated that these guys were not involved in the drug raid, but were considered by the police to have "obstructed" them, so all were arrested. The several who were carrying ID were immediately released, but this one guy was held, and forced to obtain an attorney and sit in jail until proper papers were produced.

Now, they "SAY" they aren't profiling, but if you by any chance take a trip on your motorcycle through Alabama, better make sure you're carrying your passport and/or birth certificate. Because unless they are choosing who to detain based on skin color or accent, which they deny, you may spend a night in the holding tank yourself. And then we can see if you're such a big fan of these laws..... ;-)
No Loosechickens, I get your point, I simply reject the racist/classist/victimization undertone of it.

This case reminds me of my first and only run-in with law enforcement many years ago. My friend and I (both 17 years old) were stopped while walking through a residential neighborhood at 2am on a weekday night. Knowing that there was a community curfew, and not wanting to have our parents called to pick us up, we said that we were 18, but had no ID on us. We were asked to produce our draft cards, which we of course did not yet have. We ended up spending the night in jail as potential draft dodgers until we wised up and came clean about our true ages.

We weren't profiled, we were someplace we shouldn't have been in the middle of the night. The police would have been negligent in not stopping and questioning us and we created further problems for ourselves by attempting to outsmart them. I learned my lesson from that incident.

In your case, Mr Muflahi was apparently someplace he shouldn't have been and engaged in activities that resulted in an arrest. The police would have been negligent in their duties if they allowed someone who may have been in the country illegally bail out without making any attempt at due diligence.

Brown people have nothing to do with it. Some things are only right and proper.

loosechickens
10-5-11, 11:44pm
Sorry, Jennipurr...didn't mean an aspersion on southern drawls, only that those "accents" wouldn't be considered as the police were profiling who to check for immigration status. After all, while they say they aren't going to profile by skin color or accent, unless they do, every white grandma on her way home from Sunday school with a taillight out had better start carrying her birth certificate or passport with her. That's all. (And we both know that lady is not going to be arrested if she doesn't have her documentation in her purse and sit in jail until her family gets a lawyer and brings her birth certificate to the jail).

It WAS ironic that the very first person they detained under this new law turned out to be in the country legally, but since he WAS engaged or near illegal drug business going down, probably not a very sympathetic character to illustrate the difficulties with the law. We may have to wait for some poor Mexican-American grandma on her way home from mass to illustrate what is likely to happen to many.

Believe me, I understand your feelings about being stereotyped. I was born in West Virginia, and many of my relatives are still there. My parents moved to Washington D.C. when I was less than two years old, so I don't have the stereotypical West Virginia "so-called hillbilly" accent, but my relatives back there, do, although all of them are educated and are things like dentists, teachers and ministers.......When their car (core) is dirty, they "worsh" it, and when it needs new "tares" to roll on, they go down and get them at the Farstone Store.......

My ex-husband was from Alabama and although he left the state as a teenager and never lived there again, even today in his
70s, has a very thick "Alabama drawl". So, unless you leave an area very early in life, you have whatever regional accent you have, and it really shouldn't denote lack of education, etc., despite the stereotypes.

Even today, now I'm a Texan, and have to live with the stereotype of the good ole boy, kickin' cow pats off his boots, our not so illustrious governor Rick Perry representing to the world what Texas is supposed to be like that. I cringe.

So, I DO understand that Alabama, like West Virginia and Texas has its share of upstanding, cosmopolitan, educated people, and just because they have a regional accent, should not be considered uneducated, racist or any other bad thing.

It's interesting looking over the history of the waves of nativism, anti-immigrant feelings, etc. that have swept our country during its history. The common denominator seems to be that it arises during times of economic uncertainty, as demographics change and people feel their particular "culture" being invaded and changed by new arrivals. We just finished watching the three evening PBS series on Prohibition, and it was really interesting to see how the economic times, the waves of immigrants, the threats to what was seen as the settled "culture" all conspired to bring another wave like several that had come before, and like what our country is experiencing today.

There really IS still a lot of racism in this country, although we spend a lot of time denying that fact, sweeping it under the rug, and talking about it almost in code. And much of this anti-iillegal-immigrant fervor today, which is only ostensibly only against illegals, although the open racism is expressed about Mexican-Americans whose ancestors have been in the country for several generations, making little distinction between them and new illegal arrivals in places like Arizona. (I don't have recent experience in Alabama so I can't say for sure their new laws have that as a basis). But I can say that in Arizona, I have heard more casual racism against Hispanics and Indians expressed in so many venues, by so many people over the years as to make the deep south in Jim Crow days seem practically inclusive.