At any rate, I'm not posting this simply to air my incredulity at the actions of a few of my fellow Coloradans. Mom sent around a forward attributed to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen which I traced to an online journal. I wanted to post our conversation and get all of your feedback. So, here it is:
_
_
Mom:
I looked at Snopes and found no rebuttal of this information. <
Ammon:
Here is the original article on TucsonCitizen.com: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/. I always like to read the comments of readers to get some more varied opinions on articles.
Mom:
Thanks, Ammon. It was interesting to read the comments of others. What do you think about her message?
Ammon:
I do wish she would have been a little more specific about what the law said. It seemed like most of the article was taken up in why a law was needed and the objections of the opposition rather than what the law is trying to do and why that will solve the problems they are facing. There seemed to be somewhat of a disconnect between what she was saying about illegal crossings hurting those living on the borders and what the law would actually do (empowering law enforcement to verify legal status during routine traffic stops?) It seemed to me that if some rancher was having thousands of people move through his land every day that law enforcement could go to his ranch and verify this and do something about those people as they are entering, or follow them and see where they are getting help to transition into society. Also the same thing where ranchers are saying there are military operations, or clear and regular drug activity, that could be verified and those people could be treated like any other criminal organization rather than well meaning immigrants who sees no other way to improve their life.
_
_
So, anyone else want to chime in? Jay, are you perhaps more tuned into the border issues that the rest of us?
~A
Looks like the list of objectors has grown. The city of Los Angeles recently joined the anti-Arizona ranks cancelling 8 million dollars in contracts with Arizona based companies. I guess someone feels pretty strongly about things.
ReplyDelete~A
I agree that the article seemed to have a disconnect between the problems that she saw and explaining what the law would do to alieviate those problems. I wish I new more specifically about what the law is supposed to do. I only know what I have heard and that is that it is supposed to give law officers the authority to verify legal residency along with whatever else they check when someone is arrested or detained for whatever reason (traffic violation or whatever). It does nothing to alter their authority to detain people in the first place. Apparently they are not currently allowed to do this? I don't understand how this jives with what I know of routine traffic stops. When I am pulled over I am asked for my license. If I have it, that should verify legal status. If I have none, I don't actually know what happens. Do I get arrested? And then what would happen? And why would it be any different if I was not a legal citizen? I guess this is just my ignorance getting in the way of forming a solid opinion.
ReplyDeleteI don't really feel like I have a problem with this law. I have a big problem with the organizations who are "boycotting" Arizona because of it, including, I think, the Seattle City Council (it's someone's city council around here. Tacoma wouldn't actually pass a boycott, but did pass a resolution denouncing it).
But then, I also have problems with all of the social services that are in place being so freely dispensed without any reference to legality of the applicant--everything from medicaid to public school. I don't want to punish children for the actions of their parents, but where do you draw the line in protecting children from the choices of their parents? If legal status were required before enrolling for whatever government dispensed benefits, would it not be the parents, rather than the nation choosing to deny childcare or an education to their children by being here illegally? Yet perhaps the net negative effect on the country is ameliorated by having this children in school rather than here and not in school. But how many of them would not be here at all if they could not go to school? I don't know what the answer is, but there is a big problem when there are so many incentives for people to break the law in coming here illegally and reap so many benifits if they can just stay under the radar because the dispensers of benifits are completely barred from discriminating based on legal status.
One of the first laws I would like to see changed (it would actually have to be a constitutional amendment) is that saying that simply being born within the boarders of the country make you a citizen of this country. If the parents are not here legally, then it only makes sense that the children born during the illegal residency would belong with their parents. You can't deport a US citizen to another country, but what do you do with them while minors when you have to deport their parents? Even for legal aliens here on a temporary, rather than a permanant basis, I see no reason why their children being born here should be citizens. If their parents are expecting to leave and live out their lives elsewhere, why would the children need to have a permanant tie to this country?
Those are some of my thoughts, for what they are worth. I would be interested to hear other's ideas, as well. I have a lot more questions than answers, and I have a lot of opinions without proof, too. So feel free to disagree. I'd like to hear that, too.
Personally, I like the idea of children born in a country having the option of citizenship in that country or the country of their parents' citizenship. I also think it is fair for them to have duel citizenship until they are 18, but then they should have to choose. I'm not so sure about people in the country illegally, though. In fact, I'm not certain that they are granted citizenship. Does anyone know what the law says exactly? Jay, you have been rather silent. I wonder if you have a better perspective on this than the rest of this considering where you live, etc.
ReplyDelete~A
By the way, in response to something Carol said, I don't think a city, etc., can "boycot" a state. I think that is illegal. However, I have heard (I think it was Denver) that employees have been forbidden to travel to Arizona for safety, because they just might be deported without notice. I mean, really, if Denver has that many illegals on thier payroll, maybe we have more problems here than in Arizona! ;)
ReplyDelete~A
A couple thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOne: on my mission there was a recent convert chinese woman. She married a japanese man, but retained her chinese citizenship. They were having a child. She timed the birth to coincide with her trip to Utah so, as best as I could understand, the child would be an American citizen. I don't know if technically he was just because he was born here, but that is my best understanding of the legality of things.
Two: One of my cousins to be is currently engaged to an illegal immigrant. He doesn't have a social security number, but does have a Tax ID number that he has somehow acquired. He uses it as his ID whenever confronted. They plan on getting married in September. But are going to wait until they have at least one child before they try and get him citizen/legal status for fear that they would view the marriage as a ploy and deport him.
Neither of these sit well with me. I'm a stickler when it comes to law enforcement. If I get a speeding ticket, and I was speeding, I won't try to weasel out of it. I will accept the just recompense. I believe that is what honesty means.
I did a little bit of G-search (that research via google) to aleiviate some of my own ignorance and found this response on a legal advice website to the question of what happens if you are pulled over while driving without a license:
ReplyDeleteDepending on what city or state you reside it, the answer will vary; however, the circumstances will always remain around the following:
If you are driving without a license BUT are illegal and have never been legally issued a license, you will be taken to the station, your vehicle may be driven by a passenger if they have a license or else, it will be pounded until someone picks it up (whereas, anyone holding a license can pick it up for a high fee.) These individuals taken to the station will just be interrogated and processed - will have to go to court - and this will definatey affect the timing of being a citizen or holding a license in the future. As far as being tossed into the prison or jail, it won't happen unless they were DUI and/or hit someone or something or committed a crime while in possesion with the vehicle.
As for a citizen who is being pulled over, who has a license BUT just doesn't have it on him/her, they will be given a ticket or a break. Usually, the officer will definately look you up by NAME; if you come back clear (no warrants, felonies, fees, suspensions, revokes, etc.), you will be let off the hook or even given a warning.
On the other hand, if you are driving without a license because you either NEVER received a license or it was suspended or revoked, YOU will be taken into the station (arrested) but, only processed, given a court date, etc., in which the judge will give you a punishment. Maybe, not allow a person to get a license, or extend suspension or revoke it completely. If you were involved in an accident of some sort or commit this driving offense again, you will more than likely be punished with jail time, DL revoked, several fines (from city, insurance for whomever you hit, etc.) and community service.
I read a lot of different iterations of this topic, including one posted by an illegal immigrant who was ticketed for driving without a license wondering what would happen to her now (the probable answer: pay the fine and move one. No other concequences)
With this better understanding I feel even more supportive of the Arizona law. I believe the reason for the law is that it is the Federal government's responsibility to be checking up on legal status, not generally the state or local governments (police forces), but since the federal government is not actually doing that, the specifically made it a state right to do so. It only makes sense to me that immigration laws be enforced at every level where individuals are interacting with the government. If someone is arrested for driving without a license, brought to the station, fingerprinted, fined, etc, why shouldn't verification of legal status be part of that process?
OK, it was actually yahoo answers that I copied the above from. Here is the address:
ReplyDeletehttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091002233208AAcnksO
But I did read a lot of legal advice message boards and this seemed to have the most comprehensive and sucinct explaination.