My immigrant husband and I lived in Tucson, Arizona for four months when we returned to the U.S.
We relocated to the Bay Area, Ca about two months ago, after finding the desert to be less than appealing during the summer months, and because there were better work opportunities here.


Recently a controversial 'Immigration" bill was passed that allows police officers to ask for immigration status during routine stops.
I honestly don't know the full details of the bill, but it seems strange to me that such a law would even cause a stir. In every other country of the world, you have to carry your paperwork and proof of status with you.
We did so in Thailand.
We did so in Vietnam.
I did so in the U.K. (To an extent. I only had to provide a picture I.D unless I was on the clock working somewhere, in which case then I had to have my passport and work permit on me at all times.)
If that is the full impact of the law, and there isn't some small print that changes the game, I have to say that I'm not finding a whole lot of reason not to support it.

But then... but then...
There was an incident.

Before the law was enacted, my husband and I were traveling between Tombstone and Tucson and came upon an immigration check point.
He wasn't carrying his passport, only his British Driver's License.
Uh oh.
The border patrol glanced in our car, saw us both with our blond hair and light eyes, and asked if we were both citizens. We answered truthfully.
This man was stunned. Seriously. The look on his face was hysterical.
We admitted that he was from the U.K, and the officer asked if he had his passport and visa with us.
We did not. All we could do is show proof of Colin's legality to drive in the U.S (It's an international license) We couldn't provide proof of him actually being here legally.
The border patrol officer looked at us.
He looked at his co workers.
He looked at us again.
He waved us on.

My husband was not here legally at the time.
We've been working on his green card, but it is expensive. During the date of that stop, he was undocumented. (Unknowingly.)
We didn't find this out until later. Basically the stamp on his passport expired two days before INS received our paperwork package. Once they did, his status changed from overstay to pending, but for those 48 hours, we could have gotten into a bit of trouble.
Legally, he could have been deported, but in reality, it's an unspoken rule that spouses don't get shipped off. They probably would have fined us (again, helpful since we are struggling to afford the filing fees that are now in excess of $1800) and gave him a warning.
But still, it bothers me.
Had he been dark haired and dark eyed and spoke with a Latino accent instead of a Scottish lilt, the outcome would have been different. I know it. That's the reality of the situation. This was even before the law passed. I'm curious what it's like now.

Recently another bill has been proposed in Arizona.
This one makes my stomach turn.
Professional douchebag and Republican senator Russell Pearce has introduced the prospect of a new bill, one that would revoke or simply no longer grant citizenship to babies born on U.S soil but to illegal parents.
Funny, but this was discussed in another thread about a year ago. At the time, I'm pretty sure I supported something like it. Now I'm a little afraid. (I think that my 'support' was that so-called anchor babies should not be allowed to sponsor their parents, under the logic that if their parents were here illegally, they were breaking U.S law, and no one should be able to be sponsored if they have broken U.S law. Also, I think I said that their parents should still be subject to deportation on a case by case basis. I still believe this, really.) But this... This is not the law I was looking for, Arizona.
I just wanted you to enforce already existing immigration policy, not start writing new ones.
Any time a legislator starts talking about reforming any amendment in the Constitution, especially those written  before the last one  hundred years, I fear for my personal liberties.





Tags: imigration

Views: 99

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The DRIVER has to have a drivers licence not the others. What then? Is everyone supposed to walk out their door with paperwork to show if your legal. Arizona says they are broke how much money is it going to take to pick up everybody that doesn't look "AMERICAN" My personal freedom has been cut in half since fucking 9-11 I am sick of "Americans" asking me "what kind of name is that?" It is nobody's business. My son was stopped,with me in the car by the police in Los Angeles for rolling through a stop sign. The first thing after licence, registration,insurance was exact words "what the hell kind of name is that" and proceeded to try pronounce it jokingly. This is in liberal California.I can't imagine what it would be like in Arizona. Oh the name is Persian.
I like the name.  It is a lot more interesting than Jones or Smith.

Police can already demand your identity at any time for any reason while you are out in public. That's why there are state issued IDs for non-drivers. Those have your address on it, too. 

And I'm not arguing with you, but just out of curiosity um... how has your freedom been cut in half? 

Where can you no longer go that you couldn't before? 

I mean, I'm not talking about just dirty looks, here. 

I just want to cut past the hyperbole and down to the real issue. 

Have you had your freedoms literally cut in half, or was that a figure of speech? How have you been limited?

Police can already demand your identity at any time for any reason while you are out in public. That's why there are state issued IDs for non-drivers.

 

Not true.  Police may ask for the identification of a pedestrian, but that pedestrian is under no obligation to provide it.  Non-driver IDs are not a mandatory requirement and one does not need that or a driver's licence to walk down the street in the USA.  And they do not have to provide papers to police if they are not operating a motor vehicle and are law abiding.

Hey wait.
Is that like the non consent to breathalyzer where it is technically legal but if you dare they use DMV policy or city ordinance to force you to comply?

When a cop has you detained, you really have no rights at that moment.  Proving that the police violated your rights can be difficult at best.  I was attacked by a police officer once and thrown in jail for questioning him.  Peace disturbance?  Yeah, well, I paid my way out of the trumped up charge and chalked it up to a learning experience.  If video were taken, I'd have a strong case against him and the St. Louis Police Department. 

 

But legally speaking, I don't think that you are required to show ID except in certain circumstances.  Now, the police can detain you until they ascertain your identity in many cases, but you are under no obligation to produce ID.  So, you may have a point.  They have ways to work around restrictions.

And that is why I believe that our civil liberties ought to be protected by the value of "the right to swing you're fist only ends where another man's fist begins.
Because any excuse a cop has to detain you is a potential infringement. Especially when cops can get around laws we already have. Like submitting something as intimate as a medical sample..• Cough•
That is exactly why police shouldn't be allowed to do anything more than to say "have a nice day" unless they have clear reason to believe that a real crime is being committed.
We already have enough excuses to racially/nationally profile. Why do we need more?
Nose ....where another....
Gah!
Yeah, but we grant our authorities with...er...authority.  And that is why this happens.  Bad judgment and a certain culture to protect each other.  I understand it.  I don't agree with it.  I think people granted certain powers should be held to a higher standard and punished harshly when they abuse their power.  Sadly, this is not the case.

I think I may get pounded for this one but I had to offer my opinion. Arizona, unless I'm mistaken enacted laws which were near identical to federal laws and that it was an attempt (seemingly successful) to launch the debate into the forefront of media discussion. The problem with the law or to be more precise, the method used to enforce the law is not based simply on immigrants but who specifically is a more desirable immigrant. The far right see's Mexican immigrants as negative where as there would be little discussion were Canadians to start pouring over the border, those hosers. So the emphasis is on those south of the border many of which are hard working individuals from my personal experience. So as a rough draft possible solution one willfully open to revision: Begin deporting all illegal immigrants while streamlining the process of legalization projecting a "ten?" year plan, during this process there will assuredly still be illegal immigrants but hopefully as the process improves there will not be a need for a wall or more border control. Also a company willfully employing illegals would face hefty fines or be shut down...possibly. Again these idea are just that.

Ok, commence with the attacks

It depends on which law and which version of the law you are speaking of. It has been

 

Oh bloody hell.  Ning cuts off my posts constantly.  This is driving me batshit crazy and one of the reasons I don't post that often anymore.


As I was trying to say, the original post is almost a year old.  I had more, but fuck it and fuck Ning.

Not the attack I was expecting, thanks for being unintentionally gentile. Why not just come to the site via standard browser? Firefox? I don't use ning so I don't know the problem your experiencing.

RSS

Blog Posts

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 0 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service