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.

Views: 193

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I mainly use Chrome because I prefer it and I have it all set up for ease of use, but on Ning it has become problematic recently.  I usually don't think about it until I post something here and see that almost all of what I wrote is deleted by some glitch.  Too late to do anything at that point other than unleash a barrage of profanity.


The part that was deleted mentioned that the newer laws passed, from what little I have read, get around the issue of stepping onto federal jurisdiction by simply using the federal laws rather than competing with them.


Hating and vilifying immigrants is nothing new in the United States.  In fact, it has been a long tradition when any large influx of new peoples greets our shores.  If conservatives wanted to get serious about immigration reform, they would do much better than to pass certain laws that only round up a few illegals on the streets for deportation.  Unfortunately, conservative politicians have found a way to pander to their xenophobic voting base while keeping their big business buddies happy with cheap labor. 

I see your point, I haven't kept up as I should with immigration laws and as I attempted to point out in another post it's not a situation easily solved, most discussions are  considerably cloudy in their presentation leaving room for the obvious and inevitable misuse of power or more customary, blame previous administration or opposing party. One has to wonder how the wording would be managed. "War on Immigrants"?

Yeah.. I feel ya, bro. 

I feel ya. 

Thanks Reggie!
Misty, The freedoms I had in the 70s and 80s are 1/2. Try getting on a plane,try going to Iran. I know you are laughing about going to Iran but I have and do travel there. Mine and my husbands phone calls are monitored hey this is probably watched to. The Patriot Act was and is probably needed but this is getting ridiculous and it is making Americans hateful and paranoid. I have NEVER EVER seen hate in proportions since WW11and look what happended then. I think people could start killing just because people LOOK Muslim. My husbands not one but he has been judged for just his looks.

Ok. Not to be too blunt, but you didn't provide me with one single piece of evidence. 

You gave me some anecdotal strawmen, but no facts. 

Unless you mistook those for facts? 

I was talking about legislation and statistics, not generalities. 

But I'll address them if you want.

Planes: How is that your freedom being restricted? You are agreeing to the rules of a private company so that you may use their services. These rules apply to you as well as me. That doesn't make them discriminatory, even if some people abuse those rules Which, I'm not saying isn't happening. Racial or national profiling happens in America, but there are still plenty of lawsuits being paid out when the harassed party can prove that they were discriminated against. If your freedoms were to have been cut in half, as you said, it wouldn't be a case of isolated incidents of harassment, it would be the total ban on flying, or special registration or some official standing that applies to Middle Easterners/Muslims. But it doesn't. The restrictions apply to everyone and officers in non-compliance face legal repercussions. 

Your phones being monitored: I smoke weed. Mine is, too. Well, that's a lie. Probably not. I live in California. But my point is, the Patriot Act just made that a freedom we ALL lost. Again. Nothing about being Muslim or calling Iran. Hell, my cousin's is monitored because he's a journalist and always calling up Afgan warlords and shit. You know why? Because statistically speaking, talking to people from those countries is a far better indication of criminal activities than doing something like playing tennis. I don't agree it's right. Hell, I don't agree with the Patriot Act. But you can't really say you are being discriminated against when a gay-white-30 year old is under the exact same suspicion as someone with the last name Azimianaraki. 


Just wanted to point out that the TSA is not a private company.  They are goverment employees of a government agency that conducts searches that are well argued to be in violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
I agree to some extent, but you are there of your own free will, not stopped in the street. But I conceed it is a gray area.
Yeah, we do freely turn over some rights as a matter of convenience or security (more the former than the latter, I'd argue).  I have to fly on occasion for work and so I must choose to relinquish certain rights in order to bring home a paycheck.  But, I guess I could be choosing between eating or paying rent.
If you could afford a private jet you wouldn't have to deal with the pat downs at all....
Money buys a lot of freedom.

Mine and my husbands phone calls are monitored hey this is probably watched to


This is nonsense, the only ones monitoring your phone call would be the Islamic Republic thugs when you are in Iran including your internet connection which has all the filters one can imagine and need to use proxy's to axis any site the regime disproves. And blame the Islamic Republic of Terror for any inconvenience you might have when returning from Iran. If you are fortunate not too be detained by Islamic authorities for a matter of their choosing, you might be searched and see if you are carrying any fruits which can carry disease to the United States. Iranians are respected in America, and have great success and prosperity. And if your husband is Iranian, I am sure he is not complaining one bit as Iranians esp. in Southern California (I think you mentioned you live in the Los Angeles area) are one of the most prosperous Americans as a group in America and Southern California


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service