Proof of Citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is pretty clear, however, that ongoing large-scale immigration from Mexico is likely to cause some frictions going forward, and perhaps we should take that possibility into account in deciding how much immigration we want, and from where. YMMV, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Nativist_Riots

Darn those pesky Mexicans and their friction-causing immigration! Why can't they be more like the Irish? Or the Italians? Or every other group that ever immigrated to the US? Meanwhile, those of us who were born here should take advantage of all the privileges we take for granted, and read a book on US history now and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is pretty clear, however, that ongoing large-scale immigration from Mexico is likely to cause some frictions going forward, and perhaps we should take that possibility into account in deciding how much immigration we want, and from where. YMMV, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Nativist_Riots

Darn those pesky Mexicans and their friction-causing immigration! Why can't they be more like the Irish? Or the Italians? Or every other group that ever immigrated to the US? Meanwhile, those of us who were born here should take advantage of all the privileges we take for granted, and read a book on US history now and again.

Right, because there are no differences between 1844 and today that might influence the desirability of immigration as a policy. Yawn.

You should not be so quick to attribute ignorance to someone just because they have a different view than you do; the only person you hurt when you do that is yourself.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
@ Jeff - Federal law requires aliens to carry proof of identity and legal status. AZ just codified the Federal law into state law so the state could enforce it. To represent this as standing the US Justice system on its head is a tad reactionary, not to mention factually incorrect.

You, of course, ignore the primary issue which is how this law affects legal US citizens. If you are a legal US citizen you are not required by Federal law to carry proof of identity or legal status. In Arizona, US citizens who happen to be brown and speak with accents could be suspected of being illegal. In such cases, they will be detained until they can prove otherwise. This presumption of guilt is the opposite of the American tradition of presumption of innocence. If it is reactionary to point that out, then I am proud to be reactionary.

If they are pulled over in a traffic stop, the law requires them to have a driver's license, not a thing to do with the new law. No different here. And again, a driver's license is specifically assumed to be evidence of lawful status. The police cannot just stop people walking through the mall or down the street or eating in a restaurant. There has to be a reasonable or lawful contact (drunk and disorderly maybe? Suspicion of theft, spousal abuse, whatever any number of illegal activities we humans persist in). To willfully ignore this and claim that police (many of whom are brown too) will just start pulling people off the sidewalk because they were walking while Latino is simply dishonest.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If they are pulled over in a traffic stop, the law requires them to have a driver's license, not a thing to do with the new law.

Again, you miss the obvious. Not everyone drives all the time. The fact that people driving need driver's licenses does not change the fact that US citizens are generally not required to carry identification and the Arizona law places them in a situation in which their guilt is assumed. Why are you so determined to ignore what is right in front of your face?

Anonymous wrote:The police cannot just stop people walking through the mall or down the street or eating in a restaurant. There has to be a reasonable or lawful contact (drunk and disorderly maybe? Suspicion of theft, spousal abuse, whatever any number of illegal activities we humans persist in). To willfully ignore this and claim that police (many of whom are brown too) will just start pulling people off the sidewalk because they were walking while Latino is simply dishonest.

Will the police start pulling people off the sidewalk because they are walking while Latino? I don't know. Does this law give police the ability to do that? Yes it does. There are any number of reasons that can be contrived to meet the requirement of lawful contact. Regardless, I am not prepared to sacrifice my civil rights on the hope that police will not abuse their new found power.

Here is one very possible scenario. John picks up Jane to go to a movie. Both are US citizens, but Jane leaves her purse which contains her identification at home. John does a rolling stop at a stop sign and is pulled over by the police. John shows his driver's license but the policeman suspects that Jane might not be in the country legally. When Jane is unable to show any identification, let alone proof of citizenship, she is detained on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. Similarly, John is detained due to suspicion of transporting an illegal immigrant (also part of the Arizona law). John and Jane are taken to the local police station where eventually they are able to contact someone to retrieve Jane's ID. John and Jane are set free after several hours. They have missed their movie, John's car has been impounded, and they now view the police with hostility, vowing not to cooperate with them in the future. The only thing not believable in this scenario are the names of the two individuals.

[Anonymous]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36981179/ns/local_news-san_francisco_bay_area_ca/


Pulling people off the street for walking while Latino? As opposed to denying them education for walking while American?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36981179/ns/local_news-san_francisco_bay_area_ca/

Pulling people off the street for walking while Latino? As opposed to denying them education for walking while American?

What the vice principal did was wrong. I'm not sure why you would believe that I would think otherwise.

[Anonymous]

It's ironic that this whole thing is over Cinco de Mayo, which is not even a real Mexican Holiday. It's mostly celebrated in restaurants with frozen margarita machines.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic that this whole thing is over Cinco de Mayo, which is not even a real Mexican Holiday. It's mostly celebrated in restaurants with frozen margarita machines.

"This whole thing"? "This whole thing" involved 5 high school kids being forced to change their shirts. Hardly a significant event. Arizona passes a racist law that infringes on the rights of American citizens and you don't even blink. But, someone has to change their shirt and its a "whole thing" all of a sudden. Amazing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic that this whole thing is over Cinco de Mayo, which is not even a real Mexican Holiday. It's mostly celebrated in restaurants with frozen margarita machines.

"This whole thing"? "This whole thing" involved 5 high school kids being forced to change their shirts. Hardly a significant event. Arizona passes a racist law that infringes on the rights of American citizens and you don't even blink. But, someone has to change their shirt and its a "whole thing" all of a sudden. Amazing.

Sorry, I don't think my intention came through. I did not mean to minimize Arizona's new law, which I despise.

I meant that we have a citizenry mobilized to protect the free expression of students in school, and it's over a made-up holiday.

All that said, free expression in schools as a general issue is not insignificant. Here is an example of a case in my own back yard that made it to the Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier Civil liberties in schools are very important. We can't expect our children to defend freedoms as adults if we censor their thoughts, tell them what to wear or who they can take to prom. I'm not saying it is more important than the proof of citizenship law. But it is not insignificant.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
All that said, free expression in schools as a general issue is not insignificant. Here is an example of a case in my own back yard that made it to the Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier Civil liberties in schools are very important. We can't expect our children to defend freedoms as adults if we censor their thoughts, tell them what to wear or who they can take to prom. I'm not saying it is more important than the proof of citizenship law. But it is not insignificant.

I completely agree that the larger issue of free expression in schools is a significant issue. Even the case of these students could be a useful subject for learning about free expression. For instance, at what point does one individual's freedom of expression cross the line to become "fighting words" which are not protected speech? There is no doubt that the students chose their clothing with the intention to provoke strong feelings among other students. The Vice Principal decided -- wrongly in my view -- that this choice was likely to provoke violence and, hence, fighting words. But, there is enough of a gray area that this could be a very useful example for discussion.

Whether Cinco de Mayo is made up or not is really immaterial. People have the right to decide what is important to them.

[Anonymous]

I just don't understand how it is possible for someone to be so outraged at the mere risk of constitutional violations due to racial profiling associated with the Arizona law -- which may or may not even happen -- and yet so laid back about an actual documented constitutional violation by a state agency -- and it is not a "gray area," it is a slam-dunk case of viewpoint discrimination by a state actor, and is nowhere close to fighting words as the courts have actually applied that concept. Why do you care so much more about one than the other?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic that this whole thing is over Cinco de Mayo, which is not even a real Mexican Holiday. It's mostly celebrated in restaurants with frozen margarita machines.

"This whole thing"? "This whole thing" involved 5 high school kids being forced to change their shirts. Hardly a significant event. Arizona passes a racist law that infringes on the rights of American citizens and you don't even blink. But, someone has to change their shirt and its a "whole thing" all of a sudden. Amazing.

"This whole thing"? "This whole thing" involved a few people being forced to show proof of identification to a law enforcement officer who stopped them in connection with some other violation. Hardly a significant event. A school infringes on the rights of American citizens by denying them the right to wear American colors and you don't even blink. But, someone has to take two minutes to show documents to law enforcement and its a "whole thing" all of a sudden. Amazing.

You may have a good reason for your priorities, but I don't understand them one bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand how it is possible for someone to be so outraged at the mere risk of constitutional violations due to racial profiling associated with the Arizona law -- which may or may not even happen -- and yet so laid back about an actual documented constitutional violation by a state agency -- and it is not a "gray area," it is a slam-dunk case of viewpoint discrimination by a state actor, and is nowhere close to fighting words as the courts have actually applied that concept. Why do you care so much more about one than the other?

I am the poster about cinco de mayo. I never said that I cared more. I am also a poster who mentioned my brother-in-law has already left the state due to his belief that Arizona is hostile to gays. And I am incensed about this new law as well.

But it is wrong to diminish the importance of free expression, either because you do not believe it is significant expression or because you disagree with the position. If we only defend speech or expression that we agree with, then we aren't really defending it at all.

Take those flag t shirts and replace them with black armbands. Then turn the clock back to 1965 and you have Tinker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

[Anonymous]

10:07 I misread your point, 9:58. But the logic is the same. We have to protect all liberties or we are protecting none at all. And this law has actually already jailed at least one legal resident. So it is not hypothetical damage anymore.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand how it is possible for someone to be so outraged at the mere risk of constitutional violations due to racial profiling associated with the Arizona law -- which may or may not even happen -- and yet so laid back about an actual documented constitutional violation by a state agency -- and it is not a "gray area," it is a slam-dunk case of viewpoint discrimination by a state actor, and is nowhere close to fighting words as the courts have actually applied that concept. Why do you care so much more about one than the other?

If you can't understand the difference between a single mistake by a single individual and an actual law, there is no way that I am going to be able to explain it to you. I said from the beginning that I disagreed with what happened to the students. While I think there is a gray area to which the Vice Principal could point, I don't think he made the correct decision. But, the incident happened. It's over. What should I do about it?

In regards to Arizona, there is a law that thousands of law enforcement officers will be compelled to implement. The transgressions will be many. In those cases, I have no doubt that there will be many gray areas to which officers will be able to point. I assume that just as in the schools case, I will not agree with the decisions of those officers.

My positions in both cases are consistent. That I am "laid back" about a one-time event that consisted of five students being required to change their shirts while "outraged" about a law that will be in place indefinitely and potentially lead to a significant number of US citizens being wrongly detained seems normal to me.

Why are you more concerned with forced shirt changing than a law that removes the presumption of innocence for US citizens?