Dudley open to bringing Arizona law to Oregon

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

On the Lars Larson Show, Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Dudley said that Oregon should consider following Arizona's lead - and adopting a law that would have local law enforcement enforce federal immigration laws, based on "reasonable suspicion" (whatever that means).

The transcript, courtesy of the DPO:

Lars Larson: Except that Chris all your solutions are about the federal government doing the job, what about doing what Arizona is doing which is just saying that when the cops run into somebody that they think that they have reasonable suspicion to believe is illegal should they – should they confirm that – or you know find out whether the person is or not – and then take them into custody or not?

Chris Dudley: If they have reasonable suspicion, and I think that is probably the key word here, is uh, then I think they should be able to, to look into that –um – and I and that’s uh – it’ll be int – obviously the –courts are gonna take a look at how the Arizona law has been written. I –uh - have looked at it, but the courts will decide whether it’s uh constitutionally uh um uh whether it works in that regard and if it does I think it’s uh- it’s something that we could look at uh, obviously we don’t have quite the same uh –problems that Arizona does with-with the border – um that is we don’t have a border – but we do have a problem with illegal immigrants and we need to look at solutions there. And I think that as a state we need to look at making sure that all the laws are enforced, I also think we need to look into technology um-and I think a uh uh prime – uh uh – prime uh source there would be businesses being able to determine whether their uh employees are legal or illegal and I simply think we should look into areas such as E–verify uh and in in order to get a get a hold of this problem.

Listen to the audio.

John Lim told the Oregonian that he supports the Arizona law.

But Allen Alley, who earned the endorsement of the right-wing Oregonians for Immigration Reform, says he doesn't support the Arizona law:

Last week, Alley was endorsed by Oregonians for Immigration Reform because he backs forcing employers to take more steps to check the immigration status of new hires. But he was also the only GOP candidate at a recent debate willing to speak out against the controversial Arizona law requiring local police to enforce immigration laws.

Go figure.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for the information. For a brief recap of Immigration Reform legislation in recent legislative sessions, you can check out "Raising Arizona" at www.strategies360.com/blog.

    • (Show?)

      Sal, I'm trying to figure out which "last inexperienced guy from Princeton we voted into office wrecked the economy and went to war with the wrong country." The choices are James Madison and Woodrow Wilson, the only US Presidents to graduate from Princeton. Do you think we should have sided with Germany in World War I? Bob

  • (Show?)

    "Reasonable suspicion" is a term of legal art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion). But without common law behind its application to immigration law, police are put in a bind: the law requires them to to use "reasonable suspicion" without providing any idea what grounds those would be. With no grounds for determining it, what are they likely to use (the law forbids solely using race, color, etc. but not as part of it...). A 30-year sheriff Thom Hartmann interviewed from Arizona made it clear: they'd spend all their time in court being attacked for either not arresting someone that someone else thought they should have or defending against constitutional challenges when they did.

    Classic conservative law: badly written.

  • (Show?)

    and yet, based on polling last week, 70% of Arizonans and 51% of people nationwide support the bill. Go figure.

    I would be curious to see some polling in Oregon. I suspect BO regulars might be surprised.

    • (Show?)

      They could support segregation by 70% and it wouldn't make it any more right or constitutional (or less offensive to people who think the concept of liberty is a good thing).

      • (Show?)

        It dumbfounds me that all of the armchair constitutional law experts are all being wasted here in Oregon casting all of their pearls before all of us swine. If you had read the law and had any understanding of the laws states can and cannot not pass legally then you would have recognized the extreme care that was taken to craft this law to pass constitutional muster. The key issue is whether the law seeks to unconstitutionally pre-empt federal immigration laws. It does not...what it does do is reinforces existing federal immigration laws and creates no new immigration crimes. The legal theory it must not violate is the doctrine of 'concurrent enforcement'and whether or not this law parallels federal law without conflict. Because the Arizona statute draws directly on federal statutes concerning documentation and other issues, the Arizona law is perfect concurrent enforcement, and the issue of what does and does not constitute concurrent enforcement is already well settled and it's ridiculously neieve of anyone to think the drafters of this bill did not give a great deal of thought to not violating anyone's civil rights ...you weren't the first people to come up with that idea. Why can't you get on the side of the law (federal or state or both) and realize the hole illegal aliens have put us in as a state and a country and stand up for whats right.

        • (Show?)

          Cameron: Try and recover from your myopia. The place where this faces public opinion and legal problems is that Amerian citizens and legal immigrants will be subject to "show me your papers," simply because of the color of their skin or the language they are speaking. The Fourth Amendment protects us from that.

        • (Show?)

          Don’t want to get of subject here but I noticed your facebook page has you listed as a Catholic, and I don’t often get to communicate w/ Catholics so I thought I would take this opportunity to ask you a few questions.

          Illegal immigration is obviously an important issue to you. I wonder if you have attempted to hold your beloved institution accountable for the decades of systematic child molestation and cover-ups w/ the same kind of vigor?

          Also curious as to how you feel about their systematic discrimination of non-heterosexuals?

          Last but not least, how you feel about your church deeming you and all other women inferior to men?

    • (Show?)

      The Economist/YouGov also polled the law ...: Here's an interesting fact: 29% of Hispanics approve of the Arizona law.

  • (Show?)

    This is all in the implementation. Right now everyone seems to be assuming the worst. I agree that the standard of "reasonable suspicion" appears ripe for abuse, but maybe we should see how things develop before drawing too many conclusions.

    • (Show?)

      I thought Republicans were against big government trampling our freedoms?

      But you have no problem with government workers assessing you on undefined criteria about the way you look before asking you for your papers and thereby shredding your 4th amendment rights?

      Guess it is only 'tyranny' in GOP eyes when the government requires that you have insurance so you pay you share of the in case you ever have a medical crisis instead of free-loading off the system, right?

      • (Show?)

        ugh... should have read as:

        "...your share of the cost..."

      • (Show?)

        That's a dynamic in the oil spill, too. Republicans are going crazy that the Obama administration didn't act sooner. I'm wondering if this means they're in favor of the federal government taking a much more activist role in the way businesses manage their industrial plants. I'm sure that's what they want.

      • (Show?)

        I never said I didn't have a problem with the Arizona law. You should read what I actually wrote. And so far we don't know whether people's 4th amendment rights will be "shredded" because we don't know what the basis will be for establishing reasonable suspicion. After all, the 4th amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

        I personally have a lot of concerns about this law and would not have voted for it myself. I just think before we make accusations of racial profiling, much less racism, we should see how it is applied.

        And by the way, I spport an insurance mandate so maybe you should check your own political profiling.

        • (Show?)

          Never said any of the things you are denying.

          That said, glad to see you part ways with numerous GOP positions regarding the constitutionality of the recently passed Healthcare Reform Bill, and that you would not have supported the Constitutionally shredding AZ bill had you been able to vote on it.

          As you yourself acknowledge this law is ripe for abuse. I posit that it would be the height of naiveté to seriously suggest that its real world application would not be predicated squarely on racial profiling.

          I also find it bemusing that you are trying to coin a new term "political profiling" here. You may want to consider sending your resumé to Frank Luntz. You may have missed your true calling.

          • (Show?)

            I think it was a great term to use and certainly applicable to the conversation. Jack hadly needs to give his best stuff to Frank Luntz and you would be well served (and sound smarter) if you were able to recognize that just because Frank Luntz says something doesn't automatically make it unworthy of serious thought. Quite the opposite I am afraid. Oregon gets to keep Jack Roberts (who was trying to engage you in a discussion minus the standard left wing name calling) and the Nation gets to keep Frank

            • (Show?)

              "It was a joke, you know, like your life."

              Ah yes, those left wing name calling days of yore... oh wait, that was Jack's words. My bad.

    • (Show?)

      The sheriff of Pima County has stated that the law is totally unnecessary as they already stop everyone and anyone, based on reasonable suspicion.

      The police chief of Tucson says the law could hunder law enforcement as many will be loathe to interact with the police force.

  • (Show?)

    When a crime is committed Oregon police officers ask for documents after arresting a Latino. Latinos are frequently turned over to ICE.

    Big difference between committing a crime and reasonable suspicion.

    • (Show?)

      entering this country without valid papers IS A CRIME!

      • (Show?)

        What about having dark skin and an accent? Is that a crime?

        • (Show?)

          we had a young lady raped and sodomized a few weeks ago here by an illegal,this is the 3rd time in 6 years.the crime here has exploded.yes im for the arizonaz law here.are you going to contribute the money for the illegals?as a citizen i have a say so when it comes to the protection of this country.im a disabled vet are you?

      • (Show?)

        Sure, but being here illegally isn't. It's an administrative violation.

        I think it's pretty absurd to say this does not go beyond federal law, when ICE doesn't have the ability to stop you without cause either. Then there's the ability to sue local officials for not following state law on federal policy. Come on, now.

        Immigration is the province of the federal government, period. The attempt to enforce immigration laws by anything other than federal officials is flawed.

        • (Show?)

          I am sorry but entering the USA is a CRIME ( A felony to be exact) so is remaining in the US or overstaying your VISA ... administrative violation? please!

          • (Show?)

            Cameron, it's true. Overstaying a visa is not currently a crime. It's illegal, but that doesn't make it a crime. (For example, speeding is illegal, and a violation, but it's not a crime.)

      • (Show?)

        That's a reductio ad absurdum argument (opps, that is that there illegal latin sounding talk).

        So you are saying that anyone must be a suspect in the "crime" of entering the country without papers, or you are advocating engaging in racial profiling, which is illegal.

        So which is it?

        • (Show?)

          Read the law yourself Mitchell because if you hear it from me you will claim that I am just repeating something Rush told me or worse. The law does NOT say what you knee jerk lefties are claiming it says. It does not give anyone the right to pull someone off the street and demand to see their papers, it requires other "lawful contact" and a reasonable suspicion prior to inquiring into someone's immigration status. Its the same as the federal law that no one has had any problem with and no complaints about 'profiling' with for many many years.

        • (Show?)

          Argumentum Ad YourMomium

      • (Show?)

        Employing illegals is also a crime, to bad it's not enforced with the gusto that the right-wing wants to deport these same illegals with...

  • (Show?)

    Medford State Representative R- Sal Esquivel, announced his support of the Arizona law.

    • (Show?)

      Jeff brings up an excellent point here. I recently read R. Gregory Nokes's book about the Chinese miner massacres in Hells Canyon, and the anti-Chinese rhetoric is similar in tone and different only in the minority being attacked from what's being said today.

      It's a sobering thing to realize that the phrasing and the arguments have not changed at all. Only the targets have changed.

    • (Show?)

      there are some liberals in labor, but labor generally I wouldn't describe as liberal.

    • (Show?)

      Multi culturalism does not work haven't you figured that out yet? The most absurd idea of all is that there is some inherent benefit in multi-culturalism. I have not seen one objective study that supports that theory. At this level, a child being educated in schools where the student body is composed of children with radically different life views, family histories, and native languages, confuses the educational process it doesn’t benefit it. The tendency of immigrant groups to settle in their own ethnic neighborhoods is itself a rejection of the merits of what the lefties have sought to promote for all of us. That doesn’t mean that there is no "multi-culturalism" in our American tradition. There is! It was the existence of the common interests and common values, which brought about this countries founding. The big difference then was the central government was only given powers reflective of what was truly common among the states. All other attributes of government were left to the states. Yet none of that is what the left has promoted in its present adulation of diversity. Read some of the more thoughtful definitions of the terms “state” and “nation” and you will see how well our federal system fits (or used too). You will also see that the idea of a multi-cultural community, as advanced by the lefties today, is a negation, and a denial of the concept of a nation. I am sorry but this is not just another difference of opinion. If nothing else it clearly rises to the level of a nihilistic assault on the values that are very precious to most of us

      • (Show?)

        I grew up in Lake Oswego. Most of the people of color there were Trail Blazers; not a very ethnically diverse community I must say although I do love all the families and friends I grew up with. At 18, I went to PSU and doors opened up for me in ways I cannot possibly describe here and that included being exposed to different cultures, views and opinions. I found great value in that. I am sorry you have not had a similar experience.

      • (Show?)

        So, slavery was a valid common interest common value multi-cultrualisn because it existed at the time of our nations founding and was a power and right reserved for the states?

        But having kids from different backrounds and cultures attend public schools together is a threat to our nation?

      • (Show?)

        Cameron Jordan, the original, unamended U.S. Constitution mandated that people of African culture be counted as 3/5 of human beings, which I would say had major bearing on that culture being subjugated.

        So, how do we decide on a public school curriculum, if you don't want multiculturalism in schools? I would say education has to strive to present history and social studies in such a way as to attempt to represent all points of view. Or, you have home schooling or private schools, as other options.

      • (Show?)

        Cameron, where in my post did you see the word "multiculturalism?" That's an axe of a different color. Grind away, but don't drag me into it.

      • (Show?)

        Oh, one other question, C. Since you seem to be a serious anti-illegal partisan, let me ask you the question I posed above: "Do you feel that legal immigration and the diversity it brings is a benefit to society?" You may be anti-illegal, but are you pro-immigrant?

        • (Show?)

          I realize you didn't ask that of me, but yes, I am absolutely pro-immigration (it IS good for America) while being anti-illegal immigration. A portion of my family and extended family are legal immigrants. After helping them, and discovering just how ridiculously complex legal immigration is, I am also for immigration reform... massive immigration reform.

          I figure if my family members can do it legally, it isn't unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

          • (Show?)

            (CONTD HERE) this passage from a book I recently read says it better than I can “The massive influx of any class of immigrants whose levels of achievement are substantially below the national average creates a multiplicity of problems. These problems can be magnified if their descendants, for whatever reason, remain at the bottom of the social and educational pyramids. A major issue ... is the dilution of the quality of citizenship. The injection of large populations of low-achievement levels into the body politic can lead to political movements based on envy and resentment. It can transform politics into a catering to special interests in which minority groups cast their ballots to further the interests of their own people rather than for the general good of the nation. What is perhaps even more ominous is the prospect of a decline in the quality of the electorate in terms of knowledge, ability and intelligence with the result that the people elected to govern ... attain high office less because of ability than ... of a facility for communication at a mass level, the capacity to reduce complex issues to the sort of slogans that children can understand.” Sound like anyone you know who’s last name rhymes with “Obama”? Slogans like “yes we can” and others?

        • (Show?)

          Hopefully this will resolve all of the questions above it...I am a huge fan of legal immigration. Who we invite into our house should be a decision that is ours and ours alone. I would never ask the person I caught robbing my house to move in ...ever. Immigration should be like a draw in a poker game... and used to improve our hand by allowing people who will add to this country to immigrate and not the people who have already demonstrated they lack the personal integrity to ever be considered who arrive illegally with their hand out and who immediately become a burden to society. Let me save some of you the next round of ad hominem remarks by telling you that my position on these issues is not based upon anything but my own observations and experiences. I was born in the US and then spent about 15 of the next 18 years living outside of it. It seems like I have lived everywhere I moved so many times and during those years I was the person who had to rely on the goodwill of another country, I was the person who talked funny or dressed funny or had a funny accent. I spent some great years going to school and living and studying at a boarding school with a very diverse student body where only 10% of the students could come from one country. There were students from over 50 different countries when I attended school there. When I went on to college I was teased because I was told I spoke English with an accent. I have seen first hand the impact on other countries (like the UK, Germany and France) of uncontrolled mass immigration of some other countries lowest common denominators. I have seen first hand what happens when you give a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish and I have seen first hand that trying to assimilate large groups of other people from other cultures doesn’t enrich anyone’s life but rather creates a small subculture within a culture that is distinct and separate and who votes not for the benefit of the country but only for their own benefit. I know that the most important single quality that should be required for anyone admitted into America for possible naturalization and citizenship, should be a clearly demonstrated understanding of the loyalty owed to an adopted country and its way of life as well as a full understanding of our history and what so many have sacrificed to make this experiment in self governance succeed. (CONTD)

      • (Show?)

        I'm sure this isn't going to change your mind about multi-culturalism (I mean, really, you actually think that exposure to different opinions, points of view, and cultures has no value whatsoever?).

        But, it took about 5 seconds of googling to come up with a number of studies that talk about how exposure to different cultures can enhance creativity (here's a good summary).

        • (Show?)

          what I was saying is we don't need to have open borders and a mass influx of people from another country to be able to enjoy the benefits from living in a diverse environment. Just like forcing a racially diverse mix into schools failed so does doing the same thing with immigration. What most important is who the people are and not where the people are immigrating from. Their reasons for immigrating: to become americans and add something to the national landscape or to just set up housekeeping here to take advantage of what this country offers them while remaining true to their country of origin and marching in our streets waving the flag of their native country ...Americanism is something very real and very intoxicating to alot of people and those who don't won't or can't embrace it need to stay home

          • (Show?)

            Here is the link to an article that best explains my view on Immigration that I hope you all will take a minute and read. I did not write this but the information it contains closely mirrors what I have seen first hand to be true it also shares suggestions for what a smart sustainable immigration policy should contain or at least consider.

            http://conservativecameron.blogspot.com/2010/05/issues-involved-in-formulating-american.html

  • (Show?)

    For every illegal who is arrested and deported, the employer who hired him or her should have their business shut down and heavy fines applied, regardless of whatever papers they can or cannot supply.

    • (Show?)

      If a person has high quality fake ID and passes E-Verify and is still found to be illegal should the employer still be fined and have their business shut down?

      • (Show?)

        It would be an affirmative defense to the crime if the employer used e-verify and the documents weren't obiously fake.

        What does obiously fake mean? I guess its open to interpretation, sort of like reasonable suspicion is.

        And don't get too excited about what is "obviously fake" I can tell you, I've read many many police reports where an officer arrests someone because the report says that "the identification was obviously fraudulent". So if you believe police officers, it seems like if the officer says an ID obviously fake, that officer can drive right down to the employers place of business and slap someone in cuffs.

        And if you believe a trained HR person at a business can't tell if an ID is fake, how can an officers opinion about a ID justify reasonable suspicion to investigate or call ICE.

        You can't have it both ways.

    • (Show?)

      I agree this is a snake that we need to attack by cutting both ends off it ...the supply and the demand

    • (Show?)

      I absolutely agree 100%

  • (Show?)

    The Republicans need an outlet for their base supporters who are concerned about this issue, but can't alienate their business base. Hence, The AZ law is perfect for R's.

    Its emotionally appealing to the nationalists, yet unworkable.

    There's a simpler way to address this issue. Just require all employers, iuncluding those who hire for day labor, to use instant online verification of SSN's (easily available through the SS website), and make it a crime, with mandatory jail, to fail to take reasonable steps to verify the legal status of any employee or independent contractor. Thats just as easy a determination as trying to decide what reasonable suspicion is.

    Most importantly, Don't just make it a "corporate crime" that gets a small monetary fine slap on the wrist. The President of the Company as well as all officers who are responsible for checking documentation are criminally liable, and go to jail. Maybe make it a M11 crime. The R's should like that.

    • (Show?)

      Arizona implemented mandatory E-verify about 3 1/2 years ago.

    • (Show?)

      why can't we get any of Oregon's congresssional delegation (with a D next to his name except DeFazio) to vote to extend for E-verify for more than several months at a time? And Joyce the BIG difference you cannot keep over,looking is the chinese were here legally ...the aliens who are the current target of this law are Illegal...there is a HUGE difference in the two. AND Connor... how can you possibly make the statement that "there are some liberals in labor but labor isn't liberal" with a straight face? The only candidates supported by labor are liberals. The liberals in washington from BHO on down are deeply in the pocket of labor. Even the healthcare tax bill couldn't be passed until BHO had labor over to the white house so they could hammer out a bunch of concessions for them?

      • (Show?)

        Not true--labor in OR has a long record of supporting Republican lawmakers in-state. Not often, necessarily, but it does happen.

      • (Show?)

        AFSCME has a lot of conservative members who work in the prisons and for state government. The often-demonized teachers union (OEA) has an awful lot of conservative members, and the building trades, laborers, iron workers, IAMAW and other private sector union people I've met I'd not generally characterize as liberal.

        As far as labor endorsed candidates, they include Republican state reps Bill Kennemer, Bob Jenson, and Greg Smith. Chris Dudley himself took a leadership role in the players union.

      • (Show?)

        one question,how much does oregon spend on illegals?around 60,000,000 a year.that would help our schools and elderly.how about some of those jobs illegals do go to our college kids or folks needing a job.how about we take care of ourselves first.

    • (Show?)

      This isn't and shouldn't be an R or D issue ....please take that hat off and instead look at what is best for the whole country and leave those petty differences at the door for this discussion...

      "The first duty of a Nation is to its own future generations. Suggesting that, in celebrating the concept of Liberty, we should embrace the status of a haven over the preservation of an existing, well-defined, character and identity, is to lose one's way in a scarcely considered sentimentality. This has no place in the formulation of policies that will effect countless generations yet to come."

  • (Show?)

    For those who support the law, I'd like to hear what sort of "papers" would constitute proper proof of citizenship.

    Not everyone has a passport. Not everyone has a birth certificate. (Remember, until the middle of the last century, many counties in the South did not issue birth certificates to black infants.) Not only that, but how can you suddenly require a document that wasn't required before -- and that you often can't obtain; because the hospital is closed, the county records lost, etc.

    We do not have a uniform federal citizenship identification card in this country. Conservatives have often opposed federal ID efforts due to civil liberties concerns.

    But this whole thing breaks down unless you have a uniform federal ID. So, conservatives, what'll it be?

  • (Show?)

    Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state* Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth Naturalization Certificate Certificate of Citizenship You could also show a Green Card, Valid Driver's License, Current Government ID (city, state or federal) Current Military ID (military and dependents) Baptismal certificate, Hospital birth certificate , Census record, Early school record, Family bible record, Doctor's record of post-natal care

    • (Show?)

      Sorry, but this is nonsense.

      A driver's license doesn't prove you're a citizen. People with tourist visas can get driver's licenses. Same for government employement ID. (I have overseas relatives who have gotten drivers' licenses and even worked in the federal government.)

      Baptismal certificate? Family bible record? Early school record? Are you kidding? Do you really think that a) the family bible is legal proof, and b) a cop would accept it as ID?

      Sorry, but passport, green card, and birth certificate are about the only kinds of ID that affirmatively prove you're a citizen or have legal right to be here.

      What would you do about the many people who are U.S. citizens but don't have either?

      And I'm not talking about what kind of proof you might bring to court (with the help of an investigator or attorney). I'm talking about what you might hand a cop through your driver's side window.

      • (Show?)

        Sorry Kari I took that list right off of the governments own website. They are the government and if they say it proves citizenship then it must

  • (Show?)

    The things you are saying that are false and do nothing to further this discussion is the statement that "but how can you suddenly require a document that wasn't required before" If you are not a nattural born citizen of the US and entered legally then these documents have been required before. if you are here on a green card then you have already been instructed to carry it at all times... the only hospitals that are the one's bankrupted by illegal aliens not paying for the medical care they received there, Hospitals aren't the responsible entity for maintaining birth records for the government ...the counties and states are and so far all of the counties and states are still in business although just barely, and you are correct not all people have a passport ...but if you are in this country from another country then you either have a passport or visa or (hopefully) both. This is not rocket science if you ebnetred legally then you have something that proves it or if you lost it you can do what responsible people do and get a replacement. If you were born here then that proof is readily available online for $8.00 (I think) and you can get it in 48 hrs. Being in this country from another country is a privilege not a right and with that privilege comes the responsibility of following the rules associated with being granted that privilege

    • (Show?)

      Do you carry a passport or birth certificate with you wherever you go? I keep both in a safe deposit box and would not be able to present them to a police officer who asked for them. Of course, being an old white guy, I'm unlikely to be asked.

    • (Show?)

      Cameron: How many times would you have to be asked for proof of your legality before you would have a problem with it?

    • (Show?)

      I only have one of those. And unless I can get my idiot birth state of Oklahoma to pull its head out of its collective ass and provide me with a birth certificate by the time my Driver's License is up for renewal, I won't have any of those documents. To where exactly do you propose to deport me? It's not only the "Illegals" that have documentation issues. And I find it interesting that most of the people claiming no problem with the documentation issues are lily-white and therefore wouldn't be profiled/stopped in AZ anyway.

    • (Show?)

      This is an inquiry. Isn't it illegal to demand citizens show national ID? It's not illegal not to have ID, right?

      • (Show?)

        There's no such thing as a national ID in the United States. So requiring one would be a bit odd.

        Remember when Bill Clinton held up a card and said that every American would be given a federal Health Care Card?

        The Republicans went ballistic because they called it a national ID card. And the last thing the anti-government folks is giving the federal government a way to track everyone down.

        • (Show?)

          Yeah, that's what I meant, Kari. The federales can't just walk up and demand your papers. That's what I understood.

          This is a fascinating bit of the nested politics I mentioned upthread. Libertarianism is a thread within both liberal and conservative camps, and I have a fair bit of it in me. To see conservatives who are screaming to keep the "socialism" out of their lives supporting a law that lets cops demand your papers seems a bit hypocritical. (And makes me wonder where race fits into things.)

          But as I say, I'm actually ignorant of the laws, so it would be good to know.

      • (Show?)

        I don't know about federal law, but under Oregon law it is a crime to fail to carry or present identification at the request of a police officer. I believe it is a class A misdemeanor, but I could be wrong on that. Under state law, law enforcement does have the right to demand "papers" from anyone at any time for virtually any reason. Where would Arizona's law improve on law enforcement's power here?

    • (Show?)

      I think one of the main issues that people have with the law is that there it cannot be applied in a non-discriminatory way. It is basically designed to discriminate based on someone's race, appearance, or accent (because, really, what other criteria would you use for "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal? Their shoes?).

      I, as a white woman who doesn't speak with an accent, will never be asked to show my papers in Arizona. So, I never have to worry about having my birth certificate on me at all times. Meanwhile, another US citizen, who looks Hispanic and/or speaks with an accent might get stopped simply for walking down the street.

      • (Show?)

        You probably will be asked to show some ID if you check in to a hotel, or try to purchase something at a store with a check or credit card.

        You will also likely be asked to show some ID if you wish to enter a federal building.

        And you'll also be asked to present some government ID if you choose to fly to or from Arizona, or for that matter fly anywhere.

        It does limit your travels and daily routine if you have no ID.

        Sure, not the same as being asked to show some ID by a law enforcement person.

        • (Show?)

          But the ID that they're asking for in a hotel, or car rental agency, or in a liquor store doesn't include proof of citizenship.

          • (Show?)

            Exactly. Asking to verify that you are the person writing a valid check, or the actual person whose credit card they are using as a deposit is about making sure they can get payment, and it has nothing to do with verifying citizenship.

            A hotel checking your ID wouldn't care of the name on it is Mickey Mouse as long as the credit card was valid or the checking account with the name Mickey Mouse on it was a valid one and the names matched.

    • (Show?)

      How are hospitals being bankrupted by illegal aliens? I was fairly sure that the federal government reimburses them for indigent/undocumented care...

      • (Show?)

        Federal law only mandates that they receive care but offers no reimbursement ...we pay it in the form of increased costs ... Even the famous Scripps hospital in San Diego was brought down by illegals

        http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3978

        http://businessbankruptcylaws.org/are-illegals-receiving-better-health-care-that-veterans/

  • (Show?)

    Just for a bit of historical context, I offer:

    From NY Times, 1854:

    GROCERY CART AND HARNESS FOR SALE In good condition. One chestnut horse, 8 yrs. old, is also for sale. Excellent saddle horse; can be ridden by a lady. Also, young man wanted, from 16 to 13 yrs. of age, able to work. No Irish need apply. CLUFF & TUNIS, No. 270 Washington St., corner of Myrtle Ave., Brooklyn.

    My forbearers were in this county by this time.

    When I see Minnesota begin to require white, middle-aged optometrists to produce their "papers" at a moments notice to prove they're citizens, I'll see these laws in a better light.

    And supporters of this law need to recognize, not understate, that beyond whatever benefits may emerge, there is an undeniable element of race embedded in it. We all know where it's aimed.

    And also consider that one of the authors of the law, State Senator Russell Pearce has dodgy connections. Also from the NY Times (but not from 1854):

    "In 2006, he came under fire for speaking admirably of a 1950s federal deportation program called Operation Wetback, and for sending an e-mail message to supporters that included an attachment — inadvertently, he said — from a white supremacist group."

    But perhaps before we demonize an entire ethic group, we ought to also reflect upon some earlier American ideals as well:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    • (Show?)

      @Cameron

      Thanks for the list of valid proofs of citizenship. How many do you readily have available? Do you carry any of them on your person at all times? Requiring some people to do so is, imho, discriminatory. Requiring all people would be fair, but completely impractical.

  • (Show?)

    I think it's a fair question to ask how other countries handle this issue. Whenever I travel to Europe, I always have my passport with me. Granted, a passport in your country of residence might be burdensome on a daily basis, but I was pretty sure that non-citizens were required to have id/visa/passport/green card/etc with them at all times. I realize this doesn't get to the civil liberties issue of asking for ID on reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally - which is a sticky wicket all on its own. But I am curious. We can't be the first country to wrestle with this question.

    • (Show?)

      Dan,

      Most countries have national identity cards so everyone has the same card. In the U.S. these identity cards have been identified with totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union which used them to control their citizens. As a result civil libertarians and traditionally right wing conservatives, have opposed identity cards as the first step to dictatorship.

      Since the police in Europe can ask for the identity cards of all citizens(or passports for non citizens), they are not discriminating against any one group.

    • (Show?)

      You are correct and in Russia you are required (or used to be required) 2 carry both your international passport and your domestic passport I am assuming that has possibly changed since 2002. Every country I have ever visited has fairly strict to very strict laws dealing with this. I really have no ability to understand why the people in the US close a blind eye to the cost and illegality of illegal immigration and refuse to get on their own side of this issue.

  • (Show?)

    I think all of you have valid points but are missing the big picture. ILLEGAL means illegal, period. No skin color or accent can cause you to be a citizen of the United States. Not only is it a hardship on our citizens who are in need of social services, it is a diservice to those who worked very hard to legally become citizens. The question is how do we stop the invasion without starting a war. 12 million, and some estimate 24 million, who have no reason to uphold or defend our laws or constitution is an invasion. The question of Constitutionality is a non issue. We have an obligation and responsibility to our citizens to protect and defend our borders. As for racial profiling, I fear it is an unavoidable side effect. Example: If your community is continually attacked by purple people, green people, whatever, do you not, in your own mind, when you encounter the green or purple people, who may or may not be the ones who have been attacking your neighborhood, feel afraid. Not a single person on this page can honestly say they have never profiled. Those that try are lying to themselves. These politically correct soft solutions only feed the problem, they do not advance the solution. You cannot legislate human nature and morals. These things come from creating communities and a country that are safe. Right now, we do not have that.

    • (Show?)

      Thank you ...it should be noted that back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.. Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal ' s after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans. And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 1 million Mexican Nationals! The program was called ' Operation Wetback ' . It was done so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better chance at jobs.It took 2 Years, but they deported them!

  • (Show?)

    @Kenny

    Respectfully, I believe the two big pictures you are missing are:

    1. The law would require the police to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization. Unless we want to scrap the right to "presumed innocence" for all (aka innocent until proven guilty), scrapping it for just some is immoral, unfair, and wrong.

    2. Why do we punish the illegal aliens and not the employers who hire them (the latter being the main enticement for illegal immigration)? Legislators who talk tough on immigration lose their credibility when the consistently pander to employers by voting down punishments for hiring illegal immigrants. Focusing on the supply and ignoring the demand is as effective and economical as our "war on drugs" (i.e. not so much in either case).

  • (Show?)

    My scenario is thus...

    The Arizona law becomes the law of the land, employers are then deprived of the low-cost (most times , under-the-table) labor, who then is willing to then pay through the nose for farm produce,etc.? Unless there is some way of making illegals "legal", who then harvests your food? Or is immigration worth the doubling or tripling of farm prices? As was said before, you can't have it both ways....

    • (Show?)

      Without illegal aliens, the price of agricultural products and other goods and services will NOT double or triple far from it. The definitive study on this subject is the University of Iowa's "How Much Is That Tomato?" The study concludes that 'since labor is such a small component of the end-price of agricultural products (which includes price to the growers, transportation costs, processing /storage costs, grocers' profit, etc.), using minimum wage workers instead of illegal aliens would increase prices of agricultural products by approximately 3 percent in the summer and 4 percent in the winter ... hardly the making of $10 heads of lettuce, $25 hamburgers, $1,000 per night Days Inn hotel rooms like the pro-illegal alien lobby claims. The bottom line is consumers are NOT benefiting from lower labor costs. Like you said it's CEOs and business owners who benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their illegal alien workers. The Big Three automakers say they moved so many jobs to Mexico because their labor costs are 80 percent less than in America. Anybody notice the price of new cars spiraling downward under NAFTA?

      • (Show?)

        Well, at least you're correct about the effects of NAFTA. They have been beneficial for big business and disastrous for small business and labor of all stripes in Canada, Mexico and the United States.

  • (Show?)

    Has anyone seen this traler to a movie released on cinco de mayo?

    http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44943

connect with blueoregon