Papers please Arizona

20Cent

Arizona has passed a law that makes it a misdemeanor to not prove lawful U.S. residence when asked to provide such documentation. It gives the police the right to stop anyone who they suspect is an illegal immigrant and ask them for proof they are legal otherwise they are arrested.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/27/arizona-immigration-law

A truck driver was recently detained because he couldn't prove he was American. (He was).
http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate

Sounds like a charter for abuse. How can one suspect someone is illegal? The only thing I can think of is their skin colour.

What about elections, will all the brown people have to bring their birth certs now or face arrest?

Sounds crazy.

Also how do the freedom loving right wingers deal with police stopping people and asking for their papers!!

Memnoch

20Cent wrote: »

Arizona has passed a law that makes it a misdemeanor to not prove lawful U.S. residence when asked to provide such documentation. It gives the police the right to stop anyone who they suspect is an illegal immigrant and ask them for proof they are legal otherwise they are arrested.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/27/arizona-immigration-law

A truck driver was recently detained because he couldn't prove he was American. (He was).
http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate

Sounds like a charter for abuse. How can one suspect someone is illegal? The only thing I can think of is their skin colour.

What about elections, will all the brown people have to bring their birth certs now or face arrest?

Sounds crazy.

Also how do the freedom loving right wingers deal with police stopping people and asking for their papers!!

Well, this is already the law in Ireland.

The police have the right to stop any "foreigner," and demand to see their Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) card. Foreigners are required to carry these at all times. They are basically identity cards (but have a line on the back saying they are not). Quite apart are the procedures for how they decide who is a foreigner, besides the colour of their skin, of course.

Additionally, all foreigners are required to submit to finger printing when they renew their right to stay in this country.

Freedom loving restrictions aren't the exclusive preserve of the American right, it would seem.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

they're only worth talking about when they come out of america though, fascist bastards

20Cent

Well this is the US politics section.

Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Amerika

I read the bill. A lot of legaleeze, but all-in-all doesn’t seem too bad to me.

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." Sorry, but it actually sound good to me.

And upon signing the law, the Arizona governor issued an executive order for a training program on how to implement it without racial profiling. So, it appears that Arizona's only offense, devoid of all the rhetoric, is to attempt to enforce the nation's immigration laws - because the federal government refuses to do their job. And the federal government has forced the border states to deal with much of the problem themselves. So the Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. Bad? I think not, it's been a federal crime for more than half a century - U.S.C. 1304(e).

Whenever I had gotten pulled over by a police officer while driving, I always had to provide identification. How draconian!

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2R/bills/SB1070S.pdf

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

I read the bill. A lot of legaleeze, but all-in-all doesn’t seem too bad to me.

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." Sorry, but it actually sound good to me.

And upon signing the law, the Arizona governor issued an executive order for a training program on how to implement it without racial profiling. So, it appears that Arizona's only offense, devoid of all the rhetoric, is to attempt to enforce the nation's immigration laws - because the federal government refuses to do their job. And the federal government has forced the border states to deal with much of the problem themselves. So the Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. Bad? I think not, it's been a federal crime for more than half a century - U.S.C. 1304(e).

Whenever I had gotten pulled over by a police officer while driving, I always had to provide identification. How draconian!

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2R/bills/SB1070S.pdf

What do you think would cause a "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States"?


When you were stopped was a drivers license enough?

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

What do you think would cause a "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States"?


When you were stopped was a drivers license enough?

Standing in a group on a particular corner, which is a well know area for illegal immigrants looking for work, is a good start.

Just the other week I was stopped. Was doing 55 in a 35 mph zone. Had to provide my Drivers License, Car Registration and Liability Insurance Card - and I'm a citizen. Luckily I got off with a just warning.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Standing in a group on a particular corner, which is a well know area for illegal immigrants looking for work, is a good start.

Just the other week I was stopped. Was doing 55 in a 35 mph zone. Had to provide my Drivers License, Car Registration and Liability Insurance Card - and I'm a citizen. Luckily I got off with a just warning.

Lucky you.
Can't you get all those things without being a citizen?
Would you be angry if they wanted your birthcert?

Overheal

Dont go 20 miles over the limit then :pac:

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Lucky you.
Can't you get all those things without being a citizen?

Yes, but I think in most states you would need to be here legally.

Would you be angry if they wanted your birthcert?

Only if I wanted to become president of the United States (relax, just having a little fun there)

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Dont go 20 miles over the limit then :pac:

True, but I think it also helped that I just bought a $5,000 security system for work from one the of the local police officers who has a side business.

But back on topic. I think there will be lawsuits filed over the Arizona bill which might have to go to the US Supreme Court pretty fast for a ruling, as I’m hearing several other states are considering implementing similar laws.

Manic Moran

20Cent wrote: »

A truck driver was recently detained because he couldn't prove he was American. (He was).
http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate

Here's the bit that it took me a while to understand from all the shil commentary: The AZ law actually isn't any different to currently existing federal law on the subject. Your truck driver mentioned in that article was questioned by federal agents under federal law (ICE is not an Arizona organisation), and it has absolutely nothing to do with the AZ law which doesn't actually take effect for another few months.

NTM

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's the bit that it took me a while to understand from all the shil commentary: The AZ law actually isn't any different to currently existing federal law on the subject. Your truck driver mentioned in that article was questioned by federal agents under federal law (ICE is not an Arizona organisation), and it has absolutely nothing to do with the AZ law which doesn't actually take effect for another few months.

NTM

That makes it ok then?

Eliot Rosewater

20Cent wrote: »

That makes it ok then?

Do you think the Police Force should be forbidden from inquiring after illegal immigrants?

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Do you think the Police Force should be forbidden from inquiring after illegal immigrants?

No but they shouldn't be able to stop anyone and demand to see their papers.
Wouldn't like to be a dark skinned person in Arizona at the mo.

Nick_oliveri

20Cent wrote: »

No but they shouldn't be able to stop anyone and demand to see their papers.
Wouldn't like to be a dark skinned person in Arizona at the mo.

Did you never watch that tv series on anti-immigrant officers in the UK? I'd wager this has been going on in both countries for a long time.

Manic Moran

No but they shouldn't be able to stop anyone and demand to see their papers.
Wouldn't like to be a dark skinned person in Arizona at the mo.

Here's the question so: If immigration law is to be enforced, how are they supposed to do it if they're not allowed to find out if the person is a legal immigrant or not?

NTM

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's the question so: If immigration law is to be enforced, how are they supposed to do it if they're not allowed to find out if the person is a legal immigrant or not?

NTM

They are allowed find out. Its the power given to a cop to stop and arrest someone they suspect might be illegal is the step too far.

This means everyone, even legal citizens will have to carry proof that they are legal around. Your a freedom loving guy, how does that work with you? Police stopping people just because of the way they look?

Manic Moran

20Cent wrote: »

They are allowed find out. Its the power given to a cop to stop and arrest someone they suspect might be illegal is the step too far.

They generally can't. ICE agents have the authority to do so because that's their sole job. The AZ law only allows the police to make such investigations if they had good cause to be talking to the person in the first place. Fishing expeditions are quite illegal.

This means everyone, even legal citizens will have to carry proof that they are legal around.

I agree that having to carry documentation around is a little extreme. However, there should be a way to determine eligibility without carrying ID through police making inquiries. For example, though I've a foreign accent, I have no worries that it would take too long for them to find me in the system as a US citizen, though I have a headstart as I just need to tell them to call the duty desk at OTAG in Carson City.

NTM

Overheal

It seems like something they can lookup as part of routine stops. The same way they can run my drivers license through the DMV right in their center console during a traffic stop.

Now, back in the 50s, sure, it wouldve been very Godwin.

Carcharodon

I don't understand how anyone can really defend this bill, even the majority of law enforcement are against it, the president has spoken out against it. It may not be outwardly racist but does promote profiling and this in turn will lead to very large sections of the population feeling discriminated against.

The one good thing that might come out of this will be that it highlights the immigration problems and will lead to some major reform to help all the illegals in the country.

These people go through such a hard time to get here and then they have to deal with this. It is unbelievable as to how ignorant people are to the issues.

Manic Moran

I don't understand how anyone can really defend this bill, even the majority of law enforcement are against it, the president has spoken out against it.

Here are the two issues I have with that statement.
1) Most Chiefs of Police/Sheriffs except in major metropolitan areas in the US are elected officials. There are a number of topics in which surveys of line officers and the 'California Association of Police Chiefs' (or whatever) are in contradiction of each other. Of course, the politicians and media listen to the Sheriffs/Chiefs, which is as it should be, but they are frequently a few echelons above reality or just following their own political ideas. A flaw in the American system, I fear.
2) If, as it seems is the case, the AZ law predominantly follows Federal law, the President's stated objections seem far more appearance than substance. Cue comment about politicians.

The one good thing that might come out of this will be that it highlights the immigration problems

This is true, and it is entirely possible that some of the AZ legislature voted for it for just that reason. There is precedent. I think, however, it was mainly just done out of frustration that the Feds aren't doing their job and AZ needs to take their own measures.

NTM

Black Swan

Can't see the inscription at the base of the statue anymore?

Amerika

If you look closely, it’s been buried by the incoming tide of of foreign entities.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Amerika wrote: »

If you look closely, it’s been buried by the incoming tide of of foreign entities.

rofl

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's the question so: If immigration law is to be enforced, how are they supposed to do it if they're not allowed to find out if the person is a legal immigrant or not?

NTM

A good question, to which there is no easy answer. However in a state where 30% or so of the 'legal' population are hispanic, a certain amount of sensitivity is going to have to be applied.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

If you look closely, it’s been buried by the incoming tide of of foreign entities.

What you cannot see in the picture are the McCain Arizona condos that now have a beach front view after the collapse of California into the sea (as a result of all the "Drill baby drill" offshore oil rigs pumping out the oil and replacing the space created with less density sea water).

But how did the Statue get to Arizona? It was sold to McCain to provide a female running mate for 2012 that wouldn't be "Going Rogue" during his 2nd presidential campaign.

Overheal

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What you cannot see in the picture are the McCain Arizona condos that now have a beach front view after the collapse of California into the sea (as a result of all the "Drill baby drill" offshore oil rigs pumping out the oil and replacing the space created with less density sea water).

But how did the Statue get to Arizona? It was sold to McCain to provide a female running mate for 2012 that wouldn't be "Going Rogue" during his 2nd presidential campaign.

you killed the moment :pac:

back to the motto the French imposed upon us (joking, settle down):

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "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-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What you cannot see in the picture are the McCain Arizona condos that now have a beach front view after the collapse of California into the sea (as a result of all the "Drill baby drill" offshore oil rigs pumping out the oil and replacing the space created with less density sea water).

But how did the Statue get to Arizona? It was sold to McCain to provide a female running mate for 2012 that wouldn't be "Going Rogue" during his 2nd presidential campaign.

.

LOL!

Someone should have told poor old Al Gore. I see he just purchased an ocean front Montecito property in California. And I understand he spent $8,875,000 on the ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains. The Italian-style house also has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms. (One heck of a carbon footprint if you ask me.) Hmmmm, I thought Al was worried about the rising ocean levels. I guess when you’re full of that much sh_it, you need a lot of toilets.

Black Swan

Carcharodon wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can really defend this bill, even the majority of law enforcement are against it, the president has spoken out against it. It may not be outwardly racist but does promote profiling and this in turn will lead to very large sections of the population feeling discriminated against.

"Throughout the Famine (recessionary) years, nearly a million Irish (Mexicans) arrived in the United States. Famine (Recessionary) immigrants were the first big wave of poor refugees ever to arrive in the U.S. and Americans were simply overwhelmed. Upon arrival in America, the Irish (Mexicans) found the going to be quite tough. With no one to help them, they immediately settled into the lowest rung of society and waged a daily battle for survival."

Source: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/america.htm

IrishManSaipan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Throughout the Famine (recessionary) years, nearly a million Irish (Mexicans) arrived in the United States. Famine (Recessionary) immigrants were the first big wave of poor refugees ever to arrive in the U.S. and Americans were simply overwhelmed. Upon arrival in America, the Irish (Mexicans) found the going to be quite tough. With no one to help them, they immediately settled into the lowest rung of society and waged a daily battle for survival."

Source: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/america.htm

You are not comparing like with like. The Irish were legal immigrants, unlike the millions of illegal Mexicans.

Black Swan

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like. The Irish were legal immigrants, unlike the millions of illegal Mexicans.

Historical revisionism seems to be quite popular in these political times? Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty should be revised accordingly?

Overheal wrote: »

"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-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

IrishManSaipan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Historical revisionism seems to be quite popular in these political times? Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty should be revised accordingly?

Does America have an infinite capacity to absorb immigrants from the third world?

Amerika

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

Does America have an infinite capacity to absorb immigrants from the third world?

Why sure we do. Along with infinite amount of jobs, social programs, educational opportunities, housing, and health care. Well at least until the government runs out of other peoples money that is.

Overheal

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

Does America have an infinite capacity to absorb immigrants from the third world?

In Geographical terms yes, actually. But in a pure logistical and socioeconomic sense, the ability to process new immigrants is limited, as is the ability to keep check on which immigrants are here for the Dream or here to benefit from our social welfare programs, which may be limited by European Standards but in contrast to our friends across the border, quite a bit more progressive as I understand it.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here are the two issues I have with that statement.
1) Most Chiefs of Police/Sheriffs except in major metropolitan areas in the US are elected officials. There are a number of topics in which surveys of line officers and the 'California Association of Police Chiefs' (or whatever) are in contradiction of each other. Of course, the politicians and media listen to the Sheriffs/Chiefs, which is as it should be, but they are frequently a few echelons above reality or just following their own political ideas. A flaw in the American system, I fear.
2) If, as it seems is the case, the AZ law predominantly follows Federal law, the President's stated objections seem far more appearance than substance. Cue comment about politicians.



This is true, and it is entirely possible that some of the AZ legislature voted for it for just that reason. There is precedent. I think, however, it was mainly just done out of frustration that the Feds aren't doing their job and AZ needs to take their own measures.

NTM

I am not sure what to make of your first point but all I know is that large sections of the police department are against it for various reasons. I also heard that some part of the police organisation is suing the state because of the bill, not sure of the ins and outs of this or how true it is.

Well you may think the president is more appearance than substance but he is trying to push a bill through, obviously without Republican support but its a step in the right direction.

Broadly the bill proposals

1. More Border Patrol officers
2. More Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, worksite inspectors, document fraud investigators and drug-war agents
3. The "installation of high-tech ground sensors throughout the southern border and for equipping all border patrol officers with the technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling."
4. More prosecution of drug smuggling, human trafficking and unauthorized border crossing
5. "ncreases in the number of sport utility vehicles, helicopters, power boats, river boats, portable computers to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers while inside of a border patrol vehicle, night vision equipment, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS), scope trucks, and Mobile Surveillance Systems (MSS)."
6. All prisoners will be checked for immigration status and deported if found to lack documentation.
7. DHS will "identify, investigate, and initiate removal proceedings" against folks who came here legally but didn't leave.
8. The bill would create "a broad-based registration program that requires all illegal immigrants living in the U.S. to come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes."

Immigration is obviously a complex matter but people should really do a little reading on the history of America and the behavior of the government in South American countries.
Its amazing how people can be so judgmental about these illegals without knowing anything about why they come, how they come, how they live, how they are treated, what they provide for the US as well as their own countries.

There is a very good documentary called Wetback that gives a good insight into the journey to the US.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447544/

old_aussie

ET stay away from Arizona, or you no go home.

Gotta keep those pesky aliens out somehow.

LostinKildare

Memnoch wrote: »

Well, this is already the law in Ireland.

The police have the right to stop any "foreigner," and demand to see their Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) card. Foreigners are required to carry these at all times.

I don't think this is true -- the part about non-nationals being required to carry the card at all times. Yes you have to produce it if asked, but I think it's similar to the requirement to produce your driving licence if a gard stops you (i.e., it's ok if you don't have it on you on the spot)

I had a GNIB for a couple of years and was never told by the garda immigration officer that I had to carry it with me, and just quickly looking at the law, I don't see anywhere it says so. Please provide a link.

Exile 1798

I don't really follow immigration issues. My sense is that it's a very difficult situation for the US to deal with. At the end of the day all sovereign countries have the right to control their borders and immigration intakes.

What bothers me in the debate is the use of the revolting expression "illegal aliens" to describe illegal immigrants. It was obviously designed to dehumanise the people it describes.

How can it be that in politically correct America such a disgusting term of abuse can be used by all sides without compunction? This devious use of the English language is accepted with little thought. The term Orwellian is much misused, but this is a prime example of it in practice.

Manic Moran

Erm. It's the correct term. An alien is someone from somewhere else.

Main Entry: 1alien
Pronunciation: \ˈā-lē-ən, ˈāl-yən\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin alienus, from alius
Date: 14th century
1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign c : exotic

Resident aliens are legal immigrants. The "Green Card" is also known as the Alien Registration Receipt Card.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1333.html

NTM

Exile 1798

That's a nonsense justification that I've heard before.

Alien

1) Extraterrestrial being: a being from another planet or another part of the universe, especially in works of science fiction

2) Noncitizen resident of a country: a citizen of a country other than the one he or she is currently in.

3) Outsider: somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society

Synonyms: Unfamiliar, unknown, strange, foreign.

Words have multiple definitions. Calling illegal immigrants illegal aliens is clearly pejorative, clearly dehumanising.

Manic Moran

Well, I'm sorry if you don't like legitimate definition #2 in that list you sent up.

What do you call someone who is visiting but not immigrating? Legal non-immigrants? Or non-resident aliens?
(Clue: [url] http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html[/url])

Under US law (and standard usage of the words), all immigrants are aliens, not all aliens are immigrants. (Note that the definition is not confined to people either, for example, an alien corporation is one which is from outside the US)

NTM

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, I'm sorry if you don't like legitimate definition #2 in that list you sent up.

What do you call someone who is visiting but not immigrating? Legal non-immigrants? Or non-resident aliens?
(Clue: [url] http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html[/url])

Under US law (and standard usage of the words), all immigrants are aliens, not all aliens are immigrants. (Note that the definition is not confined to people either, for example, an alien corporation is one which is from outside the US)

NTM

A tourist ?

Manic Moran

Carcharodon wrote: »

A tourist ?

Tourist implies that you're visiting for pleasure.

Are you a tourist if you're on a summer work visa (J-1)?
If you're visiting for a business trip?
If you're attending a US university?

These are all legal, non-resident aliens.

NTM

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, I'm sorry if you don't like legitimate definition #2 in that list you sent up.

What do you call someone who is visiting but not immigrating? Legal non-immigrants? Or non-resident aliens?
(Clue: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html)

Under US law (and standard usage of the words), all immigrants are aliens, not all aliens are immigrants. (Note that the definition is not confined to people either, for example, an alien corporation is one which is from outside the US)

NTM

Permanent residents or visitors.

I could call you an ape and that would be technically correct. But we both know that it has other definitions and extremely negative connotations when applied to humans.

Outside of a legal and technical setting, illegal immigrants should referred to as illegal immigrants, not aliens.

Manic Moran

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Permanent residents or visitors.

I could call you an ape and that would be technically correct. But we both know that it has other definitions and extremely negative connotations when applied to humans.

It is also excessively broad and includes animals which are likely not the subject of discussion. Alien includes everyone from somewhere else, and nobody not from somewhere else, thus needs least refinement. It is the most accurate term.

Outside of a legal and technical setting, illegal immigrants should referred to as illegal immigrants, not aliens.

Well, I'm sorry if the appropriate term offends your sensibilities.

NTM

Exile 1798

Illegal immigrants is the appropriate term.

Manic Moran

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Illegal immigrants is the appropriate term.

No, it is not. It does not, for example, include illegal non-resident aliens who are not planning permanent stays in the US, such as those seasonal workers who come over for a short time (such as harvesting season), or those who cross the border for even less legal purposes such as drug-running, such as the lads who shot an AZ Deputy Sheriff two days ago. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_deputy_shot

The issue is border security at large, not only jobs and services.

NTM

southsiderosie

For the sake of clarification, here's a link to an op-ed that one of the architects of the immigration law published in the NY Times a few days ago.

I have not read the original text of the law itself, I've only read the coverage of it. I can't say that I am surprised, as the federal government has shown itself unwilling to enforce immigration law. They make it almost impossible for people who are trying to play by the rules (long waits for spousal approvals, 5-7 years backlog on paperwork for green cards), and they don't enforce the law against the people who throw the rules out the window. To make matters worse, when they do "crack down", they focus all of their attention on militarizing the border rather than cracking down on the employers who are hiring these people in the first place. Workplace enforcement is an absolute joke.

This is not to say that I am opposed to immigration. Frankly, I think it was idiotic for the US to enter NAFTA, allowing for free movement of goods and capital between the US and Mexico, without having a real discussion and clear guidelines for the movement of people as well. NAFTA agricultural reforms in Mexico have completely de-stabilized the rural population, and China's admittance to the WTO has killed textile manufacturing in the border regions. However, there has to be an immigration system in place that is timely, reflects economic realities on both sides of the border, and most importantly forces both workers and employers to RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW. The federal government's self-imposed impotence in this regard only opens the door to right-wing extremists like "Sheriff Joe", which then gives oxygen to left-wing radicals who would rather see limited border controls and blanket amnesty.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Tourist implies that you're visiting for pleasure.

Are you a tourist if you're on a summer work visa (J-1)?
If you're visiting for a business trip?
If you're attending a US university?

These are all legal, non-resident aliens.

NTM

This discussion on the labeling is a bit pedantic in my opinion, there is a bigger picture to look at, illegal aliens or immigrants, they get a raw deal. Reform is needed right across the board and the US has to re-examine its foreign policies.

Manic Moran

there is a bigger picture to look at, illegal aliens or immigrants, they get a raw deal.

Perhaps. What sort of a deal do people who enter a nation illegally deserve, in your opinion?

NTM