4um: Arizona immigration law could drive (Illegal Alien) Latinos out of state

Title: Arizona immigration law could drive (Illegal Alien) Latinos out of state
Source: The Arizona Republic
URL Source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep ... -migrants-leaving-arizona.html
Published: Apr 28, 2010
Author: Daniel González
Post Date: 2010-04-28 04:28:01 by hondo68
Keywords: Illegal, Alien, Invader, Criminals
Views: 3313
Comments: 295

Adriana Miranda, an undocumented immigrant, tearfully says she's leaving Arizona.

Her husband hasn't found steady work in a year. Then, on Friday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the tough anti-illegal-immigration law that will allow police to arrest illegal immigrants like her. It was the last straw. After seven years in Arizona, the family was moving.

"Yesterday, we sold our trailer," Miranda, 38, said between sobs. "We don't know exactly where. Another state."

Miranda is not alone. More than 100,000 undocumented immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years because of the bad economy and earlier enforcement crackdowns. Now, a new wave of Latinos is preparing to leave. And it isn't just illegal immigrants: Legal residents and U.S. citizens also say they will leave Arizona because they view the state as unfriendly to Hispanics.

Arizona's new immigration law is not so much about using local police to round up and deport as many of the estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in the state as possible, said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, it's about creating so much fear they will leave on their own.

The strategy is known as "attrition through enforcement," and it is a factor behind every one of the anti-illegal-immigration laws passed so far, said Kavanagh, a main supporter of the bill and a criminal-justice professor at Scottsdale Community College.

"That means that rather than conducting large-scale active roundups of illegal immigrants, our intention is to make Arizona a very uncomfortable place for them to be so they leave or never come here in the first place," he said. "So, rather than massive deportations, we are basically going to encourage them to leave on their own."

But Kavanagh said he is worried about legal immigrants and U.S. citizens also leaving.

"I'm concerned about legal residents who are unnecessarily leaving the state because they have bought into a lot of the misinformation about this bill," Kavanagh said.

Phoenix resident Javier Collazo, 18, a U.S. citizen who was born in California, said he is worried police may question him about his immigration status because of his appearance. He is also worried that he could be arrested under a provision of the law that makes it a crime to transport undocumented immigrants. His in-laws are undocumented, and so are several of his friends.

Kavanagh said legal residents and U.S. citizens have nothing to worry about. The law strictly prohibits racial profiling. And the transporting provision is aimed at human smugglers and other criminals, not people giving rides to undocumented relatives, he said.

"They should know that it prohibits racial profiling," Kavanagh said. "They should know that if they are transporting someone, even if they know the person is illegal, as long as they are not doing a separate illegal act, they are not going to get into trouble. They also should know that once by attrition or by enforcement we significantly reduce the number of illegals in this state, taxes are going to go down and crime is going to go down. So, it will be a better place to live for everybody."

How many Latinos may leave Arizona is unknown. But the state's economy, which has hit Latinos disproportionately hard, combined with the new law, has made living in Arizona intolerable, many Hispanics said this week.

The new law makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal papers and lets police question people about their immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally. An anti-smuggling provision makes it a crime to knowingly transport illegal immigrants.

Some immigrants said they are waiting to see if the law survives legal challenges before making a final decision. Others, like Miranda, are already packing their bags. Many said they will move to another state. Few said they will return to Mexico.

Not just illegal immigrants are leaving, and the sudden loss of large numbers of people could hurt the state's already dismal economy.

José Mendez, an economics professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, said the state's economic recovery could be hampered by the large-scale loss of workers. While wages may rise, the price of services "will definitely be higher," he said. Businesses, especially small ones that rely on those workers, will have a hard time expanding, Mendez added.

There may also be a loss of sales-tax revenue and even property-tax revenue, he said.

"They pay taxes every time they buy food at the 7-Eleven or when they buy gasoline," he said.

Mendez also said that, in the short term, undocumented immigrants tend to be a drain on public services because they have low-paying jobs and therefore pay little income taxes. But, in the long run, their U.S.-born children tend to offset those costs through higher-paying jobs and higher taxes.

"So on net, when you take those two, empirical studies have shown, they pay more in taxes than the value of services they receive," Mendez said.

State Sen. Richard Miranda, D-Tolleson, said the large-scale loss of people could hurt already fragile communities.

Miranda said he spent 2 1/2 hours Saturday walking through largely Latino neighborhoods in Maryvale and west Phoenix.

He said he met Latinos, Sikhs, Hindus, Filipinos and other people of color, the majority of them U.S. citizens.

"They are all really concerned about the new law," he said. "The stress and intimidation makes people fearful."

Phoenix resident Adamaris, a 22-year-old undocumented immigrant from Mexico, said she thinks many illegal immigrants will leave Arizona.

"The economy is already bad here, and now with this new law ...," she said. "No, we don't want to stay here."

Adamaris, who asked that her last name not be used because she is afraid of being deported, said she plans to wait two months to see if the law survives legal challenges before deciding whether to leave.

Glendale resident John Zavala, 32, was born in Mexico City but has lived in the United States most of his life. He is a legal resident of the United States and moved from Chicago to Phoenix in 2003 because he liked the weather.

But Zavala said he thinks the political climate in the state has turned inhospitable toward Latinos. If the hostility continues, Zavala said, he will leave Arizona.

"I always carry my green card," said Zavala, a computer-network analyst. "Until this point, I've never had to use it. But from now on, I guess I will." (1 image)

I see this as a symptom of a greater cancer in this country. A cancer that could be cured if we were to repatriate every last illegal alien felon to their home country.

I don't give a damn if a person comes here legally. If they come here illegally and are rewarded for it, then that's when I have a problem. She's complaining because her illegal alien husband can't find work? Well how about getting a fucking green card, or maybe try being a citizen?

I expect illegals will congregate in one or two states and pull a mass Reconquista on us, all under consular leadership.

My bet is it will be CA, not AZ or NM or TX. I think they know better than to test Texas again. And NM isn't rich enough a property.

Court: If police ask, you must give your name

The high court rules 5 to 4 that officers can arrest people who won't reveal their identity.

WASHINGTON

US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police.

In what may become a major boost to US law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts, the US Supreme Court Monday upheld a Nevada law that makes it a criminal offense for anyone suspected of wrongdoing to refuse to identify himself to police.

Civil libertarians see the decision as a significant setback. And it remains unclear to what extent it may open the door to the issuing of national identification cards or widespread identity operations keyed to terrorist profiling at bus terminals, train stations, sports stadiums, and on city streets.

"It's a green light to explore the bounds of how much personal information can be demanded on pain of arrest," says Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute in Washington. "It also gives a green light to perhaps the Congress to move with a national law."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, says the decision has clear implications for the war on terror.

"We know identification continues to be one of the key demands of government agencies involved in homeland security," he says. "[This decision] - depending on how broad it is - could open the door to new demands for identification."

The ruling marks the first time the nation's highest court has endorsed a provision compelling citizens to reveal information in a citizen-police encounter that may become a police investigation.

The 5-to-4 decision says that neither the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self- incrimination bars states from passing laws requiring citizens to identify themselves.

In effect, the majority justices say that in most cases it is no significant intrusion for police to request - and a suspect to provide - his name.

"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."

Justice Kennedy adds that if a case arises in which the furnished identity provides a key link leading to the conviction of the individual for a different crime, the court will revisit the issue.

Joining Justice Kennedy's majority opinion were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens says the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination must always shield a criminal suspect who is being questioned by police. Since police may only request the name of someone they find suspicious (under the upheld Nevada statute), that person is by definition a criminal suspect who may not be compelled to make statements that might incriminate him, Justice Stevens says.

"The court reasons that we should not assume the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him," Justice Stevens writes. "But why else would an officer ask for it?"

Stevens adds, "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about a person particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases."

The decision stems from the case of Larry Hiibel, who was arrested in May 2000 after he refused a deputy sheriff's repeated demand that he produce some form of identification.

The encounter took place at the side of a road in Humboldt County, Nev. The deputy had received a report of a man striking a woman in a pickup truck. When the deputy arrived at the scene, Mr. Hiibel was standing outside a pickup truck that was parked on the shoulder of the road. His daughter was sitting inside the truck.

The deputy asked Hiibel 11 times to produce identification. Hiibel repeatedly refused, saying he'd done nothing wrong. The deputy placed him under arrest in accord with a Nevada law that permits police to detain criminal suspects for up to 60 minutes to compel them to identify themselves.

Hiibel refused to comply. He was charged and convicted of violating the mandatory identity law, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. His conviction was affirmed by a state appeals court and the Nevada Supreme Court.

In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.

• Linda Feldmann contributed to this report.

It's been law since 2004. What are these Illegal lovers sobbing about? Aren't they taxed enough, or is it they want a polyglot America for their white kids? (See White Guilt)

GD, please tell us all again about all those hard working illegals you see in Texas every day? I love that one :P

To me, all people are treated the same. If they are hard working, and decent folks I give them all the due respect they deserve. If they are dirt bags stealing and involved in drugs or abusing others, it doesn't matter what color they are, I treat them like the assholes they are.

Since the vast majority of illegals are Hispanic..the vast majority of illegals in AZ are Hispanic...what's to profile?? We know what/who they are and look like...the only question is did they or did they not commit a crime or traffic infraction that resulted in being asked about their legal status.

Please don't omit the bold type when referencing the law since that is the part the leftist are spinning.

I don't see any point in your question. if someone gets stopped for an infraction, or is questioned or detained as the suspect in a crime, their ethnic background or color is immaterial.

If the driver has no ID when stopped for an infraction, this law allows the officer to see if he/she is here legally. It seems reasonable to me considering the illegals have border states like AZ in red ink as far as the eye can see thanks to their propensity to gobble up social programs meant for Americans. I pray this issue explodes, and should we meet in the street, we will be enemies.

The law has ad intent and and needs to go. It flies in the face of the American standard for equal justice under the law.

If it goes to the street I am in Oregon, and you are about three thousand miles from me. Also I may disagree with people on a topic, but I never make anyone my enemy over such a thing; grow up.

My Grandfather came to America. He had to go through Ellis Island. He was not given any preferential treatment. He had his own money and was able to support himself from DAY ONE. He had to learn English, and went on to become a CITIZEN. He had to obey the laws, and pay taxes.

Now... When it comes to illegal immigration, those who are here illegally, are being rewarded for breaking our laws. Why is it okay for the illegals from our southern neighbors to break the law, while my grandfather who came from Europe had to obey the law?

That in of itself is a double standard. One set of rules for one racial group, and another set of rules for another.

This law was written broadly so that EVERYONE who does not have ID, can be looked over to check their legal status. If I drove in Arizona, as a white person, and got pulled over with no ID, they'd run my legal status the same as anyone else.

Free speech here sometimes seems to mean that if you disagree with the group think, you are subject to being called a race traitor, a communist and worse. Communist roots? Go fuck yourself, asshole.

I've never been a 'collectivist.' Communism is taking everyone's shit and putting a few assholes in control and ownership of it. It is a failure of an economic model, and as I see it, unless you are conservative and hate the right people and prefer some people over others on the basis of race and ethnic back ground, some people here don't want you to enjoy free speech.

You don't want lively debate on the issue, you just want to vilify and try to bully as if the First amendment is moot, you have the problem, I do not. By the way; I didn't have to go from being a support troop crewing helicopters to combat arms with worse hours, heavier load, more walking and stress; none of that. I did it because I care for this country and believe in it.

And I ask nothing for that, no pat on the back, no accolades for that decision, just consideration for showing I cared and still do, that's all.

And you know what is even crazier; if things really went 'Red Dawn,' I would drop everything and do every damn thing I could to defend the homeland. So maybe that makes me crazy as hell, but one damn thing for sure is I don't like communism, and I consider the oppression of corporate control of the government every bit as bad as that nasty way of doing things is.

Am I right on everything I believe? No human ever is, they just do the damn best they can as a flawed and imperfect being in a flawed and imperfect world.

If you don't like what I say, use your bozo and don't post to me. If you can't handle disagreement, that is your problem, not mine.

Um yeah. Now about that equality under the law thing you brought up. How come there's one set of laws for some people, and another set of laws for the lawbreaking felon illegals coming in from the south?

I do like free speech. I like lively debate. What I don't like is intellectual dishonesty.

After the U.S. Government stole and murdered in the 1830s Trail of Tears relocation of Southeastern Native Americans, they lost all moral authority to act like they are better then illegal immigrants from the south.

It is a problem that should be addressed with a fair amnesty that requires accountability and deny people with mental and legal problems from entering or staying.

But I don't find this a point of outrage considering we have no room to pretend we have the moral edge in the issue.

I have no problem with people staying if there is an amnesty, and they meet the requirements. My opinion is in no way changing on this.

I believe it would if you or someone you knew became a statistic of Illegal Alien Crime.

You see, 3 years ago, my place of business was broken into. Nearly everything of value stolen. Tools, you name it. Guess who was responsible? Illegal Alien Day Laborers that the building maintenance people hired to fix some pipes in the basement. My place of business was on the 4th floor.

2 years ago, I was in a car accident. An illegal alien hit my vehicle while I was parked in a parking lot. He was drunk as well. Guess who got to pay for the deductible? Me.

3 weeks ago, illegal alien day laborers broke into my garage looking for tools to steal. There was nothing. They were arrested 2 days ago after being caught breaking into a garage up the block.

Now, if these scumbags were to tear up your property, steal your stuff, rape your wife daughter or sister, your mind would change pretty fucking quickly Mike.

I used to be fairly tolerant of people coming to this country. I am no longer tolerant, and why? Because in addition to all the repairs and insurance premiums these assholes have cost me, my tax dollars subsidize their fucking welfare too.

I have a real problem rewarding people for criminal behavior don't you? Because it's not about a Moral Issue. It's a LEGAL issue. Which is where your line of thinking is completely in error.

To Mike anyone that does not agree with him is a racist, bigot etc etc. He is unable to look beyond his own personal lifestyle and thus applies it to everyone else.

Inaccurate. If you use race or ethnic background to steal the social standing and well being of an individual or group of people, you are being a bigot.

I am human, thus it is impossible to always be right, but in this case I see this as a break down in communication where something is getting lost in the translation.

I just don't judge people by the color of their skin, or their ethnic background. For example, unless my nose is rubbed in it for what to me is an exercise in obsessive compulsive behavior that has no point to it, I just see Barrack Obama, the man who worked long and hard to get elected as president and succeeded.

I don't care what country his Dad came from. I don't care that his Mom was a white leftist, or that he was born in Hawaii. I really and honestly truly just don't care.

He is a man with his faults and graces, and he brings good and bad with him to his job.

I have lived in cities like Fayetteville, North Carolina, and real close to New Haven, Connecticut as well as my beloved home of Eugene, Oregon, and I really wish Eugene had more diversity, as the mix of national backgrounds and different sorts of people from all over the world are pluses Fayetteville and New Have have over Eugene we sure could use.

We are almost completely Euro ethnic, and I am here to tell you, it has it's drawbacks. You might like the drabness and consider it nessessary cultural stability, but in my opinion that makes things oppressively boring, boring boring. You I am sure disagree, but this falls under the auspices of difference of opinion, not willful dishonesty.

Subjective views are different from dishonesty, and sharing them make the world more interesting and fun to be in. That's my take on this. In any event, thanks for sharing.