Arizona immigration law violates human rights, say UN experts

[kpete]

Source: Associated Press

GENEVA—Six U.N. human rights experts say a new law on illegal immigration in Arizona could violate international standards that are binding in the U.S.

The basic human rights regulations, signed by the U.S. and many other nations, include a rule against discrimination and one regarding the terms under which someone can be detained.

The experts say the law could result in potential discrimination against Mexicans, indigenous peoples and other minorities.

The law allows police to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. Critics in the U.S. say it allows police to engage in racial profiling.



Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/807615--arizona-immigration-law-violates-human-rights-say-un-experts

[elocs]

1. Generally international or UN standards are what the U.S. demand other nations be held to

while exempting ourselves. The opinions of the UN do not usually carry much weight with your average American citizen.

[activa8tr]

2. And that's the tragedy, isn't it? n/t

[happygoluckytoyou]

3. IN A RELATED STORY human rights expert in AZ asked for his papers, promptly put in jail as alien

[Wizard777]

4. Why is this any different than states with stop and identify laws?

There are 24 states with stop and identify laws. The stop can be initiated on as little as reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to be committed. Once you are stopped you can be required to identify yourself.

The Arizona law expands stop and identify to include proving citizenship. Frankly if someone is in this country illegally they are in the commission of a crime. Just as surely as someone in your house illegally is in the commission of a crime. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion someone is here illegally and therefore in the commission of a crime. Why shouldn't they be able to investigate that crime?

[amandabeech]

5. First pick up is a civil violation. nt

[Wizard777]

6. With a fine equal to the cost of their NEXT deportation.

Get the logistics going in our favor. Maybe the fine should be twice the cost of deportation. So for every illegal alien we deport. We can afford to deport two more. That'll really get the logistics going our way.

[amandabeech]

7. I'm not a big fan of illegal immigration, particularly with our jobs situation the way it is,

but I think that's a bit steep.

[Wizard777]

9. I have no problem with legal immigration.

We need to do that for the people that go to the trouble and expense to submit to our immigration process. It can be very expensive. I once knew a guy that came here on a medical visa from Africa. He was also trying to become a citizen. He had paid 20,000.00 over five years to an immigration lawyer and was no closer to becoming a citizen than the day he set foot off the plane. Even being here for medical necessity. He still had to endure deportation hearings and was almost deported several times. Once they were preparing to put him on the plane when his lawyer showed up with an injunction to stop his deportation. The only thing that kept him from being deported was his lawyers and doctors proving that deporting him back to Africa would be a death sentence. He was awaiting an organ transplant. They had to do that time and time again. So when I think of what he went through to come and stay here legally for medical necessity. Then see people coming here illegal and being allowed to stay for no other reason reason than they've made a shit hole of their homeland and like it better here. It infuriates me. I don't think it's steep at all when you consider what people pay to be here legally. Maybe it should be three times the cost of deportation?

[amandabeech]

18. I appreciate what you're saying.

I hope that the guy is okay.

See my response to Macoy, below.

[Macoy]

10. Good Idea Wizard77

I like your idea.

Figure out the fully burdened cost of deporting an illegal alien and fine their employer twice that amount. We would quickly raise all the funding needed to enforce the Federal laws already on the books. .......Maybe some of the surplus can go to retraining our unemployed or extending unemployment benefits?

Macoy

[amandabeech]

17. Fining the bejesus out of employers is much better. n/t

[Toucano]

11. You answer the question yourself.

"The Arizona law expands stop and identify to include proving citizenship."

That's how it's different.

Asking one to identify himself and asking that he "prove" his citizenship are different things.

While visiting Arizona and the officer stops you and asks you to prove your in the country legally, what document will you produce?

[Wizard777]

13. How about my drivers license?

That has my home address, the county and state I live in also. So what is wrong with expanding that by one more box to include USA? That would mean that I am an American Citizen and a citizen of my state. That can be proved with the same paper work you current submit. I was born in Baltimore, Maryland. That is in the United States so USA is added to my Address. Have we gone too far in asking citizens for home address, county and state?

[Toucano]

14. A drivers license is not a visa and does not convey legal resident status or citizenship

Maryland does not check immigration status when issuing a driver's license. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032703555.html

Living there doesn't prove to me you live there legally. Illegal immigrants also live there. You could be one of them.

A driver's license proves you passed a test and have permission to drive the class of vehicle for which it was issued.

It doesn't prove you were born in Maryland and not Toronto or Port au Prince.


So again...after this law takes effect, how will you prove to the Arizona official that you have the right to be there?

[Wizard777]

16. But it could be and should be. Also a State ID card should be exactly that.

Something that ID's you as a resident of the state.

Actually to get a drivers license in the state of Maryland you must prove that you are a resident of Maryland. Unfortunately our DMV does not check that. This has allowed much fraud by illegal aliens. But we have CASA here and they have some of our politicians shaking in their shoes. As a result to reclaim our political power from what is basically an illegal alien protection and advocacy group. We're ready to vote out any politician that even says CASA. We're giving furloughs to cops and fire fighters among other state employees. We have a 1 billion dollar deficit and CASA just got 2 million for a day laborer center. :grr: :nuke:

[Toucano]

19. That may be. But as it stands now, Arizona's "papers, please" law

is different from stop and identify laws.

A solution is needed but that law ain't it.

[Wizard777]

24. Yeah but how far is Papers Please from Real ID?

What's the difference between a cop asking someone to prove citizenship and a guy at the DMV asking you to prove citizenship to comply with Real ID?

[Toucano]

26. Because the guy at the DMV asks EVERY APPLICANT the SAME QUESTION.

White, brown, black, green...everyone gets the same treatment.

The patrol officer charged with enforcing "papers please" is told to investigate those whom he "suspects" are in violation of the law.

Who is he supposed to "suspect"?

A blond woman with a south Georgia accent?

A red-haired stout man with a Boston accent?

or a Black haired, brown skinned third-generation Mexican American?



Furthermore, when you go to the DMV you know what documents you have to present to comply with the requirements.

When you walk down the street to buy a quart of milk, you don't carry your passport and birth certificate because you have no reason to expect that someone will ask you to prove you have the right to be here.

Why should a non-white person have to walk to the corner store in fear of being stopped, arrested and harassed?


It is a law that cannot be enforced without the use of racial profiling.

Equal protection under the law...

EQUAL
 PROTECTION
  UNDER
   THE
    LAW.

[Zywiec]

21. Yes, Maryland does check status

Why post a link to an article in the Washington Post that's more than a year old?

A quick check of the MVA site provides the current and non-biased information.

http://www.mva.maryland.gov/DriverServ/Apply/LawfulPresence/requirements.htm

[Toucano]

22. Well, great!

Maryland has updated their requirements.

Is this retroactive?

Maybe you should read your own link:

Under the provisions of the new law, those individuals that currently hold a valid Maryland driver's license or identification card but cannot provide proof that they are in the United States legally will be allowed to renew their license or identification card until June 30, 2015.


So.

Old WaPost link or not, my point still stands.

It´s 2010 and I could produce a Maryland driver´s license and still not be legal to live and work in the United States.


I won´t even go into the verification of documents produced. Under these circumstances, it isn´t necessary, is it?

On edit:

The license is valid for 5 years so I could walk in on 6-29-2015 and get my license for another 5 years without documenting my legal status.

[Wizard777]

23. This is only a recent thing. That's just to conform to Real ID.

But we were originally dead set against it. At least our CASA loving politicians were. But when it came to the prospects of losing federal dollars. Even our CASA loving politicians folded real quick.

[EFerrari]

25. Because racial discrimination is illegal in this country.

[marshall]

8. What do they do in Arizona in a traffic stop when somebody doesn't have any ID at all?

I think the law is partly a reaction to the perception that cops are confused as to how to deal with folks who don't have any ID when the likely reason is that they are undocumented.

If somebody had a driver's license, they would be documented, wouldn't they?

[Toucano]

12. A drivers license is not a visa and does not convey legal resident status or citizenship

Utah, Washington, Hawaii and New Mexico issue drivers licenses without regard immigration status.

There may be more.

[marshall]

15. But it provides identification an officer can feed into the system to get more information

I recall the last time I was pulled over, the officer's radio was blaring out my name and address, taken I suppose from my license plate. They have access to a great amount of information that can be corroborated, but they have to have some kind of starting place.

Most states do require some kind of evidence of legal status, I think around ten to fifteen do not.

[Toucano]

20. Your car registration is also not proof of citizenship or legal residency.

All the officer is getting from the "system" is the information that's there.

An undocumented worker with a registered auto will also have their name and address come up on the system.

That doesn't mean you have a right to be here.

The DHS relaxed the requirement that states verify the documents used to procure a state ID because there is no practical mechanism to verify with the issuers the validity of documents proving the applicant's primary address .

At this time, the state can require whatever they like for registering a vehicle and issuing a driver's license. Until the can VERIFY the documents presented, it's pretty much bullshit.

The various states and local jurisdictions will have to participate in a vital statistics database with DHS and immigrations before this will change.