As always, great work by Annabel Park and Eric Byler. In addition to the video above, also see their YouTube channel with videos of PW County Chairman Corey Stewart and others. The goal of these videos, according to Annabel and Eric, is as follows:
Because of the timeliness of the immigration issue, we decided to create this real-time, interactive documentary page -- breaking with the usual documentary post production method that delays public feedback for months and months. We hope our YouTube videos can help alleviate the bitter fight in Prince William County and promote greater understanding and empathy.
Chairman Stewart 2: The Fight over the Fight
Corey Stewart seems to be skating on thin ice. PWC residents are receiving a large sized "NOTICE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION VOTE" reminder encouraging them to attend on October 16 or to be sure and call or email the Board with their views. Of course, he also conveniently gives his number and email as well. All at taxpayer expense. Can't say the board hasn't sent out reminders of votes previously, but none stand out. It's embarrassing to live here.
I agree that race has been unfortunately part of this debate, and that's why this issue has not been moved forward. I am half Latino and I just don't buy the argument that somehow illegals should be exempted from being held accountable for their immigration violations.
This section would significantly increase the civil penalties for hiring, recruiting, and referral
violations. For the first violation, it would establish a minimum penalty of $5,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom a violation occurred. For entities previously subject to cease and desist orders under this section, it would raise the minimum penalty to $5,000 and the maximum penalty to $10,000 for each offense. For entities previously subject to more than one such order, the minimum penalty would be raised to $25,000.The civil penalty levels for paperwork violations would also be significantly increased. Paperwork offenses, including failure to use the new verification system, would be subject to a minimum $1,000 penalty and maximum $25,000 penalty. This section also would establish a scheme for mitigating the penalty structure by reducing the amounts in question based on the size of the employer.
This section would increase dramatically the criminal penalties for entities engaged in a pattern or practice of hiring and employing unauthorized workers. It would raise the maximum fine from $3,000 to $50,000 for each unauthorized worker and would establish a minimum period of imprisonment of one year (the maximum period under current law is six months).
So where's the "argument that somehow illegals should be exempted from being held accountable for their immigration violations?" Certainly not from Ted Kennedy, a liberal Democrat. Who then?
Also, Arlington and Alexandria are completely gentrified. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the area north of route 50 or old town experienced what is happening in Manassas. Something tells me alot of attitudes would change.
As far as your larger point. Yes big business is partially to blame for this issue. At the same time the Democrats are literally tripping over themselves towards the illegals in an obvious attempt to pander and gain more votes.
Also, I'd point out that it was Karl Rove and George W. Bush who took the strongly pro-immigrant stance as a way of winning over Hispanic voters to the Republican Party. That strategy worked for a while, but it has now failed, not because of the Democrats, but because Hispanics have come to perceive the Republican Party (not Rove and Bush, but the majority of the party) as hostile to them. That's electoral suicide for Republicans, but if they want to do that I say go for it!
Democrats are becoming increasingly pro-illegal to gain votes/support within the Hispanic Community
Republicans are split but are in general more about enforcing the law and are anti-illegal immigration.
The choice is crystal clear to me. Pandering for votes, and rewarding illegal behavior or enforcing laws, providing a positive small business climate, and treating all legal residents equally.
Spell that out a little bit more clearly "truthseeker"?
Are you saying the "probable cause" standard for search and seizures should now be reduced to skin color, or the sound of some person's name?
Spell out what you mean here.
I don't have a problem with enforcing laws if the laws do in fact have some rational foundation. I do have problems though if the laws are arbitrary to begin with, and if the means for enforcing those arbitrary laws are unconstitutional.
*If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.
*You may not engage in business on Sundays, with the exception of almost every industry.
*Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
*Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars.
*Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary.
If he HAS violated any of these laws, I'd say we need to ask him, "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" Ha, isn't it fun when absolutists are confronted with a million shades of gray?
By the way, why isn't "truthseeker" enraged at all the companies out there that employ and exploit illegal immigrants? And, of course, I presume "truthseeker" has never patronized any of those establishments, never bought any agricultural goods, never had any landscaping done at his house, never had any construction done, etc., etc. As Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."
They were probably whining "what's the big deal" during Iran-Contra and during Watergate too.
The other side of this is say we weakened 4th and 14th amendment protections along the lines that "truthseeker" seems to be suggesting. I can guarantee you that these "BUT it's illegal!" folks would be whining about double-standards, and unfair treatment if cops started detaining them on their way to work every morning, and on their way home at night, when they take their kids to school. Maybe the cops even screw up and they ends up spending a night or two in jail. Oops. It's a pretty expensive form of police harassment, but that's exactly what this idea is all about. Not an especially smart solution.
First off my wife and two adopted sons are Peruvian and I am as proud of my family as any other American. My wife who went through the immigration process along with myself has worked in several businesses in the County and notes that not all but a large number of illegals don't care about this country's culture and feel they "so smart at bypassing many of the taxes" we pay. Virginia does not base it's revenue projections soley on sales taxes, but a variety of taxes from multiple sources.
As a nurse, I have seen how illegals are exploited, then in turn out of necessity in many cases exploit hospital systems, especially public health clinics and hospitals, and various social service agencies. It is a no win situation for the illegals and those around them. Living 20 people in a house is neither healthy for the household residents or the surrounding community. Unfortunatly do to many illegal immigrants status, this is how they are forced to live, and the landlords are preying on these folks.
Working in the Northern Virginia Healthcare system I have an opportunity to work with a wide variety of cultures and nationalities and myself have lived all over the world. I see many African Nurses and medical assistants who have to learn and do learn English. This goes for Asians and Europians, Middle Easterner's and Latin Americans. Those who come here to be "American" citizens learn English and adopt to the American way of life, as I had to adopt when I was in Germany, or would have to adopt should I go to Peru. It is only a small group from a few latino countries who feel they should be given carte blanche, and many legal latino immigrants have expressed there disdain for this small but vocal group.
The main group featured in this video, by their name alone should anger many. "Mexicans without Borders". That is a rip off of several fine organizations, and frankly it implies this group is entitled to a status and priviledge no one else would receive either here or should we seek to emmigrate to their countries. I have said this before try to emmigrate anywhere else in the world and you will find the immigration standards here are much less stringent then elsewhere.
Finally the effects on working Americans I have observed first hand and hadn't realized it until a few years ago when it was pointed out to me. In 1994-95 when I came to Northern Virginia to attend nursing school and lived in Reston, Va. It was a morning ritual to see the main traffic coming down Rt 7 from West Virginia to work construction here. That is no more and as a result in the past 10 years, unemployment has risen sharply there. Again that is in due part to greed from contractors who continue to pay lower skilled workers an even more substandard wage while construction costs skyrocket. It hurts everyone.
Finally one last thing needs to be clarified. Because you are south or central American it does not mean you are a different "race". Latino is not a racial term it is a cultural term. Look it up. If I am here legally be it as an immigrant, on a visa, or as a specialized worker, I'll have the documents that show I am here legally. Be it a drivers license, visa, passport whatever. If you are driving without a license you deserve to be locked up. If you are discovered to be here illegally because of that, idios amigo. Police have the right to question that status, the same as they have the right to question you or me should we be standing around where someone has just thrown a rock through a Jewlery Store's window. Neither one of us may have done it, wrong time, wrong place, but then should the police discover I am wanted in New York for robbery, my bad, I did wrong, just as you did wrong should you be found to be here illegally. Try to get out of that one in Mexico sometime.
Does it really help to throw out unverifiable stuff like "a large number of illegals don't care about this country's culture?" In fact, I would argue that an essential part of this country's culture is the very freedom not to care about it.
I agree that people ought not to be exploited and ought not to have to live in overcrowded houses. I don't agree that any of the local politicians' hot air about "illegals" will do anything to remedy these problems.
If it's only a "small group" that is the problem, why do we have to go after all 12 million undocumented persons?
If you think this country's relatively liberal immigration policies are better than other countries' policies, why do you want to lower us to their level?
I think the groups that anger you, like Mexicans Without Borders, wouldn't need to be quite so vocal if demagogues like Stewart weren't scapegoating disadvantaged people who have been cowed into fearful silence and can't speak up for themselves.
As to Mexicans without borders, they crossed the border knowingly and illegally. Send them back legally. To give them a speacial status over those who came here legally, went through the 5-7 year process, and paid their dues financially cheapens the history of the immigrants who came here legally and gives these scamers a status above the indigonous populace.
You do see the irony in this, given what you've posted above, do you not?
You do understand that Corey Stewart is willing sacrifice a whole lot of Liberty for a whole lot of people just to get a very little bit of security for a very few people?
I completely disagree with him. If everyone thought like that, Jefferson never would have declared Independence from England, Gandhi never would have liberated India, Rosa Parks wouldn't have inspired millions, and Dr. King wouldn't have brought equality to the United States. A regressive Government needs to see that when millions of people are benefitting from breaking the laws, the laws must be changed, not enforced. Some day, perhaps not soon, governments from the local to the federal level will realize the error in their judgement and provide for more liberal and free movement of people between countries. In the mean time: let illegal immigrants break the law.
Please don't take my comments too far. Some illegal immigrants (just like some US citizens) are criminals. They must be kept out of our country by law and force. I know a decent amount about this issue, and I first just want to thank God that I don't live near the border, because if I did I would be genuinely afraid of Coyotes, drug lords, and ruthless criminals whose tactics are indistinguishable from terrorism. Yes, we have the MS-13 in Falls Church and gangs exist all over the country, but for the most part, the folks up in Manassas are afraid of day laborors, not criminals.
Finally, I delight in the fact that my immigrant parents are 100 times better educated, nicer, wiser, and more tolerant than that fool who complained about the Spanish language at Lowe's.
"Let illegal immigrants break the law" ??
WTF?
As far as the economic impact goes, my understanding is that the picture is mixed.
When we're talking about stagnant wages for middle class families, this has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration. Illegals generally aren't competing head to head with people who are in jobs that require a high school degree or better, so this wouldn't create wage pressures -- at least not in high-skilled jobs.
Undocumented workers also didn't write the tax codes, and they aren't the ones who have sold unions down the river (e.g. two big factors in terms of increasing income inequality and the loss of bargaining power among the middle class).
In terms of congestion, if the local economy is creating jobs in places like NoVA, then you have more people moving to the area, which means you'll have more congestion.
The congestion that I've seen in NoVA over the past 30 or so years, isn't due to a bunch of "illegals," it's due to the fact that there has been a ton of economic growth in and around the DC area -- from hi tech industry boom to the growth of the federal bureaucracy to the growth of industries in support of the federal bureaucracy to the real estate boom.
The answer to that problem is to create fewer jobs in and around DC; give fewer tax incentives to businesses; make Virginia a less attractive place to do business; create crappier schools; provide inefficient social services; elect more Republicans.
For low-skilled workers, there are legitimate economic arguments against illegal immigration, but I have yet to hear a really good, convincing economic argument that justifies "rounding them all up". (This isn't taking into account the idea that you treat humans like human beings -- not like animals).
The largest part of the rebellion right now seems to be due in large part to cultural issues and racism. I can't tell you how many times I hear the argument "learn to speak English" or "they have Mexican flags on their car!" Those kind of arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the economic impact of illegal immigration. Those arguments are just plain racist.
1. ARGUMENT: Illegals are illegal, and the rule of law must be followed, no matter what the argument or appeal to humane feelings.
RESPONSE: How do you kick out a family or millions of families that, though illegal, were allowed to stay here for years, possibly paid taxes, worked always, and raised kids that were born here. The rule of law? In this God-fearing nation, where in hell is God's law (the New Testament God, not the Old)? Do we kick out long established people who minded/baby sat our kids from birth to I-POD and BMW ownership, who put on our new roof at a $4,000 better price than the arrogant roofer who came late for the estimate and said we should wait 2 months for job beginning, take it or leave it? Do we boot out the hamburger fryers, taco-turners, mopmen, fruit-pickers, dishwashers, chicken and livestock slaughterers and roadside laborers looking for a dayjob to earn an honest buck, and whom we hire gladly because we don't know what we'll get at a greatly higher price from Joe Blow Brothers , Contractor, Work Guaranteed (If you can catch me)?
We all contributed to this situation and the Republicans loved it as THEIR contributors raked in the dollars off the backs of illegals, with nary a complaint. Oh, except from Pete Wilson, the governor who was forced to provide services to illegals that stripped his California treasury, then was screwed by the Republican president (now beatified) who refused to fund the treasury he ordered Wilson to deplete.
2. ARGUMENT: Ship em all back.
RESPONSE: If you have an answer as to the mechanics of how this is to be done, let the shmuck who is our President know those mechanics. Then watch him veto it. Then watch Lou Dobbs shake his jowls in pretended righteous anger. You can start this process, sure, but watch how impossible it will be to carry through.
And, oh yeah, you on the law side--how is this supporting the Commander in Chief in wartime, he who must be obeyed or else we're soft on defense, crime, you name it? And will this tie up the court system forever, as appeals wend their way by the millions through our legal processes?
3. ARGUMENT: They must learn English or back they go.
RESPONSE: My grandparents didn't speak English but made a life here. Some of the Greenwich Village bakery shop owners I bought from, and Italian ice and sulemaria (sp.?) sellers didn't speak English but gave me a smile and the right change. And our President doesn't speak well English, but his childrens does. Listen to those morons on the red side of voting who call in to C-Span--they do speak a form of English but certainly don't think in English. But these examples are citizens, all, our country can accommodate them. If we can live through and financially support this Orwellian war, we can make room for 12,000,000 aliens we could not catch anyway.
4. ARGUMENT: They are affecting American wages by working for lower-than-current wages for the same jobs.
RESPONSE: What IS hurting wages is the outsourcing of jobs, another story in itself. You will not find replacements for these undocumented workers. Here are 4 examples that don't, by any means, prove a point, but are merely illustrative of my argument.
Example 1. A few years back the imported Jamaicans who pick our Virginia apple crop were replaced by DC residents who wanted that $400 a week that the Jamaicans were getting, for approximately a 7-week period (if memory serves). After a week or so, a hurried call was sent out to get the Jamaicans back, rush through their temporary-work paperwork, and get them picking, sincethe DC-ites weren't there to finish out the weeks of hard work. (This example is not meant to impugn DC people--it's hard physical work that must be steadily performed, and if you're not used to it, you'd quit also.)
Example 2. Because of crackdowns, the foreign workers who pick the meat out of our Maryland crabs fled the area. The crabs, hearing of this and refusing to die and be left with their meat rotting, refused to breed and also left the Bay. Thus, we now live with that tasteless drech we call Asian crabmeat; hidden on the Phillips labels is the area of origin, which, if you get a microscope, you'll see is Indonesia or some other Asian locale.
Example 3: Houses in our neighborhood of Northern VA were being built at a breakneck rate in 1986 to 1989. The work was so unbelievably bad that I could spend 2 pages just showing my list of needed repairs on my finished(?) home. Basement walls collapsed when it rained, kitchen bays collapsed, each side of large fireplaces were open to the outside (Yes!) and were left as supposedly completed, everything was off level--you get the picture. The owners were afraid to complain after the punch-out men who complete the repairs came to the house to see about the complaints; these were the exact same men who had erected the shoddy messes, and they truly were scary-looking enough and argumentative enough to the degree that housewives were afraid to argue with them, and gave up. Either their husbands completed some work, or their house remained in lousy shape.
Who were thes workers? Backwoods Pennsylvanians and Virginians who couldn't care less about their original work quality or repairs.
And who didn't get complaints--the roofers, Koreans who worked Saturdays, Sundays and holidays and did the only work that received no complaints. Were they illegal? Who gave a rat's ass?
Example 4. A black woman, an official of what Gov't office I forget, was talking about why we don't need illegals. I quote as I best remember since this occurred about 7 or 8 months ago. She said, "My mother picked cotton [or something] for years, and here I am a college graduate with a job in [the Chimp's] government. Americans CAN do the work, if we keep out the illegral migrants [or all migrants, I forget which]." I looked at this well-dressed black woman and could not imagine her, her children, or her grandchildren doing stoop labor, chopping tobacco ot cutting sugarcane. Yes, even if the wages were raised to a munificent $7.00 an hour, I couldn't imagine many Americans doing this.
Please, gov't workers in their tailored suits should refrain from telling us how Americans would stoop to pick peas for a living (if they still pick peas manually). The black woman didn't say how these pickers would travel from state to state, following the crop ripenings. Where would their transportation be? How could they afford anything with the wages they get, except living in extreme poverty with little or no medical care for them or their kids.
When people argue as if there is but one response to the issue of illegal aliens, they should be arguing that that response is the "book" response--don't we know how "illegal" is defined, in other words? But there are laws beyond the book response, laws that Americans should proudly state with flag or Bible at their side, and those are the law that Jesus would have for the unfortunate and the law that Americans who believe in fairness should have. I'll not quote Emma's words on the Statue of Liberty because it would be argued that her words apply to only legal immigrants. BUT, were she alive, I have no doubt she would have included in her words the illegals who have been here many years, as well as the recent arrivals who do a day's work for a day's pay.
We should argue both sides on this issue and come up with solutions that accord with the principles we say we believe in, those principles that would be swept aside by the windpower of Lou Dobbs' jowls as they oscillate wildly in our faces.
There's another question to consider too.
I've been reading a pretty eye-opening and frankly frightening book called "The Great War of Civilisation". It's written by Robert Fiske, a British war correspondent who has spent the better part of 30 decades covering the disaster area that is the Middle East.
One of the take aways from the book that I've gotten is that we are likely to be engaged in a very long, tough fight with radical Islamists. Decades of war within the region and pretty shoddy treatment by governments -- in many cases with U.S. support -- have definitely radicalized the region. It's made some tough hombres out of many of those who live in the region.
My question is: In this long fight, what kind of fighting force do WE want to have?
Suppose that someday we have a draft again rather than a pure volunteer army in another decade or two.
If you asked me, I'd want to have an army composed of folks who have proven their toughness by coming to this country at great personal risk and sacrifice. I would take these soldiers any day over border "patriots" who serve as a vigilante army of weekend warriors tracking down unarmed civilians on the U.S. border with Mexico.
Now maybe some people think these weekend warriors are tough. But frankly, I'd rather throw my lot in with the people on the other side who have undergone the risks to come here. They have the type of toughness that I would want in a fighting force.
We don't have the luxury of alienating 12,000,000 million people who by and large already contribute, work hard, and try to get by making an honest living. If I was thinking clearly about these issues, and not getting overly fixated on cultural issues, I would want to do my best to make sure that these folks are treated well, so that, if the time comes, we would know that we could count on their support -- that they would have some incentive to view our fight as theirs as well.
I think also of my great-grandparents -- immigrants from Germany and Italy who came to the country a little bit after the turn of the last century. My great-uncles had a tough life like most children of immigrants -- they worked in mills up in Connecticut. And even though my great-grandparents had faced their share of discrimination, when the time came their children, four of them -- fought willingly as Americans in WWII. They were willing to make a sacrifice for their new nation, and they were also tough as nails. I think about this, because I believe that we are likely headed for some very tough times in the decades ahead. We need more allies, not more enemies.
This issue skirts away from some of the more ordinary topics regarding economic and moral value. But these do strike me as another side of the coin that folks should be considering.
Do you really want to alienate 12 million hard working immigrants at this time in our history? Do we really want to squander America's already pretty bad reputation in this hemisphere just because we don't think a person speaks "English" well enough, or because they enjoy a culture that is not entirely our own, or because they didn't follow a "formal process" to get here -- even though they've otherwise been law-abiding citizens once in the country?
If a person says "yes, ship them away" I have to wonder -- really wonder about just how blinded they are by short-term thinking and prejudice. We need to find a way to make this immigration issue work. At this time in our history we don't want to create MORE enemies through callous, self-serving, irrational, and hate-based decision making.
It's certainly something to think about.
People like to say it's know nothings opposed to illegal immigration; that ignores a broad range of people from the left to the right with a strong middle component. But when ESL programs start muscling out AP classes, some people are going to ask tough questions. When huge sectors of the economy rely on the subsidy of not enforcing the law, it creates problems.
I don't have a problem with one time legalization of long term workers and people with families; but not as a band-aid that's going to have be re-applied 20 years from now.
I don't believe the federal government can legally require English as a condition of citizenship, although, if it can, I don't have any problem with this requirement. The idea of fees and penalties for back-taxes (when applicable) also make sense to me.
I can't over-emphasize how important it is for the U.S. to create allies and not enemies in this hemisphere. The way that we handle this issue will have a long-term impact on that question.
Thank you, also, to the interesting and intelligent points made by jsrutstein and JBTERP, and of course by Lowell and a few others. This is a very complex issue and there are pluses and minuses on every aspect--there's no place for jingoistic verbal garbage. We need to staple those Dobbsian jowls together, then argue sensibly.
All of us are against illegal immigration, but don't confuse lettuce pickers with the 9/11 guys; they used boxcutters, not tobacco cutters, and they didn't come from Mexico. And, we already destroyed the country responsible for 9/11: Iraq. Right, George?
Let's find some solutions that are like Fox news, "fair and balanced." And in the interim, let's stop harassing the guys that are and have been entrenched in our society for years, working for us. They are not traitors, for, as "Asinine Annie" Coulter says, liberals are. She didn't include my roofer, only me.
Thank you for all your comments, and it seems to me we agree on most things.
A great read nevertheless.
Why? Because Republicans -- like nativist demagogues from many countries and many eras -- conduct a kind of politics that requires scapegoats as an essential ingredient. Sometimes it's blacks (Nixon's Southern strategy, GHWB's Willie Horton commercial), sometimes it's liberal stereotypes (the Reagan era, etc.), sometimes it's gays (recent elections focused on anti-gay marriage referendums). But it's what the Madison Avenue leaders of the GOP use to whip up the raw emotions of their Main Street rank and file.
Immigration is big now because, after all the disastrous years of the Bush presidency, Repubs are dispirited and the party needs new scapegoats to excite their masses. So, blame illegal immigrants for every problem in society, from crime to traffic to ingrown toenails. Those links may all be as bogus as a Swift Boat allegation, but as long as they incite Republican mobs to vote, they will have served their purpose.
The democrats use the same strategy except instead of scapegoats its victimgoats
One of these days we will be able to actually debate the issues
Death to the haters that work for the "official party apperatus of both sides" (actually its time for the American people to wake up.. if we quit responding to the crap being sent out the politics will change... until then its the same old same old)
I'm also curious to get a clarification on your earlier comment.
You said that "Hispanics" should get use to racial profiling. And then you attacked Democrats for not wanting to support this "law".
How do you square that statement with the 14th and 4th amendments?
2. I invite you to actually Read the legislation being proposed (the legislation simply states if you commit a crime your immigration status will be checked) I humbly submit that if you don't support this you are pro-illegal
I would be interested in hearing a logical argument from someone who disagrees with the legislation as proposed.
P.S. once again the legislation does NOT permit people to randomly ask people for immigration status. A crime must have been committed first
At what point in the process is the person's immigration status checked? Is it upon being received for incarceration, or is it upon being questioned by the police, or perhaps when someone is considered a "suspect" or "person of interest?" It actually makes a big difference in the number and type of people that this legislation effects.
And most of the opposition to these kinds of policies are not with the over-all premise of the legislation, but in the ambiguity with which it can be implemented and the potential for abuse of due process.
If a person's immigration status is to be checked upon commission of a crime, as you suggest, that would mean essentially that a person's immigration status would not be checked until that person had been through a court proceeding and found GUILTY of having committed a crime.
My understanding is that the intent of this legislation is that immigration status will be checked for those individuals who come in contact with law enforcement authorities; that's very different than committing a crime.
Also, speeding is a crime, are we going to check the immigration status of individuals pulled over for speeding?
There is huge potential for abuse with this kind of legislation.
Its frustrating that I can't find a copy of the resolution
I'm not a lawyer but to my interpretation from the mainstream media press accounts the law would have immigration status checked at the point of police contact. A very important point is that someone could not be targeted for just looking like an illegal (whatever that is)
As far as abuse some on the left could bring this up but I personally trust the police over illegals. Even better legal residents of this country have nothing to fear from the legislation.
How exactly is that done? The legislation isn't clear.
Even with this conservative Supreme Court, this law would be struck down because it doesn't even pass the smell test (if a legal challenge even made it up to the Supreme Court).
The only feasible way that this legislation could pass muster is if the police made a policy of checking the immigration status of EVERY person that they detain for having "committed a crime". If the immigration status was checked for traffic violations only, perhaps they could specify that this should be done if a person's driver's license is not valid. This would be slightly less controversial, but might fare better against a legal challenge.
You throw out a ridiculous point saying that Democrats favor "illegal" behavior -- I raise the point that racial profiling is inconsistent with the 4th and 14th amendments; that it is unconstitutional -- something that courts have recognized as well. (If you understand the 4th and 14th amendments you'll understand exactly why that is).
What the hell does the line "if the police have probable cause to believe that a person is in violation of federal immigration law" MEAN from the proposed legislation. Spell that out exactly how that "probable cause" is supposed to be determined. Are they going to check the immigration status of EVERY person that they detain?
But the police, if they so want, will use the "probable cause to believe that the person is an illegal alien" rather easily, I suspect. Just as they do to justify their actions in other circumstances, as we often read.
Further, just as a D.A. can indict the proverbial "ham sandwich," so too I suspect they will easily get around the "probable cause..." wording to side with the arresting officer, again, if they so desire. And "if they so desire" will be based on the political climate of the area in which the police officials work.
But, the way that I'm reading the law it is saying that "probable cause" comes into play in reference to immigration status. In other words, these checks are a secondary measure applied in cases where a violation of the law may have occurred that doesn't necessarily have any relation to immigration law.
In a case such as that the law says that the officer's should use "probable cause" to check and see if a person is here in the U.S. legally. I see real problems here.
In a case where a person crosses the border at an area that is not a border check point, in the darkness of night, yeah, an officer would have more than reasonable grounds for assuming that a person is not here in the country legally.
In the case where a person lives in Prince William County, Virginia and has English that might be broken, or if they speak Spanish that's an entirely different case.
If you were looking at skin color too that would still be highly questionable. Both of these wouldn't even begin to approximate a legal standard of probable cause.
I realize that this argument may go completely over the head of someone like "truthseeker" who probably hasn't spent even an evening trying to understand what the U.S. Constitution really means, and how its mechanisms have worked in the past; but it matters to those of us who love, and have actually taken the time to understand why our Constitution is so important -- and why being faithful to it matters so much.
Racial profiling might be a convenient way of checking immigration status with the harassment potentially impacting only one legal group of American citizen -- but that by its very definition would be a pretty egregious Constitutional violation. A blatant violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection standard.
The only way that I could see a standard legally put into place is to have immigration status verified for EVERYONE who is detained for an alleged violation of the law. Very expensive, and probably not so smart, but at the very least something that might pass a Constitutional standard.