Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law
npr.org
npr.org
Edit: ^ work at a big tech company? A decent percentage of the janitors and cooks are illegal (and, for the record, are not just Hispanic)
Edit2: ^^Including themselves--because they do.
edit3: (sorry I was on my smartphone before). If the supply of jobs for illegal immigrants goes down, so does their influx. It's true in the US--and it's true in Europe and it's true in Asia: http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1247156221.99/ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/01/93137/recession-enforc...
But then, of course, in a global economy, cutting the influx of illegal immigrants (and immigration in general) would lead to more jobs shipped north/south/overseas.
So in the end, many of these legislators are really just pandering and contributing to the fear-mongering here and everywhere as people are, in many cases, naturally xenophobic.
That will give the workers an upper hand and would prevent them from being taken advantage of. Now the employer can live in fear of being exposed.
I have one idea how to get employers to help - offer them amnesty against both penalties and racial discrimination lawsuits if they turn in their illegal workers. We can even reduce disruption to the business by replacing the illegal workers with (currently) unemployed Americans.
I.e., to replace an illegal, select an American currently receiving unemployment. Tell the American that a job has been found for him and terminate his unemployment benefits. We kill two birds with one stone this way.
It is much more than that.
If you're a US citizen and you're not carrying proof of citizenship, you could get thrown in jail for not having your "papers".
Now, I'm sure many citizens feel that their accent or their skin color or some other attribute protects them from sent to jail and that they don't need to carry their papers with them. However, if a cop thinks that you might be a Canadian, they could throw you in jail for not proving otherwise. .
* http://www.care2.com/causes/human-rights/blog/mentally-disab...
* http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/report_hundre...
You may notice a common trend among those wrongly deported: they're most often mentally disabled and non-white. It makes the news if and when their family discovers what happened to them. You don't have a right to an attorney if accused of immigration violations (even if you are a US citizen).
I don't believe that a native-born US citizen can be stripped of their citizenship via any means. However, there are ways for naturalized citizens (those born elsewhere who successfully apply for US citizenship) to be stripped of that citizenship after the fact. This usually happens if they lie on their application (and that is the reason they ask questions like "Are you a terrorist?" on that application). There's a discussion of how that works here:
While I don't think that the analysis and worries of "papers please" regarding the Arizona law is wrong (I'm a firm believer in sunlight), I'm not seeing, 6 months in, where the doom and gloom is still coming from. They've revised the laws to remove some of the ambiguities, and I still haven't seen evidence of citizens being throw in jail, nor any onerous requirements on immigrants besides what is defined in Title 9 of the Federal laws.
The big argument today, which the Feds are suing for, seems to be that the state law preempts something which is clearly defined at the Federal level (the aforementioned Title 9). I can understand that particular argument, even if I think it's relatively ridiculous to make (the Feds have had a hard time enforcing the law there, especially in border states where the drug war is bringing more and more criminal elements into the area).
What it will do is overwork ICE, an agency that tries to focus its few resources in deporting dangerous criminals (rather than people who overstayed a visa). Given that ICE is nothing but a cost center as far as politicians are concerned, we can already see what is happening when things are done in a cut-rate manner. This will only continue.
Coupled with that is that Arizona's largest county has right now a publicly-elected sheriff (an election I'm inclined to believe should be removed), who for the last decade or so has conducted immigration raids that grabbed headlines during election season. Said sheriff is also currently under federal investigation (he was under investigation long before Obama came to power, incidentally). This is not a good mix.
While I can sympathize with those who want ICE to do a better job, or who want our immigration laws enforced, I think that comprehensive reform is needed before those laws will be enforceable.
That said, I sincerely wish you'd remove the word "amnesty" from your vocabulary. It's a stop word, just like "Republican", "Democrat" and "terrorist." People see those words and they stop thinking and start getting upset.
It so happens that I'm none of those things, if that helps you any.
Unfortunately, until we can get some actual leadership who cares about real immigration issues, rather than the politicized "opportunities" that the two-party system we have right now sees it as, the border states (and even states farther north of the border, such as my home state of WA) are still hurting. What is their option right now other than trying to deal with the problem themselves?
Please note - I'm not referring to the people themselves as the problem, but rather the burden that a massive influx of non-tax-paying individuals put on public infrastructure, and the unfortunate criminal element that has also come across a s a combined result of non-enforcement and the drug war.
...if you are lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested, you may be held until your immigration status is verified. I don't see why this is a big deal. There is no grand scheme to sweep the countryside and round up everyone with brown skin or a Canadian accent.
It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.
It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.
It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.
"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"
This isn't just about illegal immigrants, this is about corporations that get legislation passed for their own financial gain. Granted this happens all the time, but this is so blatantly targeted towards people who have little or no defense. The potential for abuse is obvious. We've already had a U.S. judge busted for receiving kick-backs for sending juveniles to a youth facility. The US already has one of the largest prison populations in the world. This is a crime against humanity in the making.
We should be afraid.
They are therefor motivated to do everything they can to increase incarceration rates to create demand for their services of imprisonment. This article illustrates that pretty clearly. It also creates situations like the corrupt judge/private prison kickback scheme in Pennsylvania recently.(1)
We don't need profit-driven companies who profit from increased rates of incarceration, they have no reason to really rehabilitate people - they want them back in the system ASAP.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=2&h...
In fact, organizations like prison guard unions have stronger motives than multiple private prison corporations. A non-monopolistic prison corporation could easily let their competitors waste money on lobbying and reap the benefits, so any prison corp with small market share has no motive to lobby. The prison guard union reaps all the benefits since they have 100% market share.
I happen to think that you're both right. I'd rather not see union-owned or for-profit private prisons due and I'm not convinced that we really have to choose one or the other.
I see nothing unreasonable about wanting to make sure that the profit motive is aligned with out best interests. Conveniently, HN has an article that addresses that very subject:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/09/129757852/pop-quiz...
As Tabarrok concludes, "A good social order aligns self-interest with social interest."
Agreed. But perhaps the problem is not with the privitization generally, but the contract the company operates under. It appears to provide the wrong incentives.
> ... they have no reason to really rehabilitate people - they want them back in the system ASAP.
I suppose so. But then has any prison system, anywhere, had significant success with rehabilitation? Is it even possible, for all but a small fraction of prisoners? (Not rhetorical questions.)
Right. Change the incentives so they get money if the prisoners are healthy on discharge, and also so that they get money for non-recividism (e.g. each prisoner not rearrested gives the prison some bonus).
The prison business has had some curious effects elsewhere a judge went to jail up around Scranton for abusing his power to send kids to jail for offenses that ordinarily might've rated probation before judgment; he was compensated by the company that ran juvenile prisons up there.
The idea of "papers please" is reprehensible, but where is the anger at the federal border patrol checkpoints between AZ and CA? An AZ cop asking for a drivers license during a traffic stop is supposedly "draconian fascist evil", but stopping people for no reason driving between two states is considered ok?
Imagine that after 9/11 the rest of the country said "good luck dealing with that terrorism problem NY. We're going to put checkpoints up to make sure those problems stay in your state and not ours."