Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Arizona to DHS: No REAL ID, and we mean it!

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Arizona to DHS: No REAL ID, and we mean it!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 28, 2010, 5:34 pm
  #121  
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
Originally Posted by pmocek
Wrong. There's no such thing as a job Americans won't do. If you offer sufficient pay, people will line up around the block for a job. If you don't offer enough pay, then people won't take the job.
.
Well, looking at the people in the fields here, even in the 120 degree sun, I see a lack of people appearing to be Anglo. The farms dont pay $30.00 an hour, but I am sure the wage is over the legal minimum.

I dont see anyone lining up to work that were born in Kansas. So should the farms crank up their pay to meet a "US Citizens" standard? Are you willing to pay the increased price for your groceries?

I see guys busting their ... in the same heat shoveling landscape rock into wheelbarrows and hauling that to someones yard. Im not talking about one or two tons. Seeing 10 to 15 tons of rock dumped in front of a house is not at all uncommon here. My house had 30 tons. Any of those caucasion? Nope.

Landscaping sucks here in the summer. Very, very few of those are caucasion. You dont think that all these guys born in Indiana are lined up to get a job, but they give the jobs to guys from Michoacan ?

I support the person who said just what it is, the jobs are pretty crappy, and those of us woh are considered caucasion and born here would do anything to avoid them. Guys from South of the border who have it MUCH worse there take the jobs and do what they need to so they can work.

Unfortunately for them, they are illegal, and use fraudulent documents to obtain that employment.
SpaceCoastBill is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 5:37 pm
  #122  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Even under 287(g), state/county/local LEOs are not given the authority to determine citizenship status. Try again.
Perhaps you could elaborate since that's not my understanding of the program.

[I]Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was made law in the United States in 1995 as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.[/I]
TerminalBliss is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 5:43 pm
  #123  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Given the popularly-elected officials of AZ have enacted a law reminiscent of apartheid-era South Africa, the feeling is understandable.

All of my discretionary trips to AZ are being put on ice until this law is struck down.
I really don't understand the uproar over this entire issue, since at first glance it seems that the authorities granted by this legislation for the most part mirror those that have been in place for decades granted to Fed LEOs tasked with immigration enforcement. Moreover, what seems to be the angst over LEOs establishing reasonable suspicion of illegal alienage without illegally profiling? BP/CPB/ICE has been rather successful in this regard for generations.

TB
TerminalBliss is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 6:25 pm
  #124  
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
Precisely correct.

What does it matter if its special agent X arresting them instead of police offcer Y ?

I think everyone should stop going to the extreme of worst case scenarios and throwing out earth ending predictions.

Since the law is nothing new, just authorized for moew LEO's, I dont see any real big deal in it.

The only part I dont think is appropriate is this:

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.


So you dont think XYZ police department is enforcing the immigration policy enough ?? Sue em!
SpaceCoastBill is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 6:31 pm
  #125  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
Perhaps you could elaborate since that's not my understanding of the program.

[I]Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was made law in the United States in 1995 as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.[/I]
The 4 weeks of the government paid "training" program in South Carolina required for a state/county/local LEO to become a JEO/TFO operating under a 287(g) MOA does not enable such persons to determine citizenship status.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 6:35 pm
  #126  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
inquiry with AZ Board of Tourism re: documentation requirements for visitors

Originally Posted by cparekh
I come from a family that is brown-skinned. I was born in the US, and much of the rest of my family are naturalized US citizen. [...]

I would never think to carry a passport in my own country. I "sound" and "act" American, so perhaps no problem for me. What about my parents? They have accents. What about my grandmother, who would not even be able to ANSWER questions without a translator? Must she now carry a passport in AZ?
Great questions. I tried to find out for you, but was unable to do so. I searched the Web for "Arizona tourism" and found the Web site of the Arizona Board of Tourism. There is no contact information provided on the site. On their site map I spotted an Identification Requirements page, and on that page there is a section titled, "What type of documentation is needed to travel to and throughout Arizona?", but in that section, there is no mention of any requirements, only the following:

What type of documentation is needed to travel to and throughout Arizona?

According to the bill, the following items are acceptable forms of identification:
  1. Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
  2. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
  3. A valid passport.
  4. A valid Arizona driver license.
  5. A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.

For more information about this issue, or to provide feedback, please visit http://azgovernor.gov/. For detailed information on the bill, visit the Arizona Legislature's SB1070 page.
So I used their "live chat" system to ask where to find contact information and about requirements for documentation:

General Info
Chat Start Time: 04/28/2010 10:32:54 AM
Chat End Time: 04/28/2010 10:53:25 AM
Chat URL: http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-travel-info/faqs
Referer URL: http://www.google.com/search?q=arizona tourism board&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
Name: Visitor
Email:
Phone:
Initial Question:

Chat Transcript
[Julio] Hi, I'm Julio. How may I help you?
[Visitor] Where on the Arizona Office of Tourism Web site can I find contact information for the Arizona Office of Tourism? The word "contact" is not used on the home page at http://www.arizonaguide.com/. There is no contact page at the typical location, http://www.arizonaguide.com/contact. The site map at http://www.arizonaguide.com/site-map does not include the word "contact". I'm stumped.
[Julio] One minute please while I work on this for you.
[Visitor] Okay, thank you.
[Julio] http://azot.gov/section.aspx?sid=13&psid=0
[Julio] Its located on the bottom right hand corner under azot.gov
[Visitor] Where would I find a link to that page on http://arizonaguide.com/?
[Julio] http://arizonaguide.com/
[Visitor] Yes, that's the site I was looking at. Is there any link to AZOT contact information on that site?
[Julio] yes its located on the bottom right corner of the arizonaguide.com
[Visitor] What text is linked? I was looking for "contact" and have not found it.
[Visitor] Or are you suggesting that visitors to the site who wish to contact someone would recognize "AZOT.gov", follow that link, then search for contact information?
[Julio] Yes , I do apologize its not clear.
[Visitor] So there's no link to contact information on this site, just one to the home page for the AZOT.gov site, right?
[Julio] Correct the contact list for arizonaguide.com is under the AZOT.gov website.
[Visitor] Okay, thanks. Also, on the Arizona Office of Tourism Web site at http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-...n-requirements, there is a section with the following heading: "What type of documentation is needed to travel to and throughout Arizona?", but the information that follows does not answer the question, instead stating, "According to the bill, the following items are acceptable forms of identification:" then listing acceptable forms. There's nothing there about what documentation is required. What documentation is required?
[Visitor] I don't want to know what's acceptable, I want to know what's required.
[Maria_K] For more information on this subject you can contact Kiva Couchon (pronounced "coo shawn") her contact information is [email protected] or 602-364-3724.
[Visitor] Can you tell me what documentation is needed in order to travel to and throughout Arizona?
[Visitor] Also, what is Ms. Couchon's position?
[Maria_K] http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-...n-requirements
[Visitor] As I stated above, on the page you referenced, http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-...n-requirements, there is a section with the following heading: "What type of documentation is needed to travel to and throughout Arizona?", but the information that follows does not answer the question, instead stating, "According to the bill, the following items are acceptable forms of identification:" then listing acceptable forms. There's nothing there about what documentation is required. What documentation is required?
[Visitor] I'm not asking what is acceptable, I'm asking what is required. Can either of you tell me? Also, what is Ms. Couchon's position?
[Maria_K] There is no required documentation...... as long as you can provide one of the items listed then you'll be fine
[Maria_K] Kiva is the Communications Manager
[Maria_K] Communications and Community Development
[Maria_K] If you have any other questions please contact Kiva she will be able to better assist you
[Visitor] What happens if I cannot provide one of the items listed (i.e., what in this context does it mean to not be fine)? To whom, and under what circumstances, must I provide one of the listed items?
[Maria_K] Please contact Kiva.
[Maria_K] Thank you for contacting the Arizona Office of Tourism. Have a nice day.
While I was typing a response, they disconnected me. I'm a fast typist, and their system showed me when they were typing, so it's reasonable to assume that they knew I was responding.

I then e-mailed Kiva Couchon, the woman to whom Maria K. referred me, along with someone who seems to be her superior:

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:10:26 -0700
From: Phil Mocek
To: Kiva Couchon - Arizona Board of Tourism Communications and Community Development Manager <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura French - Arizona Board of Tourism Communications and Community Development Director <[email protected]>
Subject: document requirements for AZ visitors: AZOT live chat refused to answer, then disconnected me

Ms. Couchon:

Today, I attempted to locate contact information for AZOT and information about documentation requirements for Arizona visitors on the Arizona Board of Tourism Web site. Unable to do so, I used your live chat service to request assistance.

During the live chat, Julio informed me that there is no contact information on your Web site and referred me to another site where I could find it. When I asked about documentation requirements, Maria K. repeated what I had already read on your Web site and quoted to both her and Julio, told me that no documents are required, said that if I had one of the "acceptable forms of identification" I would "be fine" (implying that if I do not, I will not be fine), asked me to contact you, then hung up on me.

A copy of the transcript as mailed to me by your service is attached and included inline below. Can you provide the information I requested from Julio and Maria K.?

-------- begin included text -------------------------------------
[removed; same as quoted above in FT thread]
-------- end included text ---------------------------------------

--
Phil Mocek
Seattle, WA
I've not yet received a response. When I do, I'll publish it here.
pmocek is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 6:42 pm
  #127  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
I really don't understand the uproar over this entire issue, since at first glance it seems that the authorities granted by this legislation for the most part mirror those that have been in place for decades granted to Fed LEOs tasked with immigration enforcement. Moreover, what seems to be the angst over LEOs establishing reasonable suspicion of illegal alienage without illegally profiling? BP/CPB/ICE has been rather successful in this regard for generations.

TB
1. AZ is not allowed to create its own immigration law since that is the federal government's domain, yet what AZ has done is create its own immigration law.

2. This law is a make-the-racists-happy law.

3. This law will put the state/county/local LEOs in a catch-22 situation of increasing exposure to lawsuits from: (a) people who want the state/county/local police to do more against illegal immigration; and/or (b) people who are mishandled by the police and treated as an unlawful alien when they are not.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 6:44 pm
  #128  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The 4 weeks of the government paid "training" program in South Carolina required for a state/county/local LEO to become a JEO/TFO operating under a 287(g) MOA does not enable such persons to determine citizenship status.
Source? I would argue that it's quite clear that's exactly what 287(g) allows.

TB
TerminalBliss is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 6:53 pm
  #129  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by GUWonder
1. AZ is not allowed to create its own immigration law since that is the federal government's domain, yet what AZ has done is create its own immigration law..
We'll agree to disagree in this regard...that will likely be for the Courts to determine.

2. This law is a make-the-racists-happy law.
Rather broad paintbrush, Oz. My best friend in the world, my "brother from another mother," the godfather to my children...is black. We've been tight since we met in the Army eighteen years ago. Another good friend during my service was Puerto Rican. I have many friends from my time in the Border Patrol who are Hispanic. I currently associate with a good number of various races and ethnicities that aren't pasty white like my family..bottom line, I'm not rascist but agree whole heartedly with the law. You Libs love to characterize those who support the measure as rascist, but most would hardly fit that description....certainly not rascist but definitely prejudiced against those who violate the law to enter this country and rape the public benefits meant for those citizens and lawful immigrants.


3. This law will put the state/county/local LEOs in a catch-22 situation of increasing exposure to lawsuits from: (a) people who want the state/county/local police to do more against illegal immigration; and/or (b) people who are mishandled by the police and treated as an unlawful alien when they are not
LEOs are, or should be, rather used to that conundrum. Follow procedures and don't exceed one's authority are the best defense.

TB
TerminalBliss is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 7:04 pm
  #130  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
Source? I would argue that it's quite clear that's exactly what 287(g) allows.

TB
As that is what you would argue, it makes it clear that you don't understand what it means to determine citizenship status and who has (and who doesn't have) the power to determine citizenship status.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 7:13 pm
  #131  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
supply and demand; all work sucks without just compensation

Originally Posted by billinaz
Originally Posted by pmocek
Originally Posted by moeve
1) the US has stacks of illegals working jobs Americans would never do (not in this day and age anyway)
Wrong. There's no such thing as a job Americans won't do. If you offer sufficient pay, people will line up around the block for a job. If you don't offer enough pay, then people won't take the job.

Originally Posted by moeve
Just an example workers on the big farms in California - they would never get their crops off their fields without those poor mexican illegals because there isn't an American willing to bend over all day, getting their hands dirty in all kinds of weather for a minimum wage!!!
Wrong. Without "those poor Mexican illegals" (i.e., without black market labor) they would have to pay laborers what the work is worth in order to get their crops off their fields. If no one is willing to do the work for minimum wage, than the work is worth more than minimum wage. Those farms presently enjoy the additional profit provided by their ability to purchase black market labor at a rate that is less than that which the market would otherwise bear.
Well, looking at the people in the fields here, even in the 120 degree sun, I see a lack of people appearing to be Anglo. The farms dont pay $30.00 an hour, but I am sure the wage is over the legal minimum.
Okay. I don't doubt any of those three assertions.

Originally Posted by billinaz
I dont see anyone lining up to work that were born in Kansas.
I don't doubt that, either. At the rate of pay offered, I would suspect that the only people willing to provide labor are those who have little other choice but to work for less than market rate, and that tends to be undocumented immigrants.

Originally Posted by billinaz
So should the farms crank up their pay to meet a "US Citizens" standard?
If the farms want to operate with anything but black market labor, and their owners don't want to do the work themselves, then yes, they should pay what the market demands. If you want to purchase labor, you must pay a rate at which people are willing to work. If you offer too little, no one will take the job.

Say I want to buy some widgets. Should I crank up the amount I'm willing to pay for those widgets to the amount which I must pay to obtain them through legal means, or should I buy widgets from some guy who has some that he says fell off a truck? If my business relied upon this system of purchasing widgets from the black market, do you suppose I could convince people that these are goods that above-the-board businesses don't want to sell?

Originally Posted by billinaz
Are you willing to pay the increased price for your groceries?
Yes, I am willing to pay more for food if doing so would mean that the food was not produced in a manner which sustains the black market which results in all the problems that are being discussed in this thread and blamed on Mexican immigrants. Are you willing to do so, or would you prefer to maintain the status quo?

Originally Posted by billinaz
I see guys busting their ... in the same heat shoveling landscape rock into wheelbarrows and hauling that to someones yard. Im not talking about one or two tons. Seeing 10 to 15 tons of rock dumped in front of a house is not at all uncommon here. My house had 30 tons. Any of those caucasion? Nope.
What's your point? My guess is that people who arrived in the United States legally can earn higher wages than that which the landscaping jobs to which you refer presently pay. Remove the black market labor, and either the work won't get done, or the people who want to purchase labor will have to pay what laborers demand.

Originally Posted by billinaz
Landscaping sucks here in the summer.
Assuming that by "sucks" you mean "is difficult or unpleasant", then I bet it sucks (unless you like physical exercise in hot weather with little responsibility, something that some people probably do like). That difficulty and unpleasantness would normally suggest that it's a rather high-paying job. Either that or it's performed by people who feel they have no other choice than to be taken advantage of, working for less than what the job is worth to the rest of us.

All work sucks. We only do it because we get something out of it. Give us enough to make up for the suckiness, and it's a good deal.

Originally Posted by billinaz
Very, very few of those [people working landscaping jobs here in the summer] are caucasion.
I believe you.

Originally Posted by billinaz
You dont think that all these guys born in Indiana are lined up to get a job, but they give the jobs to guys from Michoacan?
I can't parse your question, but I'll try to respond anyway. If the pay offered for the job was appropriate compensation and people from Indiana wanted work, I think the jobs would be filled by them. If the jobs paid more than that, I think people from all over would be lined up to get one of the jobs.

Originally Posted by billinaz
I support the person who said just what it is, the jobs are pretty crappy, and those of us woh are considered caucasion and born here would do anything to avoid them.
I'm caucasion, and I was born in the United States. If the job paid enough, I wouldn't avoid it.

Originally Posted by billinaz
Guys from South of the border who have it MUCH worse there take the jobs and do what they need to so they can work.
Of course they do. They're backed against a wall. If they were able to sell their labor outside the black market that we've created down there, they would very likely refuse to take jobs for less than what they're worth in the free market just like the Indianians to which you referred presumably do.

Originally Posted by billinaz
Unfortunately for them, they are illegal, and use fraudulent documents to obtain that employment.
That's unfortunate for all of us. Black markets create problems. It happened with alcohol, it still happens with other drugs, and it happens with labor.
pmocek is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 7:34 pm
  #132  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
We'll agree to disagree in this regard...that will likely be for the Courts to determine.
... and you'll likely still disagree even when the Court doesn't rule in favor of Arizona?

Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
Rather broad paintbrush, Oz.
Nothing broad about it, and nothing Oz-like about it either.

Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
My best friend in the world, my "brother from another mother," the godfather to my children...is black. We've been tight since we met in the Army eighteen years ago. Another good friend during my service was Puerto Rican. I have many friends from my time in the Border Patrol who are Hispanic. I currently associate with a good number of various races and ethnicities that aren't pasty white like my family.
Nice story, but it doesn't change a thing.

Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
You Libs love to characterize those who support the measure as rascist, but most would hardly fit that description....certainly not rascist but definitely prejudiced against those who violate the law to enter this country and rape the public benefits meant for those citizens and lawful immigrants.
"You Libs" directed at me? ROTFLOL Then, talk about clueless and irrelevant. You might as well call me a "neo-con".

Racists support the measure, and there is no getting around that.

What makes you so sure that most of this AZ law's supporters would hardly have a racist bone in their body? Admitting racism is less the norm than it used to be in the US. Instead now we get more people playing the "I cannot be racist because I've been friendly with (and/or am related to and/or hiring) XYZ" and using that as a cover while still having racist attitudes. Even the notorious David Duke started playing that fiddle.

Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
LEOs are, or should be, rather used to that conundrum.
Why? Is inaction and a penalty for inaction a normal conundrum for LEOs in AZ? If so, it doesn't speak well to their professionalism or your idea to empower them further.

How much money and time is AZ going to spend on sending more than a token number of LEOs for a 4-week working/training paid sabbatical to South Carolina?
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 8:15 pm
  #133  
Formerly known as billinaz
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Goodyear,AZ for now then FL Spacecoast
Programs: US Airways Dividend Miles, American AAdvantage, Avis Preferred, Budget Rapid Rez, Hilton Honors
Posts: 1,145
Couldnt you have used ANYTHING other than widgets in your example?




The college flashback hurt!
SpaceCoastBill is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 8:37 pm
  #134  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by billinaz
Couldnt you have used ANYTHING other than widgets in your example?

The college flashback hurt!
I'd rather have widgets than the "chicken fat fritters" examples one of my instructors used.
Superguy is offline  
Old Apr 28, 2010, 9:19 pm
  #135  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
Originally Posted by billinaz
Couldnt you have used ANYTHING other than widgets in your example?

The college flashback hurt!
How about the supply/demand and cost of Guns and Butter
SDF_Traveler is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.