With the Arizona governor signing the new immigration law that allows anyone suspected to be an immigrant to produce an identification of some kind to prove their identity [and possibly if they are legally in the US or not.] what will be the indication for this sort of law?

The bill was protested by people who are perceived as immigrant - Mexican et al, and Obama have criticised the law as a stupid law or something along those lines. What implication does this have for racial profiling? I am not so sure how the police are perceived in Arizona, but could this be a law that most places in the world need to embrace so as to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and hence prevent them for depleting the limited resources available?

What ever the case, is this a good law and what are the implications?


Here is a quote from someone on twitter who appears to be in support of it:

" Congrats to Jan Brewer GOV of Arizona for passing a bill that should be passed by all states! If you don't come legal then GO!!!"

And for the details, please read here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8641346.stm

From the little I've heard, it's a bad law. How will they identify the illegal immigrants without racial profiling?

I still don't know why they can't build a proper fence across the border with Mexico since this has proven one of the most effective methods for stopping border crossings.

It is making it a police state like you have in some european countries like germany,swiss and co,backwardness.

Is it not the same state that have the crazy incarceration system with the redneck and mad prison officer incharge?

arizona is well known for being a place where illegals cross the boarder. every citizen in the US (over age 17) is expected to carry thier government issued ID with them, legal imigrants also carry thier alien registration card in thier wallets. if a cop asks for ID regardless of whether or not your a citizen and you dont have it on you - you are going to have issues. us citizens who go overseas are expected to have thier passports or residency card on them when they are out of thier hotel/house. this isnt an issue if you are legaly allowed in the country- it is only an issue if you are illegal.

I like the way you put the question. Personally I don't know whether it is a good or bad law, from what I have read some of it seems good, but some of it also seems bad. But in my view there is no doubt that it is necessary. Arizona has been waiting for the federal government to at least enforce immigration laws and protect border for years now, but the government has neglected the issue. They have now decided to take matters into their own hands since the government has shown a lack of concern or urgency. I can't fault their attempt to address a legitimate concern that others have failed to address.

I'm surprised this matter took so long to appear on NL.

Does this mean there are no nairalanders in Arizona, or the ones there have to keep a low profile because of immi.

seriously sha, na wa oh.

montelik:

I like the way you put the question. Personally I don't know whether it is a good or bad law, from what I have read some of it seems good, but some of it also seems bad. But in my view there is no doubt that it is necessary. Arizona has been waiting for the federal government to at least enforce immigration laws and protect border for years now, but the government has neglected the issue. They have now decided to take matters into their own hands since the government has shown a lack of concern or urgency. I can't fault their attempt to address a legitimate concern that others have failed to address.

I seem to agree with you.for one the state govt might not be faulted for actions taken against immigrants considering the allegations of drug trafficking said to occur along their borders.it's a very shaky issue with merits and demerits on both sides,

@4Play,

From the little I've heard, it's a bad law. How will they identify the illegal immigrants without racial profiling?

Please shine the light on my ignorance.  What is wrong with profiling, and by extension racial profiling?  Profiling continues to be a very intricate part of solving crime. Common sense also advocates for profiling when it comes to personal survival.  Of course I will be more apprehensive seeing a muslim on the plane with me than I would a catholic priest.  On the other hand, I will be more comfortable leaving my son in the care of a muslim mallam than I would a catholic priest. That is common sense and it involves a level of profiling.

People try to advocate their position through facts and figures.  If we rely on those, no one will argue the fact that the majority of illegal aliens in the US are of a certain race. If that is the case, common sense and the prudent use of scarce resources suggest it wise to not waste the limited resources on those who are least likely to have commited such offence.  Am I wrong?

I still don't know why they can't build a proper fence across the border with Mexico since this has proven one of the most effective methods for stopping border crossings.

So what do u do with those who are already here? Fence them in with the rest of us?  I think deporting people will be the biggest blow to the morale of those who are intending to come in illegally.

finally this Arizona law has landed in nairaland. i've been waiting for it . . . .and the appearance of Tayo D and kobojunkie

hey, wey kobojunkie?

the fence is not effective in keeping people out, there are thousands of tunnels under the fence already

Thanks all for your inputs.

Tayo D, that was some thought provoking illustration with the Hausa man, Catholic priest and a child that needs minding.

Personally, I have tried to see the both sides and whilst, it may appear to be a pretty straightforward law i.e if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. I think this may just allows the police some sort borderline excessive power in my opinion.

I think I read a few comments from Rev Alsharpton and he made mention of how it is just a law that have made Racial profiling legal. From certain perspective, it will appear that he's got a point, but my lack of racial profiling on american soil is handicapping my comments and view to be honest.

Looking or acting suspicious is not alway a good enough reason for police to stop people over here, however, there are laws that some how by passes this. For example the police can stop any one they want with the new terror law introduced as 2000 and something or so. What I am saying is that this sort of law literally allows the police over here to stop anyone looking like your typical "Tv muslim" i.e long beards, Michael Jackson-type trouser length and with an middle eastern look. So people who are Pakistani, Afghanistani etc bear the brunt of these from the police here sometimes.

As with the US, this may perhaps give rise to the same issue where people who looked like immigrant may be subjected to searches, questioning etc that borderlines harassment. In fact, some few elements of the law who are racist, will probably use this as a cover to express their racism and trying to say they are doing their jobs etc.

I think those are some of the issues I have with laws like this. While, I can see that it will be of good benefits when properly done, I am left to worry about the possible outcomes if things are not done the way they are supposed to. Again, one can just easily say if you have nothing to hide and aint illegal, then you have nothing to worry about.

America is what one can call a great nation today because of its immigrants population,none but the native american indians have the fundamental rights to claim america.

The ravaging rednecks  today that are warding off people are the descendants of the european invaders that forcefully took the land from the indians,they tend to forget where they are coming from,that is why they are failing to see the road ahead.

Profiling is Racist!

Profiling means = I suspect you because YOU are a MINORITY.

Name ONE white Profiling

there is NONE,


Therefore Profiling is a Tool for White Supremacy.

redsun:

America is what one can call a great nation today because of its immigrants population,none but the native american indians have the fundamental rights to claim america.

The ravaging rednecks  today that are warding off people are the descendants of the european invaders that forcefully took the land from the indians,they tend to forget where they are coming from,that is why they are failing to see the road ahead.

But we cannot allow modern day immigration to carry on without checks.

I have no problem with migrants, but please have the right papers. It makes life easy and better for us all. Besides, these immigrants do not have to live like 2nd class citizen in my opinion.

MandingoII:

Profiling is Racist!

Profiling means = I suspect you because YOU are a MINORITY.

Name ONE white Profiling

there is NONE,


Therefore Profiling is a Tool for White Supremacy.

It is human nature to dislike someone at first sight. It is human nature to suspect someone etc.

If you think profiling is a form of racism, what do you say to the example given my TayoD?

People are not even considering the problem. If you polled a majority of Arizonians, and asked them if there happened to be a better alternative, would they go for it, I bet you over 90% of them would say YES.

It is not the case that Arizonians are racists. The state has been dealing with a crime increase problem, and since congress has yet to address the issue, especially that of building border fences and equipping border control, the  state felt it had no choice but to sign the law to protect its citizens from criminals coming in from across the border, the way it feels it can.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a new state immigration bill that President Barack Obama called "misguided" hours earlier.

Brewer, saying that the state had been "more than patient waiting for Washington to act," on the issue of illegal immigration, said that the bill would protect Arizona citizens

But then Kobo, the argument that there are existing laws to deal with crimes and controlled border entry.   .   .  What do you say to that?

ElRazur:

But then Kobo, the argument that there are existing laws to deal with crimes and controlled border entry. . . What do you say to that?

Those laws are shown to work especially when you have documented aliens. I believe majority of the complaint in places like arizona is that these people are undocumented, and so it is so many times more difficult. On CNN, some days ago, an Arizonian was interviewed. She spoke of how much more difficult and deadly it had become to live right next to the border. Illegal immigrants coming across the border, through his property, murdered her next-door neighbor, some days earlier. She now goes around with a loaded gun on her person. The police have no idea where to start with investigating the murder as there is little information on the persons who committed the crime. They may be anywhere in the US by now.

Good point. I didn't think of it that way. I guess it is really hard to argue against this law to be honest. But trust Rev Alsharpton and co to give it a try.

I believe not only latino-looking or African people may be illegal in Arizona. How do you (law enforcers) know that a white man from Greece (used as an e.g., of a caucasian country not doing well at the moment) or another white man from Romania who looks like any other white man on the streets of Arizona will not continue to live illegally in Arizona simply because he does not look foreign and hence will not be stopped randomly? Definitely, checking illegal immigration is a great idea and people should desist from travelling to other countries illegally. But in this case, it is most likely going to be a[b] look-based [/b] process and hence a whole lot of racial profiling will take place. That said, this is wishing all illegal immigrants in Arizona best of luck.

Given that Mexican and other races have a particular look. Given that Arizona is on the border with Mexico, it makes sense to stop people who look like Mexican in Arizona to be honest.

I think the governor expects, and did expect congress to act, not only against the bill/law, but more urgently to resolve the illegal immigration issue. She probably waited to sign this bill; congress did nothing all through the time the bill was in the state senate. I believe I read somewhere that the state complained congress has been unwilling to provide money for building fences and providing needed equipment for the border control agents to better do their job. Now that it is law, the outrage, over the law, might force congress to start working on dealing with the issue of immigration and border control NOW.

Truth is that this is a federal issue. Individual states should not be making up their own sweeping immigration policies as that can only cause chaos. How will Arizona successfully implement the laws when the federal government has most of the tools? But on the other hand while I believe their actions are ill considered, I can understand why they have chosen to act as the federal government has done nothing to revamp or even enforce the existing immigration laws, a situation which has been harming the state for a long time and has been summarily ignored.

As for concerns of racial profiling. There is no way that there won't be instances of unnecessary and harmful profiling. But sometimes one has to pass through the wilderness to get to the promise land. As Tayo-D has bluntly stated, all profiling is not bad and sometimes it is necessary. But the truth is that the concern of profiling would not be so prevalent if stricter border controls were maintained, to ensure that only immigrants with proper documents are allowed in. But even if the border is shut now, how does one weed out the estimated millions who are within the country illegally, without engaging in some form of profiling.

I still don't know why they can't build a proper fence across the border with Mexico since this has proven one of the most effective methods for stopping border crossings.

indeed.

[size=13pt]Budget Cut for Fence on U.S.-Mexico Border[/size]
Published: March 16, 2010


Citing a plague of “cost overruns and missed deadlines,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that she would cut millions of dollars intended for a high-tech “virtual fence” along the Mexican border that has produced little more than headaches for the federal government.

Ms. Napolitano said her department would divert about $50 million in federal stimulus money intended for the project to other technological needs on the border, including laptops, radios, thermal-imaging devices and cameras requested by border guards.

In addition, she said, no money will be spent on expanding the project beyond two areas in Arizona where it is being tested until the department completes a reassessment she ordered in January.

Ms. Napolitano’s announcement came two days before a scheduled Congressional hearing on the program. The House Homeland Security Committee is expected to receive the latest in a string of Government Accountability Office reports calling the program into question. That new report says tests designed to evaluate the system are flawed and mismanaged.

Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the committee, questioned whether it was time to pull the plug entirely.

“We still need to see whether or not this virtual fence that was promised by the department and its contractor Boeing is something that is feasible,” he said Tuesday. “Or is it just a several-hundred-million-dollar waste of taxpayer money?”

The virtual fence is part of a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort known as the Secure Border Initiative that was announced with fanfare by the Bush administration in November 2005. Besides increasing the number of guards and expanding a border wall, it promised a sophisticated system of cameras, sensors and radar that would zero in on people crossing the border with new speed and clarity and quickly guide agents to them.

By now, according to the original timeline, the system was supposed to be working along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But shortly after Boeing was awarded the contract, red flags went up over its lack of oversight and potential for cost overruns.

Boeing said in a statement on Tuesday that it was “fully committed to delivering border-security technology that successfully assists” the department, but it declined to answer questions about its handling of the project. About $1.1 billion has been spent on the virtual fence, with little to show for it beyond the two testing sites in the Arizona desert and a series of embarrassments, including radar that could not function properly in the rain and wind-blown trees mistaken for border crossers.

Those first, limited segments of the fence are now expected to be delivered to the government early next year, and the Government Accountability Office has estimated that it would take several years to cover the entire border with equivalent technology.

The department has said it was revamping the system to address the problems, though the Obama administration had already scaled back financing for it, to a request of $574 million for the fiscal year that begins in October from the current $800 million Congress has authorized.

The accountability office has previously said Boeing pushed forward with designing the system without consulting with the Border Patrol, whose agents would be the primary users.

It has released 14 critical reports that, taken together, point to a system that “was over-promised and under-delivered,” said Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues for the office.

The office’s latest report, to be released Thursday, says the department and Boeing have not designed tests well enough to assess the program. In some cases, the tests appeared designed to achieve positive results instead of evaluate the system.

[size=13pt]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17fence.html[/size]
Published: March 16, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17fence.html

Citing a plague of “cost overruns and missed deadlines,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that she would cut millions of dollars intended for a high-tech “virtual fence” along the Mexican border that has produced little more than headaches for the federal government.

Ms. Napolitano said her department would divert about $50 million in federal stimulus money intended for the project to other technological needs on the border, including laptops, radios, thermal-imaging devices and cameras requested by border guards.

In addition, she said, no money will be spent on expanding the project beyond two areas in Arizona where it is being tested until the department completes a reassessment she ordered in January.

Ms. Napolitano’s announcement came two days before a scheduled Congressional hearing on the program. The House Homeland Security Committee is expected to receive the latest in a string of Government Accountability Office reports calling the program into question. That new report says tests designed to evaluate the system are flawed and mismanaged.

Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the committee, questioned whether it was time to pull the plug entirely.

“We still need to see whether or not this virtual fence that was promised by the department and its contractor Boeing is something that is feasible,” he said Tuesday. “Or is it just a several-hundred-million-dollar waste of taxpayer money?”

The virtual fence is part of a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort known as the Secure Border Initiative that was announced with fanfare by the Bush administration in November 2005. Besides increasing the number of guards and expanding a border wall, it promised a sophisticated system of cameras, sensors and radar that would zero in on people crossing the border with new speed and clarity and quickly guide agents to them.

By now, according to the original timeline, the system was supposed to be working along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But shortly after Boeing was awarded the contract, red flags went up over its lack of oversight and potential for cost overruns.

Boeing said in a statement on Tuesday that it was “fully committed to delivering border-security technology that successfully assists” the department, but it declined to answer questions about its handling of the project. About $1.1 billion has been spent on the virtual fence, with little to show for it beyond the two testing sites in the Arizona desert and a series of embarrassments, including radar that could not function properly in the rain and wind-blown trees mistaken for border crossers.

Those first, limited segments of the fence are now expected to be delivered to the government early next year, and the Government Accountability Office has estimated that it would take several years to cover the entire border with equivalent technology.

The department has said it was revamping the system to address the problems, though the Obama administration had already scaled back financing for it, to a request of $574 million for the fiscal year that begins in October from the current $800 million Congress has authorized.

The accountability office has previously said Boeing pushed forward with designing the system without consulting with the Border Patrol, whose agents would be the primary users.

It has released 14 critical reports that, taken together, point to a system that “was over-promised and under-delivered,” said Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues for the office.

The office’s latest report, to be released Thursday, says the department and Boeing have not designed tests well enough to assess the program. In some cases, the tests appeared designed to achieve positive results instead of evaluate the system.

Physical barrier are limited in function to be honest. Besides, tunnels will made underneath them. Just ask the Palastine and Hamas on how to cross over to Egypt and Israel.

Migration, Immigration and emigration - whatever jargons they want to describe it with is a natural phenomenan among all living species. Animals, birds and humans have being migrating over centuries and will continue to migrate. To reduce migration, state control and racial profiling will not limit that. Rather, goverments of all countries have to look at it from human and natural perspective. Why do animals (human, birds, fish, zebras) migrate? People migrate in search of food and better condition of living and therefore migration will continue wether all of America introduce the law ane even if it force people to start wearing lapels on their pockets to identify a citizen and a non citizen. If the millions people thought to be illegal immigrants revolts will the gov't deport or kill all of them?

It is more reasonable to ask why should America consume 80% of the world oil and they are just less than 0.1 percent of the world oil? Of course people have to follow the oil to where it is consume since America are ready invade a country in order to consume more oil in their country.

Or why should kenyans be suffering from food shortage while 80% of their food production is shipped to Europe for consumption? Of course Kenyans will have to follow their food to Europe for consumption.

If there is continues movement of goods and natural resources then there should be continous movement of people.

Are you serious? Allow me to play along.

Arkison:

Migration, Immigration and emigration - whatever jargons they want to describe it with is a natural phenomenan among all living species. Animals, birds and humans have being migrating over centuries and will continue to migrate. To reduce migration, state control and racial profiling will not limit that. Rather, goverments of all countries have to look at it from human and natural perspective. Why do animals (human, birds, fish, zebras) migrate? People migrate in search of food and better condition of living and therefore migration will continue wether all of America introduce the law ane even if it force people to start wearing lapels on their pockets to identify a citizen and a non citizen. If the millions people thought to be illegal immigrants revolts will the gov't deport or kill all of them?

Humans have rules and as such have to abide by them. I suppose using your logic of nature, it is okay for a Cub lion to have sex with its mother, I am wondering if it is okay for you to have with your mother? After all, it is nature and your logic?

It is more reasonable to ask why should America consume 80% of the world oil and they are just less than 0.1 percent of the world oil? Of course people have to follow the oil to where it is consume since America are ready invade a country in order to consume more oil in their country.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Price of tea in Ekiti and the strike of doctors in Ikeja bears no relation at all.

Or why should kenyans be suffering from food shortage while 80% of their food production is shipped to Europe for consumption? Of course Kenyans will have to follow their food to Europe for consumption.

Another irrelevant post.

If there is continues movement of goods and natural resources then there should be continous movement of people.

I think you should read what the thread is about again. Here is a clue - Illegal immigrants.

ElRazur:

Are you serious? Allow me to play along.

Humans have rules and as such have to abide by them. I suppose using your logic of nature, it is okay for a Cub lion to have intimacy with its mother, I am wondering if it is okay for you to have with your mother? After all, it is nature and your logic?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Price of tea in Ekiti and the strike of doctors in Ikeja bears no relation at all.

Another irrelevant post.

I think you should read what the thread is about again. Here is a clue - Illegal immigrants.

I read the thread and I understood it is about illegal immigration. The problem with me is that, I do not believe there is anything like Illegal Immigration. All migration are legal. It just that may be Iam not good at presenting my points, but all are relevant and logical

I don't know whether you have noticed that the issue of illegal immigrants in most cases is comes from countries with better condition of living and are developed countries? And the standard of living of a country is usually dictated by their resources consumption hence the example of oil and food production.

Humans have no rules. Humans create rules to satisfy their interest. And these rules are dynamic and can be change to satisfy the influentials in the society. The idea that the well to do countries have created a systems that allow selective people into their country alone is not only inhuman, violates the law of nature, but exploitative.

Whether they like it or not, if there is continuous movement of resources there will be continous movement of people. Illegal migration is a socio-economic problem not legal problem

Arkison:

I read the thread and I understood it is about illegal immigration. The problem with me is that, I do not believe there is anything like Illegal Immigration. All migration are legal. It just that may be Iam not good at presenting my points, but all are relevant and logical

I am not so sure all immigration are legal, especially amongst humans as one have to obtain and procure the necessary paper works. We are higher intelligence and as such we have evolved to make laws so as to have orders and less chaos in our society. As my people talk for yoruba "the town wey no get law, there is no sin for there".
You see migration is controlled by various law governing each country concerned and a breah of these laws makes it illegal. You are not a pigeon or egret that migrates every year, you are a human being and as such bound by the laws of the land.

I don't know whether you have noticed that the issue of illegal immigrants in most cases is comes from countries with better condition of living and are developed countries? And the standard of living of a country is usually dictated by their resources consumption hence the example of oil and food production.

You mean economic migrant? Yeah off course, however it is still not an excuse to adopt the logic of "no such thing as legal migration as it is all nature etc"

Humans have no rules. Humans create rules to satisfy their interest. And these rules are dynamic and can be change to satisfy the influentials in the society. The idea that the well to do countries have created a systems that allow selective people into their country alone is not only inhuman, violates the law of nature, but exploitative.

No we have rules, see the explanation I gave above. Rules do not necessarily favour a few people, but the overall majority. Stealing is illegal etc, it is there for a reason and a very good reason to be honest.

Whether they like it or not, if there is continuous movement of resources there will be continous movement of people. Illegal migration is a socio-economic problem not legal problem

I think you will find that illegal migration is against the law of the country concerned. Anyway, I think we are moving off topic now. So I am going to leave it as that.

I don't think we are moving off topic.

Your question was : is the Law necessary or Bad? Do you just want me to give you a mechanical answer of yes or no?
Immigration is a complex issue and cannot be literary discussed within prism of a a national/state interest or national or state law. It is an international issue and should be looked at from international perspective.

I read somewhere that the rate of illegal immigrants from Mexico into US increases rapidly with Mexico joining a free trade agreement with America there by giving the Americans unfair advantage over mexican farmers and oil indusry.

Illegal immigration is as a result of exploitative nature of developed countries on developing ones. And any balance discussion of Immigration will have to discuss, especially from the perspective of Nigerians and Africans.