Help power the National Parks Traveler’s coverage of national parks and protected areas.
The Grand Canyon, as viewed from Mohave Point. NPS photo.
Are you rethinking that trip to the Grand Canyon or Saguaro National Park due to the approach Arizona officials are taking towards illegal immigration?
Arizona's move to require police to check anyone's U.S. residency status if it might be in doubt is drawing quite a bit of criticism. Already there's some evidence that folks from outside Arizona who oppose the law are canceling trips to the Grand Canyon State.
Are you?
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
National Parks Traveler is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
It is not racist to want the laws on immigration to be followed and obeyed by everyone no matter which country they come from, whether it's Mexico or Ireland. Nor is following the law fascist. There is absolutely nothing in Arizona's new law that is not in the federal law that has been in effect for years, much of it written during the Clinton administration. The only difference is that Arizona police will call ICE to pick up illegal immigrants. When factual arguments fail, those with no further rational statements start calling out 'racist' and 'fascist'. Name calling is not persuasive.
Funny that you mention both Mexico and Ireland. I remember hearing a story involving immigrants of those two nationalities in a discussion on this new law. I can't be 100% sure it actually happened, but it sounded reasonable to me, so here goes. The teller (probably a US citizen) is working at a large restaurant years ago. A lot of restaurants are known for hiring Hispanic immigrants - many from Mexico and quite a few probably not in this country legally. Immigration (don't know if it was INS or ICE at the time) conducts an immigration raid, detains a lot of employees, and probably ends up deporting quite a few. Except one who was about as guilty as anyone. The only thing that saved him was that he was from Ireland and didn't "fit the profile".
The law itself is extremely open ended. It's a broad set of different provisions, of which many are not covered under federal law. There's actually the provision on picking up day laborers. I've actually heard of a class of out of work US citizens who have gone the day labor route to make ends meet. Some hirers seem to prefer them because English comprehension may be less of a problem. This law of course makes it a state crime for a permanent resident to be in public without documentation (I-551 most likely). Some have cited that this is already a federal statute. While it is, it's hardly enforced, and the maximum fine is $100 with a maximum 30 days jail time. This law bumps it up to an Arizona Class 1 misdemeanor, with a maximum 6 months jail time. I suspect if anything, that part is going to be struck down. Here's something I don't generally say. I used to have a a green card. I was a minor, and no federal law said I had to keep it on my person at all times. However - I was an adult holder of that card for a few years until I got naturalized (I aced the American history part of the naturalization interview without even studying). Occasionally I'd actually **gasp** leave the house without it. Sometimes I had to chase down my dog running down the street. I'd venture that I might have even taken the bus a few times without my wallet. In general - this is a low priority item for the feds to enforce. Now if some gung-ho local law enforcement wanted to make an example out of me, and I've now got a criminal record and some jail time that puts my college years on hold.
The only thing that's really going to do any good is if there are tough sanctions on employers. Employers could easily do this in a fair and evenhanded manner by performing background and/or credit checks on all their employees at the time of hiring. That would at least suss out the fake SSNs, given that every employee must submit the number even without producing a card.
I'm not particularly a fan of calling anyone a "fascist". I think the use of certain terms can be a crutch, and it gets used by people on all side of debates.
Everyone I know who has gotten a new job recently has had to produce evidence of citizenship or legal residency. It is not draconian or fascist to do so.
As for 'morality', it is immoral to hire illegals, to harbor illegals or to fail to enforce the law especially while American citizens are at 10% unemployment.
I believe the biggest concern isn't that one is asked to produce evidence of being in the U.S. legally, but rather that the state is ordering police to check for that evidence without probable cause but merely a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual might be in the country illegally. Can anyone define "reasonable suspicion"?
And there is a concern that these checks are being focused on Hispanics, which is both stereotyping and racial profiling. Will French, German, Italian, Japanese tourists from all other countries be approached? And what about Hispanic U.S. citizens who either live in Arizona or are visiting from other states? Apparently, while Arizona driver's licenses are accepted as proof of citizenship because one must document that to get a license, not all states do the same and so theoretically not all states' drivers licenses will necessarily be accepted as proof of citizenship in Arizona.
How would this law play in other parts of the country? On Cape Cod, for instance, there's a heavy presence of Eastern European workers (indeed, more than a few national park concessionaires also hire Eastern Europeans these days).
Back in Arizona, the crime rate has actually been falling in recent years, and, according to the Immigration Policy Center, "unauthorized immigration is not associated with higher crime rates." Additionally:
For more details, check out this fact sheet from the center: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Arizona_Punish...
Nope, it is only against the law..
I think this is a very poorly written law that will create more problems than it solves. Not only will it lead to racial profiling and harassment of US citizens with the wrong "look," it will overburden the various municipal police forces, many of which vehemently oppose the law. They now have added duties and yet there is no funding for extra manpower. In addition, they can get in trouble for failure to enforce the law, meaning that if someone isn't satisfied that their perfectly legal, US citizen, Hispanic neighbor that they don't like hasn't been harassed, they can accuse the local cops of violating the law. It is absolutely ridiculous.
We normally go to AZ twice a year, once to the Grand Canyon for hiking and once to other areas. We have decided to go on our next planned GC trip, but we will not be visiting the state otherwise. When we visit GC, we will do everything we can to keep our spending within the park and not support businesses outside its boundaries.
I certainly agree that proof of legal status is required by employers. However - there is a brisk business in fake social security cards. Most employers are required only to do a perfunctory check of the documents and merely have to make note of the document number on the employee's I-9 form. They don't have to file the I-9 with any government agency; it only has to go into the employer's personnel files. Many employers know there's a good likelihood that they're hiring illegal aliens despite their "papers", and frankly most don't want to know. Since they only need to go through the motions and not really understand how to tell a fake from a real document, they can always claim ignorance even if they harbor suspicions. If they wanted to know they would at least require and pay for a credit or background check, which would tend to uncover things like fake or reused social security numbers.
I for one wouldn't be bothered if those arrested for other violations would have their legal status adjudicated before being released. I don't care for the "reasonable suspicion" standard though. Right now everyone had to take their shoes off when going through airport security. What would be equitable is for a status verification for everyone in police custody which would apply to anyone whether or not they're American, Mexican, Irish, or Chinese. What I don't find equitable is that someone can be stopped on the street over nothing more than a "reasonable suspicion". It's been noted that the Fourth Amendment requires a stronger "probable cause" standard which would otherwise be needed to make an arrest or search someone on the street.
Frankly I'm not going to get into any arguments about morality. Everybody is bound to disagree on what is or isn't moral.
Well - proof of legal status is generally used to obtain driver licenses. However - I previously mentioned the huge loophole in their driver license process. If you first applied for the license before they instituted their more stringent checks, one can still renew indefinitely without ever needing to resubmit new documents. Several out of state driver licenses can be renewed indefinitely from an initial application where proof of legal status was not a requirement. The law implies that such licenses will be accepted as proof of legal status, and that such a license can be used to obtain a first time Arizona driver license as a prima facie proof of legal status.
Meanwhile, because the administration doesn't adequately secure the border another police officer has been shot by illegal alien drug smugglers.
You really can't blame Arizona for trying to protect her citizens and their jobs when the federal government is doing little or nothing.