Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Building a 21st Century Electric Grid Requires a 21st Century Regulatory System
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - IL unemployment rate at two-year low *** For a Better Chicago runs Wisconsin ad touting biz climate as one IL biz flees to the Cheesehead State
Posted in:
* From the Daily Herald…
Rep. Randy Ramey said Tuesday that he knows his plan to bring Arizona-style immigration laws to Illinois almost certainly won’t be called for a vote this year.
“I have been requesting,” the Carol Stream Republican said. “Been denied.”
Ramey’s proposal, like the one approved in Arizona, would give police more authority to look up someone’s immigration status, a move that could lead to deportation of an illegal immigrant.
* From the synopsis of Rep. Ramey’s bill…
Provides that for any lawful stop, detention, or arrest made by a law enforcement official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the U.S., a reasonable attempt shall, where practicable, be made to determine the immigration status of the person.
* The Question: Do you agree with this provision? Explain fully and please take a very deep breath before commenting. Also, do your very best to stick to the question. I’m not at all interested in reading long, nasty rants about illegal immigration. You’ll just be deleted or banned, or both.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 6:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Building a 21st Century Electric Grid Requires a 21st Century Regulatory System
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - IL unemployment rate at two-year low *** For a Better Chicago runs Wisconsin ad touting biz climate as one IL biz flees to the Cheesehead State
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The words “reasonable suspicion” can be interpreted as any suspicion, too broad a term. Also, it gives free rein for law enforcement to target certain minorities and their children.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:12 am
It’s a reasonable principle. The problems come in how it’s misapplied - or downright abused.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:19 am
Disagree.
The first, and really the only two things that I can think of that would make a law enforcement officer suspicious that someone is not a legal citizen would be their skin color or language spoken/accent.
I wonder how many people will be forced to prove their citizenship status under the suspicion that they are illegally here from Canada… my guess is not many.
Comment by Obamarama Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:20 am
I think we should allow lobbyists and legislators to make these lawful stops, detentions and arrests since they specifically will NOT be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:24 am
I agree with this proposal.
Law Enforcement Officers swear to uphold ad enforce both State and Federal laws.
Let’s give it a try and see how it works before declaring that every LEO in the state will abuse it.
And to Obamara, you’re probably right because there proabbly aren’t that man illegals here from Canada.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:26 am
I agree—-people,what does illegal mean?
Comment by joe Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:47 am
I agree to a point. First we have to deal with the illegal population we already have in a rational manner. It is just not practical to try to deport upwards of 12 million illegal aliens. There has to be some sort of process for them to acquire a legal status.
I’m not advocating blanket amenesty. There has to be certain steps and requirements and payment. Yes, payment. This country has a cost burden that has to be accommodated. Let them stay if they are employed and haven’t committed a crime. The cost is they pay social security tax but can never receive the benefits. That’s the tax they pay to stay and work in this country. Children born here are, by the constitution, legal citizens and that should not change.
Then enactment of this proposed legislation makes a lot more sense.
Comment by Springfield Skeptic Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:51 am
The idea, in a free country, of the police rounding something like ten million people in short order, is pretty scary. I don’t care what their credentials are in that regard.
And, in the end, you’re not going to solve the illegal problem with force, unless you want to give up what freedom we still have. At best, we could do a much better job of verifying employment paperwork and ending abuses in that area. After all, a very large part of the problem is that employment verification is beyond lax to the point of corruption, and illegals can get work here.
The other side of the picture is that a good many illegals would be legal if the immigration system was functioning properly.
So we’ve created the perfect set of circumstances for an underground economy; poor law enforcement, powerful market forces, and ridiculously onerous compliance standards with regard to one aspect of the law (becoming officially legal) while leaving a wide open door in every other.
What exactly can the state even do with this? A few tweaks around the edges here and there, but without the federal government real reform isn’t possible.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:55 am
I see no reason at all to give a higher-risk community another reason to avoid speaking to law enforcement.
I would much rather suffer the admittedly excruciating indignity of my neighbors living here without proper paperwork to afford more effective law enforcement.
Comment by Dirt Digger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:05 am
Yes, I agree with the proposal. Either we change the word “illegal” to “inappropriate” or we enforce the law.
Assuming the worst in our law enforcement isn’t the answer.
We are either a law abiding nation or we aren’t. Millions have sacrificed to enter this great nation legally. Why let the ones entering illegally get in and stay here without penalty or deportation?
Comment by Justice Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:09 am
No, it’s absurd and un-American.
What, by sight, constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country illegally? Do they look like a Leprechaun? Are they wearing a “Kiss Me I’m Illegal Polish” t-shirt?
The police are plenty busy already working to keep the streets safe and prevent crime. Give them a break, and keep them out of your politics.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:27 am
“To Springfield Skeptic…It would be practical to deport 12 million illegals….Think of how many jobs could be created to deport them. A 100 passenger bus equals 120000 trips, or a lot of job for bus drivers.. How come the unions are not griping at the idea….a lot of union dues…think of the appointments quinn could have.. ”
And think of the non-union companies that would suddenly be out many, many workers.
Agree with Springfield Skeptic’s proposal.
Completely against this idea, though. I don’t support blanket acceptance of racial profiling for law enforcement.
Comment by aaronsinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:29 am
Illegal immigration is a problem. However I don’t think we need to burden law enforcement with trying to enforce immigration laws as the only reason for a stop. I do believe that Chicago and cook co are wrong by forbidding police from contacting immigration when they arrest a suspected illegal for another crime. Maybe if the laws we already have were enforced as far as being a legal resident to obtain a job we wouldn’t have this problem.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:48 am
I agree with the proposal and a number of the excellent ideas proposed by the posters. My feeling is that we should enforce the law to honor those who have respected our current process.
Comment by Fan of Cap Fax Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:49 am
The broad issue of whether police should have the ability to accertain legal status is one that is assumed they already have, but rarely utilized. This would clarify their ability to detain those who chose to break the law regardless of their country of origin, if they’ve done something to bring attention to law enforcement. Nothing in the law give the right of enforcement to probe without probable cause.
Comment by Captain Illini Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:49 am
Does the pro-side of this realize that Hispanics comprise 15 percent of Illinois’ population now? This is, statistically speaking, more offensive than proposing to racially profile African-Americans.
Comment by Dirt Digger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 8:59 am
The solution to this is very simple, go after the people that employ illegal immigrants. It may catch some senators so be it.
Comment by foster brooks Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:03 am
If the police stop you for anything, they typically take your license and run a quick check to make sure that you have no outstanding warrants: local, state or federal. Why shouldn’t immigration status be included in that check? It would be very simple to avoid the “reasonable suspicion” minefield by doing the check on everyone. All that is required is for the Secretary of State (or DMV, depending on the state) to include a notation about status on drivers licenses and state ID’s. Bring your birth certificate and/or green card when you apply for or renew your ID and bang, problem solved.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:03 am
Fed up, I am entirely willing to concede this proposal is offensive to 100% of the population. It certainly should be.
Comment by Dirt Digger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:05 am
Fed up,
The law enforcement officer will not be stopping people to enforce immigration law. This bill gives the officer authority to check the immigration status of a person he suspects is here illegally after he has made a stop for a person breaking another law. This is completely analogous to an officer checking for illegal drugs in a car after the driver was stopped for speeding, and the officer suspects the person is DUI.
Local law enforcement act on suspicion of illegal federal activities all the time (think forgery) so we already ask our local police to act as the first line of defense against all jurisdictions of crime. And as Captain Illini points out, this bill is just clarifying a power the police already have.
Many of the posters have pointed out an element of this debate I never understand why the Republicans don’t emphasize more; why is it that immigrants who have stood in line an legally entered the country outraged at the illegal immigrants and their supporters snubbing their noses at the system?
Final immigration thought. We should revamp the immigration laws to restrict “family reunification” and “automatic citizen” rules. While emphasizing the number of immigrants with degrees and increasing the diversity of the applicants, fewer people should be automatically granted status, and automatic citizenship should only be granted to the children of immigrants who are here legally.
Back to the point, Randy’s bill is commonsense and should be passed.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:08 am
yes, they should look into it and deport them.
Comment by Tom Smith Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:11 am
While immigration rates have risen steadily since the end of the Great Depression when the U.S. saw a zero population growth. The recent economic downturn in this country has again seen immigrants (illegal and legal) leaving the U.S.
But now, much like then, it is easier to blame our economic woes on illegal immigrants than on poor fiscal management and use that blame as a distraction.
Police already have the power and ability to determine a person’s immigration status after they have been detained for breaking the law. Some agencies do so regularly and others do not. Push LE to enforce the existing laws rather than create “new” legislation to distract people into thinking you’re doing something about the economy.
Comment by transplant Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:14 am
I’m completely opposed. This will result in racial stereotyping. Immigration is a federal issue. If the feds refuse to deal with the issue, there is no way just Illinois can solve the problem.
Comment by LouisXIV Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:15 am
If the police are stopping someone for suspicion of another crime I have no problem if they acertain the citizenship status of the stopped person. I do disagree with using reasonable suspicion of some ones illegal immigration status as basis for a stop.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:15 am
Yes, but with reservations. Obviously we don’t want police to start pulling people over merely for “driving while Hispanic”. On the other hand, perhaps this is needed as a corrective to practices such as Cook County’s where police are forbidden to inquire about immigration status even when they have good reason to.
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:19 am
–This bill gives the officer authority to check the immigration status of a person he suspects is here illegally after he has made a stop for a person breaking another law.–
Again, what, by sight, in a traffic stop, constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country illegally? How about a few examples?
My father had a very thick Norwegian accent. I don’t. If we were both stopped for going 35 mph in a 30 zone, would he have to produce his “papers” and I would not? Is that “reasonable?”
If you’re concerned with illegal immigration, take it up with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They’re its biggest promoters and defenders.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:20 am
I would support. I understand and empathize with the plight of illegals; but it is an injustice to all those who go through the process to become legal citizens.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:24 am
opposed. “driving while Hispanic” would be the effect of this law. I’d rather police focus on other matters.
Happy St Patrick’s Day! Everyone wearing green today just might be an illegal immigrant from Ireland. better have police determine their status.
Comment by Robert Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:25 am
Totally agree with Cincinnatus and think Grand Old Partisan’s idea is perfect! Representative Ramey should amend his bill to include it.
Comment by Both Sides Now Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:25 am
== Immigration is a federal issue ==
Yes, immigration, as a legal matter, is a federal crime. But so is robbing an FDIC insured bank and tampering with postal service. Does that mean that local police should not respond to bank robberies or vandalism of mail boxes?? Of course not.
Drugs are also a federal issue, particularly narcotics that are trafficked in from across the boarder. Does that mean that local law enforcement has no role in enforcing drug laws?? Of course not.
Being an illegal immigrant is a crime. Not giving local law enforcement officers the authority to find out if people that they already have in custody are violating that crime is ridiculous. If you don’t think illegal immigration should be a crime, than say that. But, as others have said, not enforcing these laws is a slap in the face to everyone who took the time and paid the fees to go through the system legally.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:28 am
No. If the person is arrested for an Illinois offense, then the law could mandate checking and reporting immigration violations, but if no Illinois law has been broken, which federal law will we choose next for local enforcement — if there is reasonably suspicion they haven’t paid the IRS, or took a tag off a mattress?
Comment by Alexander cut the knot. Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:30 am
== which federal law will we choose next for local enforcement ==
read the comment immediately proceeding yours
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:32 am
excuse me, “preceding” is what that should say
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:33 am
Illinois has shown no appetite for this type of demagoguery. The bill would make it impossible for the those without legal status in Illinois (some 400 - 500,000) to be a witness to a crime, report a crime, cooperate in any way with local police. It would drive a wedge between local police and the growing Hispanic community in Illinois. Plus it is politically suicidal. It would turn all Latinos against the Republican Party (now 9% of voters).
A Tribune poll in September of last year shows that 87% of people in Northern Illinois want to go in the opposite direction - find a solution to the issue of illegal immigration by providing legal status to these new Americans.
Ramey is a one note band, and this cost him his Tribune endorsement for re-election. He uses this to attract attention to himself, but his approach has been consistently rejected by the General Assembly, the people of Illinois, and even by prominent Republicans like Kirk, Brady, and especially former Governor Edgar.
Comment by Elder Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:36 am
there are lots of laws that someone could be violating. Ted Bundy was caught on a traffic stop and then they figured out he was an escapee, up on murder charges, and then they looked at the Florida murders and found he did those too. Without the traffic stop, he could still be out in public.
I’m in favor of law enforcement checking folks out for all sorts of law violations, not just crossing the border illegally. As for that, while the overwhelming majority of those crossing the border illegally are not other kinds of criminals, it is true that for over 30 years there has been a focus on various kinds of criminals including terrorists and access to the U.S. this is not a small thing. and, crossing without permission is illegal, it’s not undocumented, it’s illegal. Law enforcement should check all that it can in reasonable time on a traffic stop.
Comment by amalia Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:37 am
When any person is driving and picked up for speeding, possible inebriation, etc, the police ask to see a driver’s license. Then they use their computer to verify if the license is valid and to see if there are any previous citations, arrests or warrants. We all accept that.
Why then:
If a person is caught in the act of burgling my house or a business, whaling on his wife, abusing his child, or importing and selling drugs, is not that criminal activity sufficient and legitimate cause to find out more about that individual and his background?
There is a vast space between police harassing or “profiling” someone walking down the street because they may “look different” (which as far as I can tell NO ONE is proposing but always seems to become a strawman whenever this topic is discussed)–and employing the laws and the tools currently available such as utilizing immigration data bases as one aspect of any investigation of other criminal activity. Why should we not want someone in this situation be deported if they are in our country illegally and committing crimes?
Yes, I support the common sense language in Rep. Ramey’s bill.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:43 am
“grand old,” by that token, why shouldn’t the TSA official at O’hare not let someone board if they have reasonable suspicion the person broke an Illinois law? Drugs are a local and federal issue - immigration is not. You could tie federal funding to local police to whether they check imigration status of people arrested for a state crime.
Comment by Alexander cut the knot. Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:47 am
Alexander, I think that is quite a stretch. The knot held and I think you just hanged yourself.
Comment by Irish Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:53 am
Like has been touched on, the problem with the provision hangs on two things. First the “lawful stop.” I think we were all honest about our driving habits, if an officer were present and felt like being a stickler, we could get stopped daily. So a lawful stop is an easy bar to cross. Then there’s the problem of a “reasonable suspicion” which looks like another low bar to clear, and could conceivably include anyone with questionable english skills.
I feel no need to cause trouble for people who aren’t causing trouble themselves. If the scope were limited to people arrested for certain types of offense (violence, drugs, DUI), I could have an open mind to that kind of thing because you’re talking about people actively causing problems.
Comment by Elmhurst Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:55 am
wordslinger,
We can start with lack of documentation (say a driver’s license, not something like immigration papers or other such documents which are reminiscent of how the Nazis treated the Jews) and move on to inconsistent answers to officer’s questions. How about a dozen non-English speaking people in a van, none of whom have any documentation, is that enough suspicion for you?
Randy’s law does not force police to enforce immigration laws, it only makes provisions that allow the officer to act on his reasonable suspicion that a person lawfully stopped may be checked with the Feds on the individual’s immigration status. Police are rational people. They do not enforce every law against every citizen they meet. They prioritize their efforts. This law is more of a secondary-enforcement thing, similar to seat belt enforcement. It will not allow police officers to stop people for driving while Hispanic.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:55 am
I can’t speak to other areas of the state or country, but I regularly see in my county’s jail log the ICE holds and deportation of individuals arrested here and found to be illegal immigrants.
Again, there are already provisions in place and laws in existence to check the immigration status of anyone temporarily detained for suspicion of breaking the law, any law, and then deport that person if they’re found to be in this country illegally.
To enact additional laws would be redundant and is a waste of taxpayer time and money.
Comment by transplant Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:56 am
I suspect this is to overrule “sanctuary” measures passed by local bodies, especially in Chicago and Cook County which bar law officers from inquiring. I could see limiting it to block checks on the street or traffic offense stops, but the idea of blocking law enforcement inquiries of illegal activity is just wrong.
Comment by 42nd Ward Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:59 am
Drugs are a local and federal issue - immigration is not.
Immigration is a local and federal issue. There’s the big local issue of schools and health care.
Comment by Fan of Cap Fax Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:01 am
I am Hispanic and an American citizen, my children are also American citizens and happen to look Hispanic, so now they need to carry their passports to everywhere they go, merely because they could look like illegals…how could police otherwise proof their citizenship? and what if they were blond and had blue eyes?
Comment by American Citizen Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:11 am
== why shouldn’t the TSA official at O’hare not let someone board if they have reasonable suspicion the person broke an Illinois law ==
TSA agents are not sworn law enforcement officers. Air Marshalls are, and you’d better believe that they suspect you are a fugitive from the law, they aren’t going to care if it’s a federal or state matter – they’re going to take appropriate steps. Try again.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:13 am
===and what if they were blond and had blue eyes?===
You’re not implying that racism is that basis of some peoples’ stances on immigration are you? Gee, no way!
Comment by Obamarama Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:16 am
Completely oppose. This is just the latest in a long line of right wing bogeymen. Illegal immigration is a problem. But contrary to the hysteria, it’s not the source of all ills. And it’s certainly not a big enough problem to justify carte blanche racial profiling.
I’m white, but many of my neighbors and friends are latinos. They and their families work here and pay their taxes and are responsible members of society. So why should they suddenly be subject to harassment just because they a darker than I am and have an accent.
The whole thing is absurd and should be thrown in the discard pile.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:27 am
== how could police otherwise proof their citizenship? ==
You’re 100% right that there should be an easier way to prove your citizenship. Unfortunately, it is the “leaders” of your own community who most vocally oppose the inclusion of citizenship status on more common forms of identification. The question you should ask them is: why? Why do they not want it to be easier to identify who is and is not a legal resident or citizen?
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:28 am
If you are in another country and are stopped for most any reason and don’t speak the language you will be ask for your passport or papers. Why is this not a fair thing to do in this country?
Comment by Nieva Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:31 am
===Why do they not want it to be easier to identify who is and is not a legal resident or citizen?===
Oh yes, it is certainly a left-wing conspiracy. Maybe they are doing it to cover up the fact the President isn’t a citizen. Are you wearing a green tinfoil hat today?
Comment by Obamarama Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:31 am
Put me down as opposed. Passage of this bill would invite a return to the institutionalized racism I grew up with down South. In spite of all the shortcomings in our political culture in Illinois, I thought we were better than that.
The problem, as several comments have noted, is in the enforcement. All too often “reasonable suspicion” would necessarily involve an officer’s judgment on outwardly observable criteria like accent or skin color. I’m not a lawyer, but I think the courts would hold that it discriminates against an unreasonably large group, i.e. people who look or sound “foreign” - at least I hope they’d find it unconstitutional.
The idea of stipulating citizenship status on drivers licenses doesn’t sound as openly discriminatory, but it might be hard to enforce. The Soviet Union had a similar system of internal passports back in the day, but I understand Moscow and Leningrad had thousands of people working there without the correct documentation.
Comment by olddog Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:33 am
–Yes, I support the common sense language in Rep. Ramey’s bill.–
Here’s the “common-sense” language:
–Provides that for any lawful stop, detention, or arrest made by a law enforcement official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the U.S., a reasonable attempt shall, where practicable, be made to determine the immigration status of the person. –
What constitutes the “reasonable suspicion?” Since it’s common sense, the reasons must leap to mind immediately.
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:36 am
–The solution to this is very simple, go after the people that employ illegal immigrants. It may catch some senators so be it.–
Those “Real” Americans down in Texas are trying to do just that, but have come to find that rich people like their landscapers and house maids. So, Texas Republicans are saying it is okay for you to stay here illegally as long as you never try to improve your situation or job classification and are willing to live your life as a subservient class of people. But, if you are a Texas employer that offers an illegal immigrant a job in a factory or office that may or may not include some workers protection rights and possible raises or promotions, you will face up to 2 years in prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20110304/cm_theweek/212785
—-
Wordslinger’s scenario reminds of a scenario played out by a local columnist (I cant remember who) after the Arizona law was passed.
Say Ryan Demspter wants to take his catcher out to dinner after a spring training game in AZ. An officer approaches the two Cubs, now which is going to have to show their papers: white, red-haired Ryan Dempster and immigrant from Canada or latino, dark-haired Geo Soto an American citizen by virtue of his birth in Puerto Rico.
Comment by JimmyCrackCorn Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:37 am
Obamarama, I’m not a birther or a conspiracy nut. Are you saying that there aren’t Latino “leaders” (and liberals who court the Hispanic vote) that actively advocate for non-enforcement of immigration laws, or push policies that make immigration laws more difficult to enforce??
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:40 am
Before I answer yes or no, may I ask those of you who know what the rules are when an American Citizen enters other countries? I am asking because I think I know, but need clarification. When an American Citizen enters other countries can we stay there indefinately or not? Would we be considered illegal if we remained?
Comment by Say WHAT? Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:47 am
==reminds of a scenario played out by a local columnist (I cant remember who) after the Arizona law was passed.
Say Ryan Demspter wants to take his catcher out to dinner after a spring training game in AZ. An officer approaches the two Cubs, now which is going to have to show their papers: white, red-haired Ryan Dempster and immigrant from Canada or latino, dark-haired Geo Soto an American citizen by virtue of his birth in Puerto Rico.==
Cops asking people for “papers” while they are peacefully eating dinner. This is a perfect example of a strawman. The scenario cited made no absolutely sense and was ridiculous on its face with respect to the AZ law, and it likewise makes no sense to the discussion at hand.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:53 am
and it made absolutely no sense either!
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:58 am
GOP, I would say that those people are representing the wishes of their constituents by placing emphasis on more important issues. Otherwise, their constituents would replace them.
And the last time I checked, illegal immigrants aren’t a voting bloc.
Comment by Obamarama Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:59 am
I think Elmhurst hits it on the head. If there is a reasonable (which is rather objective) expectation that a real criminal (drugs, violence, etc) may not be a legal resident, then by all means take every step to investigate and if necessary deport. Maybe this just reveals how lax I am on illegal immigration, but really, no harm no foul.
Comment by hammer Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:04 am
subjective i mean. too much patty’s day already.
Comment by hammer Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:04 am
–subjective i mean. too much patty’s day already.–
Drunk and Irish at 11 a.m.? Can I see your papers, please?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:07 am
Responsa-
Fair enough, let me ammend the scenario and say they rolled through a stop sign on the way to dinner and got pulled over. And action…
Comment by JimmyCrackCorn Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:08 am
Overall, I’m in favor of the bill if the language is the same as the federal language (so it should stand up to a legal challenge) and it prevents home rule preemption so the law is consistent state-wide.
To draw a parallel with the recent Amazon debate, at the national level the job doesn’t seem to be getting done so state’s have to step in. The state’s own audits, I believe, show the large cost in both health care and education the state is bearing for illegal aliens. And the argument that illegal aliens are paying into social security and will never collect it doesn’t hold water for me … that’s federal money, not state. They are paying state level taxes including income but, if they are smart, have already filled out their W-2’s to withhold as little as possible. The real question is do illegal aliens contribute more than they cost? … I’ve yet to see a truly independent study done by a group who didn’t have an interest in the answer.
I have no problem with the current existing paths to citizenship. We tried amnesty before and all it got the US was even more illegal aliens. I’m more than open to a discussion of & change to higher (but not unlimited) numbers of aliens legally admitted to the US each year. The US is a melting pot, but we need to retain that ability to assimilate. Too many people at one time can overwhelm the “Americanization” process. People who come here strictly to make money to send back home, and then plan to return home in ten years, aren’t (and apparently don’t want to be) candidates for citizenship, they are strictly guest workers. I’m willing to listen to a method that would allow current illegal residents who want to earn US citizenship over a period of time in some consistent manner that includes (as in the past) renouncing other citizenship. But until you manage to actually stop new illegals coming across the border every day, you are just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
Whether you agree with him or not, Canadian Mark Steyn has some interesting observations on demographics in his book “America Alone”. If you buy his contention that most of the world is being / will be overrun with Islam, his conclusion about America surviving because of (mostly catholic, maybe illegal) Hispanic immigrants throws a whole new twist on the immigration debate. Maybe the US needs more immigrants from our southern neighbors to save it from the rest of the world … but I would like to see it done in a legal manner.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:09 am
Will those out law enforcement reasonably suspect to be undocumented have the ability to record the interaction so that the circumstances of the stop can be fully understood? No wait, that’s a felony.
Comment by Not So Quick . . . Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:11 am
wordslinger says,
“Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?”
Read my 9:55 am post. We rely on the judgement of law enforcement officials every day.
If I remember my conversation with Randy, he was modeling his bill after the Arizona law. I hope he has considered the revision made in the original Arizona bill that addresses many of the issues being discussed here. I refer you and others to this illuminating article from the Arizona Daily Star:
http://azstarnet.com/news/article_a9006f6b-f9b6-59db-87b4-d54a09b4b786.html
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:15 am
== those people are representing the wishes of their constituents by placing emphasis on more important issues ==
Fair enough. It’s the constituents, not just the leaders. Let’s go back to my original point, then. The SoS could incorporate legal status into DL’s and State ID’s very easily, which would make this a virtual non-issue. How would doing so distract the government from “more important issues.” Can’t we be honest and admit that it’s not that they don’t feel this is important enough, it’s because they don’t want it to be done, period. My question is, why? If there are reasons other than that they want to make immigration enforcement more difficult, I’d like to hear them.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:21 am
–Read my 9:55 am post. We rely on the judgement of law enforcement officials every day.–
Cincy, there’s nothing there. By what criteria would a police officer in a traffic stop have a “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country illegally? Don’t weasel-word, just lay it down.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:24 am
Sorry. Still a strawman, Jimmy. But if you insist on following it through —in Chicago, if the brave and observant cop happened to be Sox fan, God help both those sorry Cubs for being caught running that light.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:29 am
Incorporating status into driver’s license … wasn’t that part of the point of the federal “real id” proposal, to create a valid equivalent of a passport or national id for everyone?
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:30 am
===Can’t we be honest and admit that it’s not that they don’t feel this is important enough, it’s because they don’t want it to be done, period. ===
I think there is a middle ground. No one wants a sudden influx of illegal immigrants from Waziristan–not even the most liberal of public officials.
===The SoS could incorporate legal status into DL’s and State ID’s very easily===
I don’t see how a state constitutional office has the power or ability to do that. It would take a joint state/federal…something. If that is what you are advocating, I don’t have a problem with that.
Word, you are barking up the silly tree over there, buddy.
Comment by Obamarama Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:34 am
No.
“Reasonable suspicion” is an unacceptably squishy standard for questions that will ultimately devolve into race-based inquiries.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:38 am
wordslinger,
Let’s try this simple thought experiment:
Say I am a police officer driving down a street. Maybe there’s a Home Depot in the area. Now I see a white panel van driving 15 mph over the speed limit. I pull it over. When I ask the driver for license and registration, he can provide neither. Furthermore, his English is marginal, or maybe he speaks no English at all. In the back of the van, which has no seats, there are 10 men. None of them speak English, and nobody can provide any form of identification.
As a police officer, I have a reasonable suspicion that there may be one or more of these individuals may possibly be in the country illegally.
Would you not have a similar suspicion?
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:41 am
I would support it if the check was on the other end of the process. I simply don’t trust law enforcement personnel with these kinds of decisions. But why not check after conviction of a crime? That way we get rid of the bad guys without hurting the otherwise law abiding (but possibly speeding) person?
The other thing is I understand Arizona has issues with people crossing the border who are dangerous or disrespectful of property which creates friction between the populations. This is not an issue in IL. By and large, our non-citizens come here via interstates and O’Hare/Midway and don’t seem to cause any problems with the other Chicago citizenry.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:46 am
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:46 am:
“I simply don’t trust law enforcement personnel with these kinds of decisions.”
We do every day! Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an investigation of a crime where the perpetrator is not caught in the act.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:56 am
Cincy, in your scenario, “marginal” English is not a reasonable suspicion. If it were, you’d have to check everyone from Dixie, New England and Brooklyn because I can’t understand a word those folks say.
Lack of seats and the number 10 are not a reasonable suspicion, for obvious reasons.
Lack of DL, registration or any identification opens up a whole can of worms that could lead law enforcement rightfully down the path to ascertaining legal status without the proposed new law.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:07 pm
I have no strong opinion on either side of this issue, whether in AZ or IL, but do not understand why proponents of the concept use phrases like “…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien…” Instead just have *everybody* show their papers.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:13 pm
Immigration status should be made part of other id’s, DL’s etc, ‘reasonable suspicion’ is completely bogus. But remember, the US Census suggested (in 08, mind you) that within 30 years Caucasians will be the minority. So I’ll be in my 60s and then perhaps I’LL be targeted by reasonable suspicion for being a blue haired driver and my papers will be checked. I’m reasonably suspicious of the intentions of most of the posters on here.
Comment by Mad Brown Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:20 pm
Cincinattus,
No we don’t trust law enforcement. That’s why we have trials and the word of a policeman on the stand is given no more weight than any other citizen’s.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:23 pm
This bill is a racist bill that alienates Latino voters from the Republican Party. Republicans will not become a majority in Illinois until we denounce people like Randy Ramey, Rosanna Pulido and the Tea Party which is led by bigots.
“It is important that we (Hispanics) realize that no Party has done us (Hispanics) any tremendous favors. Always vote….but vote for the Hispanic!” — Robert Enriquez
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=102298796505059&set=o.137982886231414&theater
Comment by Robert Enriquez Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:27 pm
One thing to flag in this debate: for any conservatives in favor of a “national immigration database,” remember also your fear of inefficient federal bureaucracies, because that is basically what you are calling for here. Errors will be present. Citizens will be “flagged” as non-citizens, and vice versa. Eventually, such mistakes might be rectified, but at a considerable emotional cost to the innocents who turned up as “false positives” in this database. Just ask anyone who’s ever had a dispute about his / her Social Security check.
Also, I question what do we really gain, by doing this. If the concern is to reduce the amount of crime, then beyond the fact that they are of course committing a crime by being here, there is no documented evidence that illegals commit any more crime than citizens. Diverting resources to specifically targeting them would produce no more reduction in violent / property crime than targeting citizens.
So if we want our cops to actually stop murders, rapes, drug deals and keep our streets safe - and keep in mind that undocumented are sometimes “sources” to help cops identify the biggest “bad guys” - this is arguably a diversion of police resources. If an illegal’s committed a crime, they can be detained and held on that charge alone. This also ties up federal resources because in practice right now ICE will have to be the ones verifying illegal status, which means a big tie-up of this agency’s resources. If interpreted this way, for now at least, such a provision in a state law may be struck down by a federal judge.
Some objections to consider here. There’s a huge media meme out there that illegals are disproportionately a “violent criminal class.” But I’ve yet to see evidence to support this claim, except Argument By Anecdote.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:28 pm
I agree. Simple question after the pulling over. It can be abused..but so can most other laws.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:29 pm
Mad brown.
Why do you equate minority with illegal. As this country becomes more diverse their will cease to be an one group that makes up over 50% of the population. Which hopefully will be an asset in the global economy. That being said we do need to enforce immigration laws that are in place while encouraging highly skilled immigrants to come to America and not be discriminated against.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:30 pm
worslinger,
You refuse to consider all of the items I listed as a group. I think you’d make a lousy police officer or investigator, but an outstanding civil liberties lawyer. We need both.
The pendulum between civil liberties and security is in constant motion. The frisson between various groups depends on where the pendulum rests at any one time. Right now, I would contend that average citizens (and I don’t think that Illinois contains and average amount of average citizens, but is skewed slightly left), currently believe that the pendulum has swung to far towards that side of the equation favoring ILLEGAL immigrants over those immigrants in this country legally or citizens themselves.
We who believe in robust diverse immigration, secure borders, a fair temporary worker status, reasonable citizenship requirements (no family unification nor automatic citizenship to the children of illegals just because they were born here) and strict enforcement of our laws (both on individuals and businesses) are where I believe the issue should stand.
Unfortunately, such a comprehensive approach is virtually impossible because of all of the special interests, to the point where the very use of the word comprehensive triggers negative connotations. Until then, I am willing to settle for any part of my comprehensive plan I can get. Randy’s bill begins addressing the enforcement element, hence my support.
Do not confuse my support for this bill as racist or any other such negative thing. It is not. There is a very strong faction of conservatives who are in favor of immigration. I am one.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:35 pm
Robert
How is the bill racist it doesn’t mention race anywhere. I disagree with stopping someone for how they look as much as I disagree with your racist implication that groups should only vote for those the same color or racial group as themselves.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:46 pm
I don’t equate minority with legal at all. Illustrating more the ‘reasonable suspicion’ at who may or may not be illegal based on ethnic demographics. I love diversity and believe that we should encourage people to be legal and make the process easier so we can all be equals in this great place called America.
Comment by Mad Brown Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:49 pm
I disagree with this law in Illinois. Local police have enough on their plate, especially at a time when shrinking local budgets will take police off the streets. Furthermore, there are enough laws on the book empowering police officers to take action against illegal immigration, if it is a problem in their area. Remember: some areas need illegal immigrants to fill jobs no one else will take. If a community has a true illegal immigrant problem, I suspect housing laws, criminal laws, employment laws and persistent calls by the area’s Congressperson to the feds can solve the problem. Frankly, I have a lot more respect for folks who travel great distances and endure danger to get a job, albeit in violation of the host nation’s laws, than a lot of people legally in this nation whose main occupation is as a parasite. Certainly, a lot of bad players come over the border, but a lot of bad players are born here. I believe the good far outweigh the bad. These types of laws appear intended to appease frightened voters and give them someone to blame for their troubles, when the likely culprit is the politician serving up this dribble.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:56 pm
I find it incredibly ironic that a bill which proposes to allow law enforcement to inquire into the legal residency status of an individual whom is being detained for other legal reasons…a bill that does not indicate the potential country of origin, or ethnic background, is assuaged by Robert Enriquez as a racist ploy against latinos for which he concludes that persons should just vote Hispanic…in itself a racist statement. Not sure if he was being absurd to illustrate absurdity, or proving ignorance through the mirror of self…
Comment by Captain Illini Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 12:57 pm
I would agree, based on the most appropriate language updates. It is also important to make sure that this supersedes the local sanctuary laws.
I had to prove citizenship before being sworn into office, I have to prove my citizenship while traveling abroad and one must prove their citizenship when entering certain Federal facilities. I don’t see that as a big deal. If you are to ask me my citizenship status, on demand, then I would appreciate that my DL reflect that status.
I have also run into situations where US immigration services have refused to allow European citizens entry even though their paperwork was in order.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 1:33 pm
== there are enough laws on the book empowering police officers to take action against illegal immigration, if it is a problem in their area ==
Really? Like what?
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 1:35 pm
The whole legal citizenship question on a typical form of ID can be solved by some sort of national ID card. I know that opens up a can of worms and is not popular with many folk. If you are proud of your american citizenship (as I am) show it off! The police can certainly abuse their position - many laws on the books are problematic for that. That’s why we have lawyers and courts - so you can clear that up. If you are in this country illegally, that should be a matter of concern for everyone. Many countries (Mexico especially) have far more draconian immigration laws (& tolerance for “illegals”) than does the US yet this country is exoriated by the press & gov’ts in those countries (read Mexico again) for our laws and practices. I am somewhat concerned about the lawful stop part of the proposed law but that could be clarified so as to limit the chances of abuse. Otherwise am for it.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 1:57 pm
Stick to the question and only the question because lifetime banishments will begin immediately.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 1:58 pm
As others have said this is not a law that would solve the problem it really is meant to address. The honey pot is employment. You have employers who want cheap labor that can be intimidated. You have a population that enjoys the cost benefit of that labor. I have no problem with people looking to support thier family. I do think if US wage laws were enforced in their favor there would be less demand for them. This law just seems to be someone posturing for some group.
Comment by Bemused Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 2:31 pm
The crux of this issue is whether we want to start internal (as opposed to only border) enforcement of immigration laws. If we’re not willing to enforce our laws, we ought to change them to laws we are willing to enforce.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 3:35 pm
Brittanicus, can you read simple instructions? You’re banned. Goodbye.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 3:48 pm
I agree with this in concept. If how it will be implemented is the problem, then consider that most police officers will tell you that they could stop a lot more drivers than they do for minor infractions. When you are pulled-over for a moving violation, you produce your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Add to this proof of residency (passport?). Our neighboring state of Missouri is finding itself to be a “destination state” and has taken steps to address their problem. How is that working for them, and could it provide examples and lessons for Illinois?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 3:51 pm
Rich, is your large and growing Comments Blacklist file becoming a drag on system performance? Just wonderin’ - LOL.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 4:09 pm
Anon, every now and then one must post a head on a spike to remind people of one’s awesome blog-banning powers. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 4:10 pm
Laws created in Waukegan concerning home occupancy and charging huge fines for lack of car insurance have been shot down by the federal courts for singling out the Hispanic community. I see the same thing happening if this law were enacted.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 4:28 pm
I do not agree.
I see a lot of costly lawsuits coming that this state can not afford to defend the law enforcement for doing their job.
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 4:29 pm
Rich @ 1:58pm, is the banishment threat related only to posts that you have deleted? The comments I have read here have mostly been on-topic, and provide a good cross-section of opinion on the matter of illegal/undocumented (depending on your viewpoint) immigrants. That variety of opinions also shows why it’s so difficult to reach any kind of an agreement on how governments - at all levels - should address the issue.
Comment by cover Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 4:50 pm
====is the banishment threat related only to posts that you have deleted?===
Some yes, some no.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 4:52 pm
Cincy, under your scenario, the proposed legislation would be unnecessary to determine status.
If a group of folks are pulled over for violating traffic laws and are found to have no DL, no registration and no identification, law enforcement can run them in and find out who the heck they are. The driver, at least, certainly could be printed and have them run.
Whether they speak “marginal” English or any English at all is irrelevant and is not a “reasonable suspicion” in part or in any way shape or form.
In my opinion, half the country speaks “marginal” English. And as a first-generation American whose parents renewed their green cards every year at the post office, and who spoke heavily accented, self-taught English (as young people, their uninvited guests insisted they learn German), the idea that “marginal” English makes someone “suspicious” sends my blood pressure through the roof.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 5:26 pm
Its a tough job keeping people corralled around these parts. Good luck with this post Rich.
Comment by John A Logan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 7:30 pm
What problem would this proposal address?
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr.'s School of Sedition & No Interest Deep Discount Mortgages Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:52 pm
The Wall Street Journal once stated in on op-ed that if all illegal immigrants were to disappear tomorrow, half the restaurants in Chicago would close.
I have a reasonable suspicion they are right.
I also have a reasonable suspicion that most people wouldn’t want them to close.
Illegal immigration is a crime in the same way that NCAA office pools are illegal gambling.
Comment by I don't want to live in Teabagistan Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:52 pm
Rich for Sheriff! Rich for Sheriff! Rich for Sheriff!
Toughest Hombre on the range, patrolling for off topic blogger, and occasionally taking out a bad guy with his awesome blogger-banner-banger weapon! Leave those heads on the stake Rich, and they won’t mess around with Sheriff Rich no more! LOL
Comment by Elder Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 9:57 pm
And by the way, there is almost no way to “get legal” now. All of the windows that one used to be able to adjust status through have been nailed shut. You employer cannot petition you; you cannot join the military; you cannot have a relative sponsor you; you cannot have separation from your citizen spouse or citizen children be a cause to legalize or stop a deportation. Even marriage to a U.S. citizen is usually not enough to get legal anymore.
So you have say, 450,000 human beings living in Illinois without papers, who mostly came when employers were encouraging it and the border was patrolled with a nod and a wink, and now they are stuck. No way to fix their problem, other than going back, but then they are banned from returning for 10 years - not too great if you have a U.S. citizen wife or kids. The Ramey bill does not address any of these problems in a constructive way. Just the basic “let’s mess with them if the ‘look’ funny”, with no effort to address the underlying problem. Pure demagoguery.
And to - I think it was Grand Old Partisan - who asked why the advocates and Latino politicians try to stop enforcement: How would you feel if you saw dozens and dozens of the families of friends and neighbors and your own family members being destroyed? Would you try to slow it down?
Comment by Elder Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 10:08 pm
Elder, Actually becoming a US ciizen doesnt seem all that difficult.
In order to become a U.S. citizen, you must
(1) have been admitted to lawful permanent residence for five years (three years if Green Card obtained through marriage to U.S. citizen);
(2) you must be 18 years old;
(3) you must be maintain continuous residence for five years (three years if Green Card obtained through marriage to U.S. citizen);
(4) you must be physically present in the U.S. for at least half of the 5 years (or half of the 3 years if you obtained a Green Card through a U.S. citizen spouse);
(5) you must be a person of good moral character for the 5 years (or 3 years if the alien obtained a Green Card through a U.S. citizen spouse);
(6) you must demonstrate an elementary level of English (reading, writing, understanding); and,
(7) you must have knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of history and government of the U.S.
Special exceptions to some of the general requirements are available for the disabled, members of the military, veterans, spouses married to U.S. citizens living overseas, and Legal Permanent Residents who work for certain organizations that promote U.S. interests abroad. Similarly exemptions from the English language requirements are available for those over 55 years who and have lived in the United States as a Legal Permanent Resident for 15 years, or are over 50 years old and have lived in the United States as a Legal Permanent Resident for 20 years.
Comment by fed up Thursday, Mar 17, 11 @ 11:57 pm