They wish we had to carry papers.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Did you know that if you are on a train that is not in the process of crossing any international border, and then US. border patrol gets on the train and asks "Are you a U.S. citizen?" you have every right NOT to respond? You can simply say "I decline to respond." The more people who decline the less effective this dubious method of "sweeping people up" will be. Read on to find out how this works:

 

"Are you a U.S. citizen?" agents asked one recent morning, moving through a Rochester-bound train full of dozing passengers at a station outside Buffalo. "What country were you born in?"

When the answer came back, "the U.S.," they moved on. But Ruth Fernandez, 60, a naturalized citizen born in Ecuador, was asked for identification. And though she was only traveling home to New York City from her sister’s in Ohio, she had made sure to carry her American passport. On earlier trips, she said, agents had photographed her, and taken away a nervous Hispanic man.
Border Sweeps in North Reach Miles Into U.S, New York Times

I wrote about this problem a few years back and, at last, the New York Times has picked up the story. I'm glad to see the abuse of the 100 mile border law at last getting some attention and I hope that we can educate people about their right not to answer such questions.

If you're like me, and have a passport and are a US citizen, you have very little to lose by not answering these questions. Your silence will help bring this tactic to a stop. I know there are a lot of Amtrak riders on DailyKos, so we should also be angry that it is mass transit that's being targeted: no word on if drivers are ever stopped and forced to answer such questions en-route from NYC to Cleveland (for example.) So, the dubious questions pretty much target the poor, minorities, the elderly and disabled as well as people who live in places where no one drives by default.

In addition I witnessed that the guy asking question singled out brown-skinned people. When I asked him why he was only asking some people and not others  he made a big (angry) "point" of asking a lot of white people from then on. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. (This was three years ago but the article in the Times means it's still going on.)

For those of you who (for some reason still) wonder what the problem is it is four-fold:

1. The 100 mile law was designed to intercept people who are crossing an international border, NOT to intercept people who have been living here for years and are simply moving within the country. Yes, we do need to address undocumented people who have been in the country for years, but this is the incorrect way to do it.

2. The Border Patrol is taking advantage of the fact that they can stop a train to badger people with questions about their citizenship. They make it seem like you must answer the questions even though you don't have to. Since most people don't ride trains, not enough are effected to get this the attention it deserves.

3. The opportunity for racial profiling makes this dubious just like AZ's new laws. Why must brown people carry passport all over the place like we are in some kind of police state? Why should I need to have a passport on my person when I'm not even leaving the country? Because I can't drive? Because I 'look suspicious?' This is not fair to people who are US citizens.

4. Low-grade half-hearted and random enforcement of laws just keeps people in a state of terror. This isn't really about solving the immigration problem, it's about keeping people in the shadows, and keeping the wages of the people in the shadows nice and low.

Comments

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

This entire debate bores me. And I am directly affected by it.

Want to stop illegal immigration? Stop allowing US companies to hire illegal immigrants. Problem solved. End of story. Probably within a year or so. You'll be able to tear down the fences and reduce the Border Patrol to a couple of guys sitting in an office in Tempe.

Of course, Mexico might well implode. But maybe a country as corrupt and dysfunctional as Mexico needs to implode.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Of course, Mexico might well implode. But maybe a country as corrupt and dysfunctional as Mexico needs to implode. "

It does, and it is only the fact that emigration to the US and the subsequent transfer of funds back south to family members is so easy that has prevented it from collapsing on itself.

It is funny because this one issue more than almost any other causes personal conflicts for me and I have no personal stake in the game.

On the one hand philosophically I am a proponent of nearly completely open borders with just simple checks to ensure you are not actively infectious with a contagious disease at that moment and that you are not a serial killer or rapist back home. Past that though anyone should be allowed entry into America and the concept of work permits should be thrown out entirely (that is if you're here and you can convince someone to give you a job then you have a job, government should have no say in it).

On the other hand I recognize that as a practical matter eliminating immigration from Mexico to America and their ability to send money back home to their families is going to cause a badly needed revolution in Mexico.

The only thing which keeps me on the open borders side is there is no way to guarantee that the revolution would actually improve anything.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I see as a rule of law issue and a national sovereignty issue. We either have a say in who gets to be an American or we don't.

On the one hand philosophically I am a proponent of nearly completely open borders

If we didn't have a social welfare system, I'd be pretty much right there with you. If folks who wanted to move to this country had to sink or swim I'd say open the borders, with a few general caveats. But that isn't the USA, and it isn't going to ever be the USA.

there is no way to guarantee that the revolution would actually improve anything

I think there is an excellent chance it will make things worse.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Heh. Imagine a Mexican revolution that ended with a militaristic regime seeking to move north, vindicating all the crazy "Atzlan" conspiracy theorists.

Meddling in local politics elsewhere is bad.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

But maybe a country as corrupt and dysfunctional as Mexico needs to implode.
Be careful what you wish for.

Can't find the paddle harder I hear banjos icon, sorry.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

But maybe a country as corrupt and dysfunctional as Mexico needs to implode.
Be careful what you wish for.

You think that the resulting black hole will suck in some states south of the Maison Dixie line? would that be such a great loss

Re: Can't find the paddle harder I hear banjos icon, sorry.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

All joking aside, considering that I have a lot of family in Texas, yes.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

As I said above, the outcome would almost certainly be worse. And that is really saying something. I expect us to become directly involved at some point. Predators would be vaporizing people in the Sonora Mountains instead of Afghanistan.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No, we'll just see a few countries move some of their fields to mexico and not much will change except maybe the economy of mexico directly will get better and have less crime and poverty.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

What countries? What are "fields?" You talking cocaine? More marajuana? (Is that even possible??) How does any of that get to less crime and poverty??

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Actually I meant companies not countries. Fields as in one of the biggest migrant labor employers.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Why would a company invest in putting valuable property, capital, into a state that was one hot second away from devolving into either total anarchy or socialist dictatorship? A country on the brink of civil war? Plus, its a country with essentially no working infrastructure, no effective judicial system and a history of nationalization and appropriation of assets? They would be better off investing in Iraq.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Cheap labor is why. If they don't have a source of it here, they'll move where they do. Its happened a million times before, it'll happen again. Once major corporations have invested capital in Mexico, you'll magically see their crime rates go down.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Cheap labor is why.

First, I think it is debatable exactly how cheap Mexican labor would be, especially in comparison to other places. Second, what part of "history of nationalization," don't you understand. Mexico has never been a capitalist dream world. It has one of the world's longest relationships with socialism, dating all the way back to Benito Juarez and none of the Confucian practicality that distinguishes China. Third, I think you are underestimating the level of violence I, at least, imagine. We are talking blood in the streets civil war, mass displacement of people, civilian massacres. Afghanistan, only with sombreros instead of pakols.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Mexico is also close and would have cheap agricultural labor. if there wasn't this stream of cheap labor to us, I think it would be a good place to exploit utilize.

Also, Mexico currently has one of the larger Ford manufacturing plants. It's not as business hostile as you make out here.

I'm not sure where you're getting this claim that Mexico is some sort of Socialist paradise.

Lastly, Mexico has been subject to a ton of sensationalism which dovetails nicely with frothing up the base to those scary immigrants. Yes, mexico is having big problems with drug violence right now. No, it's nowhere on the level of Afghanistan. Mexico still generally has government service in all areas.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

have cheap agricultural labor

All it needs is the same kind of arable land, irrigation network, stable road system and non-corrupt police and government protections and it would have it made!

Socialist paradise

I didn't say paradise. That would be a contradiction in terms. Mexico, however, has a very clear socialist, anti-capital history. The expropriation and nationalization of the oil industry, for example.

No, it's nowhere on the level of Afghanistan.

Of course not. That was hyperbole. However, Afghanistan wasn't always Afghanistan, there was a time before the 35 years of relentless international and civil strife when I think you could have balanced the two countries fairly closely. The reason the lid is on Mexico now is that it has a pressure relief valve called "el Norte." Without that I think things would head south pretty damn quick.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

With the sort of technology farms use these days, Mexico would be fine land for growing things, especially for instance, corn which the U.S. is obsessed with.

Provide some info about this socialist history.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

I often wonder why the anti-immigration movement hasn't tied their sticks together to organize boycotts of companies that hire undocumented workers and even advertise for jobs across the border.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Because most companies who hire illegal workers are either don't deal directly with the public or are small family businesses that are too tied into the local economy. I mean, you'd have to boycott every restaurant in my area. Saying, "Don't go out to eat!!" doesn't have the same appeal as, "Show up and yell at WallMart!"

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

I get your point, but if you're a person to whom this is an important issue, wouldn't your voice as a consumer be of great use here when applied to these bigger companies? Wouldn't something like this (http://www.wehirealiens.com/) be more popular if illegal immigration is the #1 issue to a lot of people? Even if you find such action to be naive in relation to how effective it might be, why aren't they more popular just on principle among people who, again, consider this to be their #1 issue of concern? The fact that it isn't stands, in my mind, right beside the question of why the public blames the immigrants more than they blame the companies that hire them.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

to these bigger companies

Sure, but what "bigger companies?" Any company you've heard of, like WallMart, already can afford to comply with the immigration law. No marque company in the US knowingly hires illegal workers, it would be beyond stupid. People would end up boycotting "Joe's Yard Service," "Mom and Pop's Dry Cleaning" and "Next Door Jerry's Construction." And they'd have to boycott all of them and many more in order to be really effective. It's just not realistic.

the public blames the immigrants

I don't think people "blame" the immigrants more than the companies that hire them, it is just that the illegal nature of the immigrant is obvious in a way the a company is not obvious. But I agree, if people were really serious they would be clamoring for more enforcement at the workplace, not the border. That was the point of my original comment.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

I'll go hunting for specific companies if we get into this more, but I'm lazy right now and I'll just say I've heard of it being pretty common in the meat-packing industry, factory industries (what's left of them)... pretty much whatever jobs that are dangerous that companies don't want to worry about safety, benefits, etc. They advertise across the boarder, they help get them set up in housing, but keep their hands clean so that, when INS comes around they don't get spanked for it. More on the side of the unseen workers than, say, those couple of guys at the construction site where Mr. Dude works. I'll start hunting around for some articles and stuff to back this up btw as, to be honest, I'm going off of what I saw in a doc movie.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Tyson 1 (http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/04/the_tyson_foods_illegal_immigr.html) 2 (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/19/154608.shtml)

Perdue 1 (http://illegalaliennewsupdate.com/archives/8070) 2 (http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/perdue-farms-inc-accused-by-employees-of-widespread-hiring-of-illegal-aliens)

IBP 1 (http://reconquista.tripod.com/NEWS/IBP-TysonSued020309.html)

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The only current one is disputed. The others are from more than 5 years ago, when the climate surrounding illegal workers was very different. Because of those and other suits companies like Tyson and Perdue have gotten out of the illegal business.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

There is more than fines at stake for WallMart now. Like I said above, the climate has changed since the 2000-2002 debates.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

The right-wing is too embedded with private business interests to possibly organize boycotts against them. They're not stupid.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

dude, just go live in London already
you'd love their CCTV

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/16/128568802/illegal-immigrant-deaths-in-az-soar-with-heat

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

Wow, I've never heard of this. I'm pretty pissed.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Low-grade half-hearted and random enforcement of laws just keeps people in a state of terror. "

This


"This isn't really about solving the immigration problem, it's about keeping people in the shadows, and keeping the wages of the people in the shadows nice and low."

However not this. Any statement implying an overarching goal is granting FAR too much intelligence to US immigration policy

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

Low-grade half-hearted and random enforcement of laws just keeps people in a state of terror. This isn't really about solving the immigration problem, it's about keeping people in the shadows, and keeping the wages of the people in the shadows nice and low.

Now my suggesting at this, and the "Lost bags/packages", and CCTV BS, and many other things has me being spoken about as "Paranoid" in many circles, how come you get away with it?

It's all about control, there's no need for it, Cars kill more people every day than terrorists kill in a decade, why are cars not subject to prohibition?

Forget about it, and whenever anyone in authority asks you a question, retain your right privilidge to silence, even when arrested, "Anything you say may be taken down as evidence and used against you in a court of law (Suggests the Brit version of Miranda) any evidence taken sure as hell will not be used to secure your freedom, and I have been in a position where by careful wording Authoritarian asshats have used part sentences and inferred comedic quips against me in matters where I was innocent but did spend some time at one of her majesties full board hotels for. ;)

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Stay vigilant citizen!

[dartmouth05.livejournal.com]

I went to college in New Hampshire. My college was about 103-104 miles away from the Canadian border, and so 5 miles away, the Border Patrol would sometimes set up an immigration checkpoint on the highway.

I was stopped at the checkpoint 3 times or so, and it consisted of the agents asking "Is everyone in the car a US citizen," and when we all said yes, being told to drive on. I heard that international students, however, were often given a rough time.

The odds of catching any serious bad guys with these sort of checks? Extremely minute.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I won't be able to help.
I'm white and they won't hassle me unless they do so to look unbiased.

But if they do, sure, I'll refuse. Why not? Waste the cops time. (unless i happen to be stoned, in which case, well, you can be sure i'll be answering all the questions in the manner that gets me outta there the quickest--not that'd be on Amtrak high or anything--jus sayin')

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

We had a Mexican restaurant in town and it turns out the owner was hiring illegals. Not to mention it turns out HE was an illegal. Everyone, including the owner, was deported and (of course) the restaurant was shut down.

Man, they had good burritos, too...

I think one of the things that needs to be done is to impose a HUGE penalty for hiring illegals. Like maybe a few thousand dollars per person. And make sure that trickles down to Mom&Pop businesses and people hiring housekeeping or home maintenance services (hey, I know that's stereotypical, but a lot of Hispanic people DO work in that capacity).