Arizona

sleepymed said:

Residency has kept me busy and I haven't posted as often... but this topic is getting me incredibly riled up. What's annoying me even more is that SAEM is in Arizona this year. I'm almost tempted to just not go...

Any thoughts on this bill? Am I misunderstanding the implications? it's a little reminiscent of nazi germany when they made jewish people wear stars.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are misunderstanding the implications. The bill is merely a state level reflection of existing federal law. Nobody is going to be rounded up based on the color of their skin. There will be no racial profiling. Those individuals who have police contact as a result of suspicion of other illegal acts will have their legal status checked at a federal level. The only real valid reason to be opposed to what Arizona has done is if you support illegal immigration, and comparing it to Nazi Germany exposes a degree of historical illiteracy that you probably don't want to admit to.

There will absolutely be racial profiling. It requires police to ask for documents from anyone "reasonable suspicious" of being here illegally. What does an illegal immigrant look like? It goes beyond federal law, read the bill.

I'm not a legislator, but, based on my limited knowledge of it, I find the bill offensive in the extreme. I do not support illegal immigration, but I can foresee some seriously negative consequences of said bill that I think outweigh its benefits. For example, if a victim of domestic violence doesn't have "papers" he or she will be far less likely to go to the police, so the abuse will continue.

surlypremo said:

There will absolutely be racial profiling. It requires police to ask for documents from anyone "reasonable suspicious" of being here illegally. What does an illegal immigrant look like? It goes beyond federal law, read the bill.

Click to expand...

No, it requires that they ask for documents from someone they've arrested for the suspicion of committing a crime.

It's essentially no different from an officer asking to see your drivers license and proof of insurance after they've stopped you for a traffic stop.

Tiger26 said:

No, it requires that they ask for documents from someone they've arrested for the suspicion of committing a crime.

It's essentially no different from an officer asking to see your drivers license and proof of insurance after they've stopped you for a traffic stop.

Click to expand...

My understanding exactly. Which I have no problem with at all. Illegal immigration is in fact a crime, despite what much of the media portrays it as.

WilcoWorld said:

I'm not a legislator, but, based on my limited knowledge of it, I find the bill offensive in the extreme. I do not support illegal immigration, but I can foresee some seriously negative consequences of said bill that I think outweigh its benefits. For example, if a victim of domestic violence doesn't have "papers" he or she will be far less likely to go to the police, so the abuse will continue.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but isn't this already happening right now even without stricter laws on illegal immigration? Just my opinion, but I think this only speaks to the need for tougher illegal immigration laws. There's a great deal of abuse, misuse, and crimes of humanity committed against these individuals simply because they're in the United States Illegally.

For those people against the immigration law, I would ask one simple question: What is your alternative?

Don't say the Federal government should do it. The Feds have essentially said that they are not going to enforce immigration LAW in this country for various political reasons, and that is not going to change anytime soon.

In my view Arizona had no choice. They are the kidnap capital of the United States, have drug runners and smugglers causing violence at the border, and illegals are bankrupting Arizona schools and hospitals. So I ask again, what else could they do?

WilcoWorld said:

For example, if a victim of domestic violence doesn't have "papers" he or she will be far less likely to go to the police, so the abuse will continue.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there are provisions in the bill for this exact scenario.

Police can only ask for residency status on reasonable suspicion during lawful interactions like a traffic stop or crime. Personally, I'm all for giving police officers the ability to ask about residency status during these situations, though I would be against it if it were based on racial profiling.

So my understanding is that only one of two scenarios would be legal:
1) Mexican guys standing on a street corner looking for work = NOT legal to ask their immigration status.
2) Individual is pulled over for a traffic violation. Police officer may choose whether or not to ask about immigration status based on their suspicion.

Personally, I think one way around the fear that reasonable suspicion will translate to racial profiling is to take away the "based on their suspicion" part and simply require that the immigration status be inquired of all traffic stops and other legal police encounters.

Does anyone know if an illiegal immigrant can get a driver's license in AZ?

If so, that's a problem.

Every time i've been pulled over, I've been asked to show my driver's license and registration. If someone has entered the country illegally, the should not have a driver's license to show. That's not profiling.

As a natural born citizen of the US, when I leave the country I always have to go through immigration and customs when I return. I have to show my passport, explain where I've been and allow a search of my luggage. And I face the same scrutiny when entering any other country- they want to know (rightfully) who I am, where I'm from, what reason I have to be visiting their county and how long I plan to stay.

Anybody who has bypassed this system has already broken the law. Systems to help identify criminals are not profiling.

sleepymed said:

...Any thoughts on this bill? Am I misunderstanding the implications? it's a little reminiscent of nazi germany when they made jewish people wear stars.

Click to expand...

Bill? Haven't heard of this issue. Link?

sleepymed said:

...What's annoying me even more is that SAEM is in Arizona this year. I'm almost tempted to just not go...

Click to expand...

Then you'll miss your chance to meet me...

It'sElectric said:

I see what you're saying, but isn't this already happening right now even without stricter laws on illegal immigration?

Click to expand...

When I was in the Carolinas, this expressly did NOT happen. I asked local police about it. They said that they did NOT check citizenship. It was too much of a pain in the ass. They already had the people as whom the suspected committed the crime, so they didn't make more work for themselves. A lot of presumably "illegals" assumed more than this, because I recall personally more people that spoke Spanish only (or so purported) that could not remember their own name or birthdate than anyone in English. When "José Pérez" ("John Smith") comes in DUI/DWI, I am concerned with his injuries, not his legal status.

WilcoWorld said:

For example, if a victim of domestic violence doesn't have "papers" he or she will be far less likely to go to the police, so the abuse will continue.

Click to expand...

I saw this happen in South Carolina - illegals would be paid in cash. There was a group of black men (can't say they were a gang) that would rob the Mexicans, knowing they wouldn't go to the police. It was a monumental effort to get the illegals to cooperate, but, eventually, they did, and the robbers were captured. No one got deported.

sleepymed said:

it's a little reminiscent of nazi germany when they made jewish people wear stars.

Click to expand...

Did you really just compare enforcement of immigration laws to the Nazis killing German citizens for no better reason than their religion making them an easy scapegoat for the country's problems? Holy Godwin Batman!

Siggy said:

Did you really just compare enforcement of immigration laws to the Nazis killing German citizens for no better reason than their religion making them an easy scapegoat for the country's problems? Holy Godwin Batman!

Click to expand...

No, he just compared the Nazi laws requiring all Jews to have and display documentation at all times to the Arizona laws that seem at initial glance to require all hispanic citizens to have and display their documentation at all times.

If you're going to complain about someone having historical illiteracy and making a false allusion, then at least don't display said same illiteracy. If he's wrong, it's on the Arizona side of things, not the historical side of things.


Now my own opinion:

It's a tricky situation because illegal immigrants are just that, illegal. But you need to attack them, even if it's at a state level, without infringing on the rights of your citizens.

It's complete BS to require legal immigrants AND hispanics born in this country to have on their persons at all times their immigration documents (or documents proving that they're citizens) and to arrest them if they are not doing so. Now if you have a driver's license, then no problem. But what if you're a hispanic born in this country and you get stopped by a cop for no reason but to check your immigration documents (oh yeah, you were umm...loitering..., or your friend who was driving you looked suspicious....). Can you be arrested because you don't have your social security card, passport, or birth certificate on you? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if the current law would create this situation or not.

Rendar5 said:

Can you be arrested because you don't have your social security card, passport, or birth certificate on you? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if the current law would create this situation or not.

Click to expand...

Police need "probable cause". Loitering in an area where prostitution occurs or drug sales happen can give them that.

Now, if a person is stopped with probable cause, then they have to affirmatively prove their identity. People that cannot do this (and, as such cannot be issued a ticket to appear) can be taken into custody until this is determined, normally by production of identification identifying such person. Also, the IAFIS database guarantees 2 hour turnaround for criminal requests, so, if a person either has been arrested in the US, or been fingerprinted before as an illegal before being cut loose/returned to Mexico. As to which I alluded above, to say first that you speak no English, then to say you forgot your name, now will not bode so well for you in Arizona.

Requiring non-citizens to carry documentation of their legal status at all times has been federal law for 58 years. Arizona did nothing new.

Apollyon said:

When I was in the Carolinas, this expressly did NOT happen. I asked local police about it. They said that they did NOT check citizenship. It was too much of a pain in the ass. They already had the people as whom the suspected committed the crime, so they didn't make more work for themselves. A lot of presumably "illegals" assumed more than this, because I recall personally more people that spoke Spanish only (or so purported) that could not remember their own name or birthdate than anyone in English. When "José Pérez" ("John Smith") comes in DUI/DWI, I am concerned with his injuries, not his legal status.



I saw this happen in South Carolina - illegals would be paid in cash. There was a group of black men (can't say they were a gang) that would rob the Mexicans, knowing they wouldn't go to the police. It was a monumental effort to get the illegals to cooperate, but, eventually, they did, and the robbers were captured. No one got deported.

Click to expand...

I should have been more clear. I was trying to say exactly what you experienced in South Carolina - the illegal immigrants are already too afraid to report crimes out of fear of being deported (even without strict immigration laws).

Fah-Q said:

Requiring non-citizens to carry documentation of their legal status at all times has been federal law for 58 years. Arizona did nothing new.

Click to expand...

The people theoretically under threat are hispanic citizens, not legal aliens. I say theoretically because as I've said, I don't know if the practice of the new law will or will not be unfair to them.

Apollyon said:

Police need "probable cause". Loitering in an area where prostitution occurs or drug sales happen can give them that.

Click to expand...

From what I've heard of AZ per news articles on traffic stops, in plenty of areas, "probable cause" may amount to driving around while being hispanic. When 90+% of your traffic tickets go to hispanic drivers in an area with less than 10% hispanics, something may be up.

Of course new law won't really affect that since driver's license would be a valid ID showing citizen status. My point being probable cause is sometimes BS and can easily be made up. (Why a cop still couldn'tt give a valid reason to my fiancee for running her plates while she was stopped at a traffic light in her nice relatively new car. only explanation I can give is that she's black and that ended up being probable cause enough for him).

Now if there are penalties for racial profiling being probable cause, then i'm cool with it.

Apollyon said:

Also, the IAFIS database guarantees 2 hour turnaround for criminal requests, so, if a person either has been arrested in the US, or been fingerprinted before as an illegal before being cut loose/returned to Mexico. As to which I alluded above, to say first that you speak no English, then to say you forgot your name, now will not bode so well for you in Arizona.

Click to expand...

Hey, if you say you can't speak english, then say you forgot your name when given a spanish interpreter, and you're not septic/closed head injury/whatever, I'm perfectly happy having your butt thrown over the border.

But honestly, if I'm hispanic in that state, then I'm not going to be happy that every time i'm brought in with "probable cause" once every couple months because I don't carry my social security card around it's only going to be 2 hours out of my day. I'm calling my lawyer and suing the state. Thankfully I'm not hispanic and living in AZ.

Rendar5 said:

But honestly, if I'm hispanic in that state, then I'm not going to be happy that every time i'm brought in with "probable cause" once every couple months because I don't carry my social security card around it's only going to be 2 hours out of my day. I'm calling my lawyer and suing the state. Thankfully I'm not hispanic and living in AZ.

Click to expand...

They aren't going to "bring you in". If you can speak English, can give appropriate biographical details and have a driver's license. The police should be able to confirm who you are. They would only "bring you in" if the information you gave was false, you were carrying forged documents, or had no documents at all.

No one answered my original question though: What is the alternative to Arizona enforcing established law?

GeneralVeers said:

They aren't going to "bring you in". If you can speak English, can give appropriate biographical details and have a driver's license. The police should be able to confirm who you are. They would only "bring you in" if the information you gave was false, you were carrying forged documents, or had no documents at all.

No one answered my original question though: What is the alternative to Arizona enforcing established law?

Click to expand...

I was more talking about in terms of providing cops power to bring in hispanics without driver's licenses. As I said before, it's a tricky situation though. You need to enforce the law but without randomly stopping people on the streets, hanging out, etc because they look hispanic.

It's very easy for someone who's not a victim of profiling to say it's appropriate because it helps catch appropriate criminals. But I don't really see Arabs preaching racial profiling in airports, blacks everywhere advocating running plates of black drivers, or hispanic citizens promoting stopping hispanics in the street for immigration checks.

The alternatives are not enforcing immigration laws (obvious no-go), giving police the power to detain people based on suspected immigration status in immigration cases being investigated. Or perhaps to implement the current law along with implementing laws that somehow prevents "looks hispanic, let me just say that he was loitering/swerving" from being "reasonable suspicion". Such as a secondary group that investigates randomly whether racial profiling is the primary means that someone has of stopping people in the street. Or designing laws that doesn't allow "suspicious" to be a sole requirement for production of identity papers. Plenty of cops will only be suspicious appropriately, no doubt. But plenty will be suspicious because of their presumption of your ethnicity.

GeneralVeers said:

They aren't going to "bring you in". If you can speak English, can give appropriate biographical details and have a driver's license. The police should be able to confirm who you are. They would only "bring you in" if the information you gave was false, you were carrying forged documents, or had no documents at all.

No one answered my original question though: What is the alternative to Arizona enforcing established law?

Click to expand...

Like I said before, I do not know the exact wording of the law. I suspect noone here has actually read it himself. However, my second/third-hand understanding is that the law allows for people to be stopped and asked for papers simply because the police suspect them of being illegals. There's a big difference between that and asking a driver for his or her driver's license or requiring a criminal to identify him or herself.

Here's a potential alternative; Make stricter penalties for employers who are found guilty of knowingly employing illegals and for taking demonstrably inadequate measures to ensure citizenship. A lot of businesses profit, depend even, on cheap illegal labor. If we remove the motivation for illegals to enter the US we could significantly reduce the number of illegals here.

WilcoWorld said:

Like I said before, I do not know the exact wording of the law. I suspect noone here has actually read it himself. However, my second/third-hand understanding is that the law allows for people to be stopped and asked for papers simply because the police suspect them of being illegals. There's a big difference between that and asking a driver for his or her driver's license or requiring a criminal to identify him or herself.

Click to expand...

Your guess is wrong. The law does not grant police that authority, rather the wording is one of "reasonable suspician". That does not give police authority to stop people for being hispanic. It is the same criteria they have to follow in order to stop your car in traffic, search your car, or stop you in the street. An example of "reasonable suspician" would be a van full of 10 people, on a known smuggling corridor heading away from the border. [/QUOTE]

Here's a potential alternative; Make stricter penalties for employers who are found guilty of knowingly employing illegals and for taking demonstrably inadequate measures to ensure citizenship. A lot of businesses profit, depend even, on cheap illegal labor. If we remove the motivation for illegals to enter the US we could significantly reduce the number of illegals here.

Click to expand...

Who's going to make that policy? We've already established the the Feds have no intention of enforcing immigration laws, and in fact most of the administration is made up of "open border" advocates.

GeneralVeers said:

Your guess is wrong. The law does not grant police that authority, rather the wording is one of "reasonable suspician". That does not give police authority to stop people for being hispanic. It is the same criteria they have to follow in order to stop your car in traffic, search your car, or stop you in the street. An example of "reasonable suspician" would be a van full of 10 people, on a known smuggling corridor heading away from the border.

Click to expand...

If that's what reasonable suspicion entails, then sure. But I'm not seeing how you can't just make up reasonable suspicion to suit your needs to cover up pulling over on suspicion of being hispanic. If oversight's needed to prevent that, then cool, provide the oversight in law.

GeneralVeers said:

Who's going to make that policy? We've already established the the Feds have no intention of enforcing immigration laws, and in fact most of the administration is made up of "open border" advocates.

Click to expand...

Arizona can make that policy.

Meh, I have to pull over at the border patrol station every single day on my daily commute. The drug dog sniffs my vehicle out and the nice officer inconveniences my life by asking about my citizenship. Additionally, I wave at the nice cameras that take my picture twice a day and if I am having a really good day I end up waiting for a half hour or so in the queue of vehicles backed up on the highway waiting for their turn to talk to the nice border patrol agents.

This has been going on for years and nobody has been loosing the plot. Now all the sudden, people are crawling out of the cracks to complain about Arizona. My situation feels so outshined. I guess its okay because everybody's lives are inconvenienced and thus no "racial profiling" is occurring.

Rendar5 said:

If that's what reasonable suspicion entails, then sure. But I'm not seeing how you can't just make up reasonable suspicion to suit your needs to cover up pulling over on suspicion of being hispanic. If oversight's needed to prevent that, then cool, provide the oversight in law.

Click to expand...

All police operate under the standard of "reasonable suspicion" in many cases, so this would be nothing new. Presumably if they can do it in other circumstances, how is this any different?

Arizona can make that policy.

Click to expand...

Not sure if it would in fact be legal for Arizona police to make workplace raids and fine employers. That may be a power given strictly to the INS.

I was just wondering if anyone from the posts above are EM residents in Arizona. If so, would you please give us your opinion if this whole illegal immigration issue has posed any strain on your training. That is, besides the difficulty of treating Spanish only speaking patients, have the sentiments of fellow residents or staff been such that it's made things uncomfortable for you (if you happen to be against the new Arizona law). Has living in Arizona been what you expected? Having grown up in Texas not too far from the border, I CAN relate to the frustration the citizens of Arizona are dealing with. However, I've managed to also endure racial profiling/discrimination (not surprizingly even from *2nd or 3rd generation Mexican-Americans). Thankfully, most cops were good folks and weren't out to get you.*I realize there will be a subset of individuals from both sides of the debate that will present extreme views (one side wants complete amnesty while the other would like to deport all illegals), but even with a law like this, we shouldn't be so naive that we can't foresee the negative consequences of such a law. Let's be real, expect that many WILL be treated unfairly simply because of how they look *or speak. For those of us who don't agree with the law, I suppose we'll just have to endure this crap until the federal government gets some huevos and starts enforcing it's own laws. One thing that really irritates me is that many folks protesting have historically been(at least in my generation) less active in the political process of elections, etc. A person that doesn't exercise their civic duty has no right to complain. ANYWAY, the reason I ask this question is because although EM training in Arizona would be great, I really have to take into consideration the environment where my wife and kids will also be living. Thanks in advance.

Dr.McNinja said:

And drug dealers don't want to report crimes either. Sorry, but people breaking the law are not going to willingly go to the police, except in comical situations. This law isn't going to make this worse.
People are certainly welcome to read the law or the fact sheet so they stop making assumptions about requiring people to have passports or social security cards.
I find it appalling that someone at the level of the president would speak out without proper knowledge simply because a state is attempting to better enforce a federal law that doesn't have any teeth. Of course, that Cambridge police officer also acted "stupidly".
It all boils down to the fact that people are emoting about law rather than thinking. Sorry, but being here illegal means you are illegal.
Comparing this to the Nazis means that every state is Nazi, because all of them require ID in some fashion.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with everything you are saying. You're saying exactly what I initially thought I said - illegal immigrants have been avoiding the police/authorities out of risk of exposure for some time now, and the new law will in no way exacerbate this situation.

I, too, take issue with the Nazi regime analogy - hyperbole at its worst.

It'sElectric said:

I completely agree with everything you are saying. You're saying exactly what I initially thought I said - illegal immigrants have been avoiding the police/authorities out of risk of exposure for some time now, and the new law will in no way exacerbate this situation.

I, too, take issue with the Nazi regime analogy - hyperbole at its worst.

Click to expand...

Just like people on the right get hysterical (though I'm not sure the socialism concern is completely without merit), the people on the left will exaggerate if it fits their argument and their agenda.

We need to have a comprehensive enforcement package:

- Immediate deportation of anyone found here illegally in the due course of other legal proceedings.
- Mandatory citizenship check before school enrollment, social services, and employment are permitted.
- Workplace audits both randomly and with just cause to determine the legal status of all employees. I would support massive fines on a per instance basis against any employers found to knowingly hire illegals.

In essence if you cut off employment and benefits many will simply go back home.

GeneralVeers said:

Just like people on the right get hysterical (though I'm not sure the socialism concern is completely without merit), the people on the left will exaggerate if it fits their argument and their agenda.

We need to have a comprehensive enforcement package:

- Immediate deportation of anyone found here illegally in the due course of other legal proceedings.
- Mandatory citizenship check before school enrollment, social services, and employment are permitted.
- Workplace audits both randomly and with just cause to determine the legal status of all employees. I would support massive fines on a per instance basis against any employers found to knowingly hire illegals.

In essence if you cut off employment and benefits many will simply go back home.

Click to expand...

I'm in agreement. I vividly recall during my undergraduate years, there was a fairly large protesting group of illegal immigrants calling for in-state tuition rates, stating that it was unfair they were paying out-of-state tuition rates. I remember thinking WTF, are they for serial?!

GeneralVeers said:

All police operate under the standard of "reasonable suspicion" in many cases, so this would be nothing new. Presumably if they can do it in other circumstances, how is this any different?

Click to expand...

No, usually for search and seizure matters they require probable cause, a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. See here, for example: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf

pseudoknot said:

No, usually for search and seizure matters they require probable cause, a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. See here, for example: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf

Click to expand...

Right, but we're not talking about "searching" or "seizing" anything.

GeneralVeers said:

Right, but we're not talking about "searching" or "seizing" anything.

Click to expand...

Please inform yourself better about the law before discussing it publicly.

pseudoknot said:

Please inform yourself better about the law before discussing it publicly.

Click to expand...

I don't claim to be a legal expert. But there are numerous other instances where police operate under "reasonable suspician". That was my only claim above. See the following for legal precedent.

The courts under "reasonable suspician" allow a person to be stopped and have a cursory search. Not that any "search" argument is relevant in this immigration discussion.

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.

Arizona, Show Your Papers? So What!

by Paul Theroux

Is asking drivers for ID in Arizona so different from cops in Italy asking train passengers for passports? Travel writer Paul Theroux on how the new law compares to other countries'.

These people who are protesting being asked for identification by Arizona cops—have they been anywhere lately, like out of the country? Like Mexico, or Canada, or India, or Italy, or Tanzania, or Singapore, or Britain—places where people in uniforms have routinely demanded my papers? Chicago White Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen is offended ("as a Latin American") by the Arizona law and recently claimed that all illegal immigrants are "workaholics." Has he been back to the land of his birth lately, Venezuela, and expected not to be asked for his papers? Ozzie, tell the police in Ocumare del Tuy, "I'm a Latin American," and see if that will end the interrogation. And spare a thought for the policeman two days ago who was gunned down in the desert by a workaholic drug dealer.

The request for papers is not just a line in Casablanca. I have been hearing the question my whole traveling life. I had an Alien Registration Card in Britain and got occasional visits from the police at my home, to make sure I was behaving myself. Seventeen years in Britain as an alien: papers. Six years in Africa: "Where are your papers, bwana?" Three years in Singapore: another alien identity card and immense red tape in that fussy, litigious bureaucracy.

As for the U.S., it is annoying, but understandable, especially in a country with 12 million illegal immigrants using the public services. "Who are you?" is a routine question: The necessity to identify yourself to authority is something that happens every day.

You can't check into any hotel in India or China or buy certain railway tickets there without showing your passport and having all your details recorded. So why should an Indian or a Chinese in the U.S. be surprised if he or she is stopped for speeding by a policeman in Flagstaff and asked for a proof of residence?


Brazilians comprise the fastest-growing ethnic community on Cape Cod. They represent the whole social scale, from God-botherers, roofers, landscapers, and garage mechanics, to petty thieves and drug dealers. A large proportion of them are illegals, working off the books, indignant that they would ever be asked to identify themselves.


Ever been to Brazil? I have. "Where are your papers, meester?"

Click to expand...

Anyone have a link to the abovementioned SAEM letter? I'd like to read it.

It'sElectric said:

I'm in agreement. I vividly recall during my undergraduate years, there was a fairly large protesting group of illegal immigrants calling for in-state tuition rates, stating that it was unfair they were paying out-of-state tuition rates. I remember thinking WTF, are they for serial?!

Click to expand...

I remember this at my undergrad as well. What ridiculousness.