Arizona’s Common Sense Approach to Racial Profiling

May 5th, 2010 at 12:46 am | 62 Comments |

| Print

The new Arizona law making it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant and empowering state and local police officers to arrest the aliens is provoking hysterical criticism.  Generally, shop the critics contend that the law allows the police to detain anyone looking Hispanic, buy viagra demanding to see “their papers, ailment ” and if none are produced, arresting them.  This has been described as “un-American” or, evidence of totalitarianism, like Nazi Germany.  These criticisms are wrong because federal law already permits Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain Hispanic- looking people who also appear to be illegal.  When Gov. Jan Brewer signed the Arizona law, she stated she did not know what an illegal immigrant looks like.  She could not have been serious.  Everyone in Arizona knows what an illegal immigrant looks like.  It’s not necessary to take police training on the demographics of Arizona’s illegal immigrant population.  According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 94% of them are from Mexico.  We start with that fact and then look for other telltale signs of illegal status: the inability to speak English, the dirty clothes, the type of vehicle, the proximity to the border or places where illegals work (agriculture, fast food, construction sites, etc.)

The Supreme Court held in a unanimous 1975 decision, when it had a more liberal cast, that federal officials could pull motorists over for questioning, without a warrant,  if they have ”reasonable suspicion” they are illegal immigrants.  And, at least in areas near the border,  Hispanic ethnicity can be one of the factors in forming the reasonable suspicion.  Other factors include the type of vehicle the person is driving, the number of passengers in the vehicle, a dirty/muddy appearance, etc.  While Hispanic appearance cannot be the sole factor, there is no doubt that it can be a significant one.

All the Arizona law does is give state and local police the same authority as federal officials have had since 1975.  Any Arizona law enforcement official carrying out the mandate of this law should begin with the correct assumption that nearly all illegal immigrants in the state are Hispanics from Mexico.   Given this fact, it makes no sense to even begin amassing sufficient information to form a reasonable suspicion as to a non-Hispanic person.  Critics call this “racial profiling.”   Supporters of the law have not yet found a rhetorical shorthand way of responding.  Common sense might suffice.  Any member of the public who is not wedded to the open borders agenda and wants immigration law enforced would not object to focusing efforts of enforcement on Hispanics.  The numbers make this unavoidable.  And the Supreme Court has upheld this “profiling,” or common sense narrowing of the population for immigration enforcement, as long as the police also have other grounds to form reasonable suspicion.

If I could turn the tables on the critics of the Arizona law, I would start by asking them if they believe the Constitution forbids, as the Rev. Al Sharpton said on ABC this Sunday, any consideration of ethnicity in forming a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant.  If they agree with Sharpton, then they should be asked to cite the Supreme Court case supporting that view.  There is none.  And if I’m wrong, then anyone reading this should email me the decision immediately.  I’ll post it here.  Sharpton does not know what he’s talking about, and he should take an hour out of his media schedule to read United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 884 (1975) and I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984)(reaching the same conclusion about warrantless questioning of suspected illegal immigrants in a mostly Hispanic workplace).

It’s fair to ask what Sharpton and his like-minded critics of the Arizona law want in the way of enforcement of our immigration laws.  If ethnicity is not a factor, then immigration laws cannot be enforced.  Again, the Pew Hispanic Center confirms that 76% of the 11.9 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are Hispanic.  Should all Hispanics be suspected of being illegal?  Certainly not.  But should law enforcement take that into account?  How can they not?  Suppose an ICE agent pulls over a van filled with 20 Hispanics and learns from the driver that he is on his way to a chicken processing plant, and it is early in the morning.  If the driver can produce a valid drivers’ license, the ICE agent should still be allowed to question the other passengers because it is common knowledge that illegal immigrants tend to be Hispanics, tend to be driven in crowded vans, and tend to work in chicken plants.  The racially blind approach would draw no suspicion from these factors and simply let the driver of the van proceed despite the fact the passengers are likely illegal immigrants.

We cannot have immigration law enforcement without common sense attention to ethnicity.  If our southern border were not Mexico, but another Canada, then things would be different.  But as its stands, criticism of common sense immigration enforcement is just a proxy for open borders- nonenforcement.

Recent Posts by Howard Foster

62 Comments so far ↓

  • ktward

    “Hysterical criticism”. That’s rich. I’ve never thought of Karl Rove as hysterical. A lot of other descriptors come to mind, but not that one.

    Is it just coincidence, or might we suppose that Mr. Foster caught The Economist’s article, “Hysterical Nativism.”:

    The Economist’s characterization rings factually true. Foster’s rings transparently partisan.

    There are folks commenting on this thread who simply crave a quasi-argument in defense of 1070. And they believe that Foster’s given them a good one, so now they’re waving his banner agreeing that racial profiling is okee dokee. On previous FF 1070 threads, these same folks variously equivocated that 1070 would not, in fact, devolve into racial profiling–that AZ police were certainly well-trained and smart enough to not use skin color as criteria by which to enforce 1070. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    As we speak, there are lawsuits against 1070 on deck from various big hitters, among them:
    Police officers (!)
    City of Tuscon
    And an ACLU coalition is crafting both immediate and long-term challenges:

    If 1070 manages to survive until it goes into effect, litigation is inevitable. (Or, for real entertainment, how about a lawsuit filed against the police for lack of enforcement? An odd provision to write into the law if, as asserted by 1070′s crafters and supporters, they’re confident that police are capable of competently enforcing it.)

    Comprehensive Immigration Reform is necessary.

    CIR legislation was ready to go in ’06 during Bush, until nativist GOP Senators shot it down. McCain has since turned tail on his own bill. Graham’s the only GOP Senator currently willing to go back to the CIR table, but while he prodded Obama in March to ‘push harder’ for CIR, today he calls it an issue too divisive to take up in an election year and points fingers at those who are reminded of the urgency in the wake of 1070:

    Frankly, any defense of 1070 drips with the GOP’s own impotence.

  • nhthinker

    “nhthinker, yeah, sure. I am sure the pimps are having their sex slaves read the letter of the law. Good lord, what planet are you on? The word on the street which is the word that matters is that cops are now not to be trusted because you can be deported. How can you bury your head in the sand like that? Or do you truly not care about what happens to illegals?”

    I cannot help that you do not believe in the value of law.

    pimps and rapists will be pimps and rapists until they are caught and brought to justice.

    The women and children that are raped and sex slaves shall not be allowed to raped nor be sex slaves- Americans are responsible for making sure that happens as little as possible inside the US.
    The American government is not responsible for solving all the problems caused by poverty in Central and South America.

    I am all for increased LEGAL immigration AFTER the border is secure and existing LAW against ILLEGAL labor is enforced.

    Is your proposal that every illegal alien that is a victim of sex slavery perpetrated in the US deserves legal US residence? You are not seemingly making much sense.

    If it costs too much to legally grow crops in California, the prices for California products will rise. Crops will be grown in Brazil instead.

    Production should move to low cost regions.

    Skilled workers should vie for opportunities to legally immigrant to countries with better opportunities.

    You want credit for a person’s willingness to avoid border portal. Sorry.

  • easton

    I am all for increased LEGAL immigration AFTER the border is secure and existing LAW against ILLEGAL labor is enforced.

    Fine, but numbers please. It has to be sufficient enough that Mexico retains that pressure valve, if Mexico imploded than it would be an utter disaster for the US. Imagine a Chavez type leader working with narcotraffickers, cross border trade slowing to a trickle, etc. Way, way too risky. Castro has been a nightmare for the US for 50 years and it has 1/10 the population of Mexico and is an island. You simply can’t be foolish enough to pretend that a di-stabilized Mexico wouldn’t reek havoc on American security.

    Of course sex slaves should be given the opportunity to become residents, many are kidnapped and raped into submission. What kind of monster would drop them off in a jungle in Central America saying tough.

    Of course I believe in the value of law, provide the law is just and sensible. Were you in favor of Separate but equal? The Supreme Court said it was perfectly fine for generations, until the Warren court overturned it. Have you no concept of just and unjust laws? Or sensible and idiotic ones. Prohibition was idiotic even though it was legal, and can even be argued to be moral (hence just) but it was flat out idiotic. So far you have not come close to showing how this law is not idiotic.

    We already have a branch of law enforcement specifically trained to deal with border patrol and immigration. It is called ICE. If you want to argue about tripling or quadrupling its budget and manpower, I am all for it.

    Would you want a podiatrist performing heart surgery? Of course not. So why ask beat cops to assume roles that they were not trained for, not paid for, and most likely don’t even want since it breeds distrust of Law enforcement (and it does, you have not once addressed this since you have no rebuttal). ICE agents are specialists. Give them their tools to do their job, don’t get all hissy and try to get others to do it.

    Let ICE patrol the border and do job site raids and investigations, they have the data mining resources and the skill to do it right, and the power of the Federal government to nail them (like a local cop would never warn a relative who has a factory that employs illegals, that would never happen)

  • nhthinker


    You seem to be arguing from a completely moral point of view with no interest in the law.

    Have you read and understood the US Constitution? How old were you when you came to your understanding of the US Constitution?

    Do you believe the US is a country of laws or a country of moral obligations?

  • easton

    nhthinker, I have no idea what you are talking about. So because Slavery was considered Constitutional it was right? This is just absurd. Of course I know the Constitution, damn sight better I am sure than you since I teach the ILEC. You have simply gone overboard with absolutes. Why can’t the US be a country of laws and a country of moral obligations? I suggest you get a clue and try to understand that Laws came about partly as a function of recognition of moral obligations. And you seem to be saying that once something becomes Law, it shall ever be thus. Laws can be changed, and in fact this law will undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional since the Constitution clearly states the this is a function of the federal government. It is utterly laughable that you are trying to defend a law that will certainly be struck down as unconstitutional, at which point you will scream at the “activist” Supreme Court, thereby claiming the Court decision is invalid since it doesn’t conform to your notion of what laws should be.

    And, of course, you have completely disregarded what I wrote about ICE instead throwing a truly silly diversionary tactic by changing the topic to a ridiculous question of either/or.

    Try answering my questions please instead of building silly strawmen, otherwise, don’t waste my time.

  • nhthinker


    It is you that are wasting our time.

    A few simple questions:

    1) What principle of law (or even morals) makes the American public responsible to confer American citizenship to people that were illegally brought to the US even if these people were abused in the US? You seem to be implying that every non-citizen that reports a significant crime against them is entitled to citizenship. You have a myopic lack of understanding what perversion such a law would cause.

    2) I have no problem with people trying to change laws. I do have serious problem with people saying that laws should not be enforced while they are still laws. Do you advocate non-enforcement of laws, especially laws that most Americans agree with?

    3) There is no standing class action suit against Maricopa County sheriff’s office that have been actively doing most of what 1070 calls for. The existing class-class suits have been thrown out. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his practices have been represented as the racist boogeyman- and federal courts have disagreed. Are you contending that the Maricopa County actions have been inconsistent with the law even though the federal courts have thrown out the class action suits?

  • easton

    1) What principle of law (or even morals) makes the American public responsible to confer American citizenship to people that were illegally brought to the US even if these people were abused in the US?
    Um….how about the Slaves? You know, the ones we had a Civil War to free? Are you suggesting we should have then shipped them all back to Africa? Talk about a fat pitch, I hit that one off the planet.

    2) I have no problem with people trying to change laws. I do have serious problem with people saying that laws should not be enforced while they are still laws. Do you advocate non-enforcement of laws, especially laws that most Americans agree with?

    So do you hitch your car to a hitching post because there are a ton of blue laws that are not enforced because to enforce them would be insane, there are also laws in the books of most states against Adultery, fornication, etc. Police have long used selective enforcement, lets not kid ourselves otherwise. And, of course I advocate non-enforcement of unjust laws, especially laws that have not passed Constitutional muster. Let me ask you, if your city passed a law banning the ownership of guns, would you comply? Even if the vast majority of the people there supported the law? DC tried to do it but the Supreme Court struck it down, in the interim would you have complied with the law, and do you think the DC police should have actively tried to enforce it, even though everyone knew it would be struck down.

    Now as to unjust laws, sometimes the average citizen has to disobey. That is what civil disobedience means, without it blacks would still be segregated.

    I also never said the Police don’t have the right to enforce these laws, I just think it is idiotic for them to be wasting their time doing so, again, you refuse constantly to address the function of ICE.
    And, to be honest, if Arizona created their own version of ICE, a special division of law enforcement that worked hand in hand with the federal government to enforce immigration laws, hey, fine. Try that and see it that passes constitutional muster. Keep the divisions separate. Again, I don’t want an illegal too afraid to call narcotics to inform of a major shipment because they are afraid narcotics will ship them out of the country.

    But keep on lobbing me these fat pitches and I will keep on blasting them out of the ballpark, unless you really, truly believe that black slaves should have been denied US citizenship and sent back to Africa, in which case you are certifiable. Please, please explain how you ever came up with that first question. I would really love to know, unless you are simply playing the fool to illicit a desired response.

    And yes, young girls kidnapped, raped, and forced into prostitution in the US should be given every kind of humane aid our country can offer. I never said citizenship, but residency is fair. Citizenship after that should be earned, not bestowed. But zero rights, deportation? No aid or comfort whatsoever? That is just monstrous. It is flat out evil and misogynistic to suggest otherwise.
    Playing the devils advocate is one thing, just spouting utter evil is another. Don’t cross that line.

  • nhthinker


    You’ve pretty much indicated that you are fine with people disobeying any law that they think is unfair while they try to get it changed. Most Americans disagree with you and do not want the US to slip into the lawlessness that is so prevalent in Mexico. Your opinions seem very consistent with the perspective of immigrants that would want to illegally enter the US.

    There should not be a single immigrant without a work visa working in the US. That is the law. It is a just law. People that have done illegal things have to live with the consequences. People need to repatriate and come into the country by legal means and not be placed ahead of the law-abiding immigrants. Employers that skirted the law and intentionally employed immigrants should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and the law should be changed to increase the violation to a level of a felony. As I said, I am very open to much a larger number of legal immigrants- I want those immigrants to be skilled- much like the way Canada allows immigration. I am not anti-immigrant. I dislike the idea of permanent work visas for people that are not on a track to citizenship- as that becomes a form of indentured-servitude and a permanent legalized subclass in the country.

    I want immigrants that have skills and the financial integrity to be able to buy homes and not go into bankruptcy. That will be the only way back for the housing industry.

    Every illegal immigrant deserved to be treated with dignity- that does not mean that they should not be returned to their country of citizenship.

    I am also fine with deported citizens being able to legally civilly sue illegal employers for difference between what they were paid and the going legal wage of the job they performed.

    The immigrants were wronged- by other people- they deserve restitution from those other people- not the US tax payer. The tax payer may be willing to cover the court costs but that is it.

  • easton

    more evasion and mischaracterization I see. So I guess you are OK with bringing back slavery since it was once Constitutional, right? This is utter silliness.

    Look, with Civil Disobedience you pay the cost, that includes arrest and imprisonment, if you are willing to do so, how can I have a “problem” with it. It is called free will.

    “Your opinions seem very consistent with the perspective of immigrants that would want to illegally enter the US. There should not be a single immigrant without a work visa working in the US.” This is absolute rubbish. Have you read anything I said above? I have stressed time and again I want it to be legal, who in their right mind wants to work illegally? Again with the strawmen. I quote you directly and then rebut, you make up things in your own head and then claim I say them. It is classic strawmen arguments.

    “I dislike the idea of permanent work visas for people that are not on a track to citizenship- as that becomes a form of indentured-servitude and a permanent legalized subclass in the country.” More rubbish, I work in Mexico, but I have no desire to become a Mexican citizen, who really cares what you think? This is between me and the Mexican government. You have a hell of a nerve telling people that they have no choices. By the way, there is no permanent work visa, there is permanent residency which is distinct from permanent work visa, just don’t make up categories that don’t exist.

    Since you are obviously and completely ignorant and since it never occurred to you to learn anything here are the list of some visas:

    * B-1 Business Visa
    * B-2 Tourist Visa
    * F-1 Student Visa
    * J-1 Exchange Visitor Visa
    * H-1B Work Visa: Valid for 3 years initially, can be extended to 6. (nothing permanent about this)
    * H-2B Work Visa and H-2A: Temporary Agricultural Workers
    * K-1 Fiance(e)/Fiance Visa
    * TN NAFTA Work Visa: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) established a special TN nonimmigrant visa category, which enables Canadian and Mexican citizens to be admitted to the U.S. to engage in “business activities at a professional level” See, it says Mexicans? MEXICANS.
    You know, NAFTA, a treaty signed and ratified by the Senate?
    * U.S. Work Visa
    L1 intra-company work visa: # L1 visas are issued for an initial 1 or 3 years.
    # L1A visas can be extended to a maximum of 7 years.
    # L1B visas can be extended to a maximum of 5 years Again, nothing permanent about this.

    Here is info about the H2A

    To qualify for H-2A nonimmigrant classification:

    * The job offered must be of a temporary or seasonal nature
    * The employer must demonstrate that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work
    * The employer must show that the employment of H-2A workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers
    * Generally, a single, valid temporary labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor must be submitted with the H-2A petition. (A limited exception to this requirement exists in certain “emergent circumstances.” See e.g., 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5)(x) for specific details).

    H-2A Program Process

    * Step 1: Employer Submits Temporary Labor Certification Application to the U.S. Department of Labor. Prior to requesting H-2A classification from USCIS, the employer must apply for and receive a temporary labor certification for H-2A workers with the U.S. Department of Labor. For further information regarding the temporary labor certification requirements and process, see the “Foreign Labor Certification, Department of Labor” link to the right.
    * Step 2: Employer Submits a Form I-129 to USCIS. After receiving a temporary labor certification for H-2A employment from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the employer should file Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, with USCIS requesting H-2A workers. The DOL approved temporary labor certification must be submitted with Form I-129. (See the instructions to the Form I-129 for additional filing requirements.)
    * Step 3: Prospective Workers Outside the United States Apply for Visa and/or Admission. After an employer’s Form I-129 is approved by USCIS, prospective H-2A workers who are outside the United States may apply with the U.S. Department of State at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad for an H-2A visa (if a visa is required) and, regardless of whether a visa is required, apply to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for admission to the United States in H-2A classification.

    H-2A Eligible Countries List

    H-2A petitions may only be approved for nationals of countries that the Secretary of Homeland Security has designated, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, as eligible to participate in the H-2A program.* The list of H-2A eligible countries is published in a notice in the Federal Register (FR) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on a rolling basis. Designation of countries on the H-2A list of eligible countries will be valid for one year from publication.

    Effective of January 19, 2010, nationals from the following countries are eligible to participate in the H-2A Program: Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethioipia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

    A national from a country not on the list may only be the beneficiary of an approved H-2A petition if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that it is in the U.S. interest for that alien to be the beneficiary of such a petition. [See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(iii) and (5)(i)(F)(1)(ii) for additional evidentiary requirements.]

    Period of Stay

    Generally, USCIS may grant H-2A classification for the period of time authorized on the temporary labor certification (usually authorized for no longer than one (1) year). H-2A classification may be extended for qualifying employment in increments of up to one (1) year. The maximum period of stay in H-2A classification is three (3) years.

    An individual who has held H-2A nonimmigrant status for a total of three (3) years is required to depart and remain outside the United States for an uninterrupted period of three (3) months before seeking readmission as an H-2A nonimmigrant. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5)(viii)(C) for further details regarding departure requirements.

    So here you come talking absolute rubbish about how you are going to change all the laws about Visa status based on nothing more than ignorant prejudice.

    Do you honestly just make things up in your head? Have you studied immigration policy at all? How can you possibly say such a rankly foolish thing as there should not be something that doesn’t exist (a Permanent work visa) for reasons that make no sense.

    You are floundering, absolute floundering. Give it up.

    “The immigrants were wronged- by other people- they deserve restitution from those other people- not the US tax payer. The tax payer may be willing to cover the court costs but that is it.” Finally, this is utter cowardice, I am talking about sex slaves, women and children, should be dumped back in their countries without so much as a how are you? Write this down, if you have any courage be explicit. And what restitution do you imagine they can get, the Cops can track down every john? And their pimps, if they are caught will be stripped of everything when they are thrown in jail.

    This is hopeless. You simply lack the capacity for logical argument because you really have no idea about immigration law. What you want is irrelevant, there is a reason why we have as many types of visas as we do and it does make sense.

  • easton

    And here, since you seem utterly unwilling to learn it on your own is the relevant conditions:

    The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a yearly minimum of 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas (again, there is no such thing as a permanent work visa) which are divided into five preference categories. They may require a labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and the filing of a petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security (USCIS).


    Employment First Preference (E1)

    Priority Workers receive 28.6 percent of the yearly worldwide limit. All Priority Workers must be the beneficiaries of an approved Form I- 140, Immigrant Petition for Foreign Worker, filed with USCIS. Within this preference there are three sub-groups:

    1. Persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Applicants in this category must have extensive documentation showing sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in the field of expertise. Such applicants do not have to have a specific job offer so long as they are entering the U.S. to continue work in the field in which they have extraordinary ability. Such applicants can file their own petition with the USCIS, rather than through an employer;
    2. Outstanding professors and researchers with at least three years experience in teaching or research, who are recognized internationally. No labor certification is required for this classification, but the prospective employer must provide a job offer and file a petition with the USCIS; and
    3. Certain executives and managers who have been employed at least one of the three preceding years by the overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of the U.S. employer. The applicant must be coming to work in a managerial or executive capacity. No labor certification is required for this classification, but the prospective employer must provide a job offer and file a petition with the USCIS.

    Employment Second Preference (E2)

    Professionals Holding Advanced Degrees, or Persons of Exceptional Ability in the Arts, Sciences, or Business receive 28.6 percent of the yearly worldwide limit, plus any unused Employment First Preference visas. All Second Preference applicants must have a labor certification approved by the DOL, or Schedule A designation, or establish that they qualify for one of the shortage occupations in the Labor Market Information Pilot Program (later). A job offer is required and the U.S. employer must file a petition on behalf of the applicant. Aliens may apply for exemption from the job offer and labor certification if the exemption would be in the national interest, in which case the alien may file the petition, Form I-140, along with evidence of the national interest. There are two subgroups within this category:

    1. Professionals holding an advanced degree (beyond a baccalaureate degree), or a baccalaureate degree and at least five years progressive experience in the profession; and
    2. Persons with exceptional ability in the arts, sciences, or business. Exceptional ability means having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered within the field.

    Employment Third Preference (E3)

    Skilled Workers, Professionals Holding Baccalaureate Degrees and Other Workers receive 28.6 percent of the yearly worldwide limit, plus any unused Employment First and Second Preference visas. All Third Preference applicants require an approved I-140 petition filed by the prospective employer. All such workers require a labor certification, or Schedule A designation, or evidence that they qualify for one of the shortage occupations in the Labor Market Information Pilot Program. There are three subgroups within this category:

    1. Skilled workers are persons capable of performing a job requiring at least two years” training or experience;
    2. Professionals with a baccalaureate degree are members of a profession with at least a university bachelor’s degree; and
    3. Other workers are those persons capable of filling positions requiring less than two years” training or experience.

    Employment Fourth Preference (E4)

    Special Immigrants receive 7.1 percent of the yearly worldwide limit. All such applicants must be the beneficiary of an approved I-360, Petition for Special Immigrant, except overseas employees of the U.S. Government who must use Form DS-1884. Certain spouses and children may accompany or follow-to-join the principal special immigrant. Different types of special immigrants provided for under immigrant law are listed below:

    1. Broadcaster in the U.S. employed by the International Broadcasting Bureau of the Broadcasting Board of Governors or a grantee of such organization;
    2. Minister of Religion;
    3. Certain Employees or Former Employees of the U.S. Government Abroad;
    4. Employee of the Mission in Hong Kong;
    5. Certain Former Employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government;
    6. Certain Former Employees of the U.S. Government in the Panama Canal Zone;
    7. Certain Former Employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government on April 1, 1979;
    8. A. Interpreters and translators of Iraqi or Afghan nationality who have worked directly with the United States armed forces or under Chief of Mission authority as a translator or interpreter for a period of at least 12 months and meet requirements. This classification has an annual numeric limitation of 500 visas through FY 08. For applicants living overseas, see Special Immigrant Visas for Iraqi and Afghan Translators/Interpreters – Frequently Asked Questions for information about criteria, documentary requirements, filing the Form I-360, and more. Also, see USCIS Fact Sheet on Afghan and Iraqi Translators for information including instructions for applicants who are filing in the U.S.
    B. Iraqis who have provided faithful and valuable service while employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq for not less than one year after March 20, 2003, and have experienced an ongoing serious threat as a consequence of that employment. This provision was signed into law in January 2008, creating 5,000 special immigrant visas each year for the next five years. The Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security are establishing regulations and procedures to permit applications under the new legislation to begin as soon as possible. At this point we are unable to accept applications for this category of visa until those regulations and procedures have been implemented. Learn more .
    9. Certain Foreign Medical Graduates (Adjustments Only);
    10. Certain Retired International Organization employees;
    11. Certain Spouses of a deceased International Organization Employee;
    12. Juvenile Court Dependent (no family member derivatives);
    13. Alien Recruited Outside of the United States Who Has Served or is Enlisted to Serve in the U.S. Armed Forces;
    14. Certain retired NATO-6 civilians;
    15. Certain surviving spouses of deceased NATO-6 civilian employees;
    16. Alien beneficiary of a petition or labor certification application filed prior to Sept. 11, 2001, if the petition or application was rendered void due to a terrorist act of Sept. 11, 2001;
    17. Certain Religious Workers.

    Employment Fifth Preference (E5)

    Employment Creation Investors receive 7.1 percent of the yearly worldwide limit. All applicants must file a Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur with USCIS. To qualify, an alien must invest between U.S. $500,000 and $1,000,000, depending on the employment rate in the geographical area, in a commercial enterprise in the United States which creates at least 10 new full-time jobs for U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, or other lawful immigrants, not including the investor and his or her family.

    So there you have it, there are 140,000 employment based immigration visas, and based on the restrictions are of an incredibly complex and detailed structure, based a lot on our own Natural interest (like Iraqi interpreters)

    Learn the law.

  • ktward

    Okay. Weird stuff’s happening.

    I tried posting a comment with many hyperlinks. It didn’t post. For many hours.

    So I whittled it down. And down. And way down. Finally, it posted. And here it is, 24 hours later, and my original long post is, now, also here. WTF.

    My apologies for two content-similar posts.

    Lesson learned. It pains my sensibilities, but fuggedabout the hyperlinks.

  • nhthinker

    I know the law well enough. Dumping out pages of visa information does not help your invalid points.
    “there are 140,000 employment based immigration visas”

    a very small number and not a significant problem.

    I am not for green cards for permanent resident status to field workers or hotel workers for the reasons I already stated. But if the law passed to allow it then it should be enforced. The number of illegals is on the order of 60 times the current number of work visas.

    You are very fine at advising me that I should be more feeling to people that advocate breaking the law. What do you tell the people that you know are breaking the law? That life is unfair and that you don’t hold it against them if they break the law?

    “So I guess you are OK with bringing back slavery since it was once Constitutional, right? This is utter silliness.”

    What is utter silliness is that you would suggest that. You are trying to equate enforcing a national border and employment law with a 150 year old law for owning people. Are you saying open borders in 2010 is morally equivalent to freeing the slaves in 1865? It does not wash.

    You are advocating that because people got by border security and they started working illegally that they somehow “earned” the US having an obligation to them. These were not slaves- the vast majority of these people came willingly and at great expense knowing what they were doing was against the law but they probably would not get caught- they also thought if they got caught that they could always sneak back again.

    You would have me decide that these knowing law breakers deserve more consideration than the people that waited legally behind the border. They were breaking the law for financial gain and more opportunity. Rewarding illegal behavior just encourages more illegal behavior. Everyone assumes another amnesty will be just around the corner.

    These people that have proven that they are willing to break a law if they think they will not get caught or they think the potential punishment is worth the risk. These people do not respect the law- they are just making a calculation.

    I have no problem with them suing their illegal employers in the US. You have not indicated any compelling reason that these people earned visas.

    Your “premier” respond was that some crimes were committed against these people. Or that they worked for illegal employers- or that they picked fruit that Americans ended up eating. None of these are rise to compelling reasons. Many people are poor in the world and willing to work in the US. There is no reason to think that those that can find transportation here and either cross the border illegally or overstay a visa are building obligation from the average American voter. They are not.

    If a job is only available through a lottery system and someone forges the ticket for the job: Should the person get to keep the job if they are caught with the forged ticket?