If this isn't racial profiling I don't know what is - of course the Governor is swearing up and down that won't happen (ya right) ...meanwhile, no arrests of the people who employ illegals.
How the heck could the cop decide that someone has committed a crime if they don't look like a Mexican.
This is just a racist law. Just like segregation laws were in the South.
Wouldn't it be something if it was suddenly discovered that the Governor has a cleaning lady who is illegal?
The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of ; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.
The law sends "a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens," said Peter Spiro, aprofessor and author of the book "Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization."
Brewer signed the bill in a state auditorium about a mile from the Capitol complex where some 2,000 demonstrators booed county Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox when she announced that "the governor did not listen to our prayers."
"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."
I am not sure how I feel about this...Its a good idea to increase patrol of our borders but not sure its a good idea to give COPS the right to stop anyone and ask for papers......I am pretty sure most COPS aren't liking this bill either...I know my hubby wouldnt like it.
There were so many different ways this could have worked...
Natalie, that would be fun, wouldn't it
I understand how Arizona feels being that the feds have no intention of doing anything to stem the flow of cheap labor - or criminals - into our market, and clearly the feds and their handlers are happy as flies on poop with NAFTA, but this law will do nothing to address the problem. It will however be a big revenue generator for AZ justice system when the civil rights violation law suits start.
The civil rights law suits - I hope they flow like water.....this is a horrible bill...
Tea parties, backing the Arizona immigration bill
Arizona's SB 1070, the legislation that would allow law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they find suspicious, is getting some clutch support from the local tea party movement.
From the Arizona Tea Party's page on how to rally for the bill:
We are asking for you to spread the word to see if anyone is available to come down there... to show your support of the bill.
They are meeting by the Arizona Flag on the House Lawn. Bring American Flags and signs if possible... Signs: We support "LEGAL" Immigration, In Mexico, You Must Be Legal... Why not here? - etc...
The call for protesters is a response to the teeming anti-SB 1070 protests outside of the Capitol.
So, here is one effort to give government more power that tea partiers are not pounding the pavement to oppose.
By David Weigel
On most political and social issues, I am a Progressive; often a Radical; sometimes a Liberal. That places me, mostly, on the Left. However, on the issue of illegal immigration, I stand with Ultra-Ultra Conservatives.
There are many millions of illegal immigrants living in the US. The emphasis for me is on the word, "illegal." They are here illegally. They are not following our laws; they are breaking our laws. They are criminals.
These illegal immigrants receive free medical services in our hospital emergency rooms - and through some aid programs - while a large proportion of our tax-paying, law-abiding citizens must pay exhorbitant fees for services, or go without completely. Illegal immmigrants take jobs from tax-paying, law-abiding citizens struggling in an economy where they can't find jobs. Illegal immigrants get lip-service support - and money, too - from Liberals and Liberal organizations all over the country....while tax-paying, law-abiding citizens are ignored and, if the are members of Tea Parties, they are vilified and called racists just because they support enforcement of our laws.
Illegal immigrants are here illegally and I have no sympathy for them over tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who play by the rules and, because they play by the rules, they get screwed. I am sick and tired of hearing how we should be "fair" to illegal immingrants while we are unfair, unjust and cold-hearted towards our average tax-paying, law-abiding citizen.
So, do I support this Arizona law? I feel it is a poorly-written law that doesn't adequately address the problem. Do I support racial profiling? Let me put it this way: If a person of Asian ancestry commits a crime and the police, in their quest to find the guilty, therefore look for someone who is Asian; I do not consider that racial profiling.
We need to remove these many millions of illegal immigrants from our country - or get them to respect our laws, follow our laws, and play by the rules like our average tax-paying, law-abiding citizen does. No excuses; no compromises.
Or our society has to, en masse, declare all illegal immigrants legal and end our cost-ineffective systems and Unconstitutional laws that don't fix the problem.
Toss them all out - or change their status and allow them all to stay, legally.
Those, in my opinion, are the choices.
What would my choice be? The one that would most benefit our society as a whole. That would be my choice.
In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue.
Hours later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation's toughest immigration law, making illegal immigration a state crime and requiring police to question people about their immigration status if officers suspect they are in the U.S. illegally.
Brewer, a Republican, said the state action was forced by Washington's failure to secure the U.S. borders and solve the nation's thorny illegal immigration problem. "Decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation," she said.
The president said it was the state that was "misguided" and that the Arizona measure would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."
Obama said he instructed the Justice Department to "examine the civil rights and other implications" of the new law. Justice officials said they were considering their options, and it wasn't clear Friday what they might do. Regardless, the law seemed certain to be challenged in court by opponents.
Among the constitutional questions raised by the law, according to current and former government officials and legal experts, are provisions that may violate protections against unreasonable searches, for example, by asking police to stop people solely to prove their immigration status.
Arizona and other states allow police to check immigration status if a person is under investigation for another crime.
The president's comments, delivered during a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for members of the armed forces, was a forceful sign that Obama planned to push the immigration issue before the November elections, responding to frustration among Hispanic voters and their advocates over inaction.
Ariz. Law: "Open Season" on Non-Anglos?
Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into state law the nation's toughest sanctions against illegal border crossings, and taking a verbal swipe at the Obama administration while doing so.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," she said.
The bill makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally, and requires police to question people about their status if there's reason to suspect they're illegal immigrants.
There were protests outside the state Capitol in Phoenix yesterday, in a state in which almost a half-million immigrants live. A church group plans to file a federal lawsuit against the measure. Hispanic groups have also vowed to fight the new law in court.
"By signing it, this bill, Governor Brewer has thrown the door wide open for racial profiling," said Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza
Some local law enforcement agencies have protested, saying their resources will be stretched thin. Meanwhile, a provision in the bill allows citizens to sue police to compel them to enforce the new law.
Brewer said that she would not tolerate racial profiling, but that's what federal officials fear. President Obama called the Arizona law misguided, and urged lawmakers to get going to immigration reform. Failure to act, he said, opens the door to irresponsibility.
"That includes the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans," he said.
The president said he will have the Justice Department look for possible civil rights violations in the new law. And, Plante reports, Democrats looking for Hispanic votes in November will take up immigration legislation in the Senate, even though it's unlikely to pass before the election.
On CBS' "The Early Show on Saturday Morning," Bay Buchanan, a Republican commentator who served as Treasury Secretary under President Ronald Reagan, defended the new law, saying she did not find anything unconstitutional with it.
"What they're giving is the tools to the law enforcement officers of Arizona, the same tools that we now have given to the border agents - they have the ability to ask people about their legal status," Buchanan told "Early Show" anchor Chris Wragge.
"And the key was what Russell Pearce, the State Senator who is behind this bill, did: He went to the police officers and the law enforcement officers, the prosecutors in Arizona and said, 'What can we do? What do you need to finally take care of this issue here in this state?' And they said, 'We need greater tools, we need greater abilities.' And that's what they did: they have now put it into law, given the law enforcement officers of Arizona the ability to secure the welfare and safety of the people there in Arizona."
Maria Cardona, a Democratic communications strategist and principal with the Dewey Square Group, called the new law horrendous policy and even worse politics.
"This is an insidious law that will actually make not just all undocumented immigrants but all legal and U.S. citizen Latinos, many of which whose families have been in Arizona even before Arizona was part of the United States, it makes them under suspicion," she said. "They become people of interest under this law. They could be speaking Spanish on a corner. Who knows what 'reasonable suspicion' means? The governor herself could not answer the question yesterday about what an illegal immigrant looks like.
"So law enforcement officers, a lot of law enforcement officers in Arizona don't want this law. They understand that they need community policing, and in order to be effective law enforcement officers, they need the trust of the Hispanic community, which will absolutely evaporate under this law."
Buchanan argued that current law hasn’t "done the job" in combating illegal immigration.
"Arizona is a target for human and drug smuggling," she said. "It's the number one place, number one state in the country where that's coming through.
That's the target of the drug cartels take them right through that state. And as a result Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the country and one of the top kidnapping capitals of the world now. The crime in Arizona is outrageous.
People are being murdered, crime is high, the schools are overloaded. Laws have not worked.
"And so now they're given the tool, they've taken the handcuffs off the police officers and they're going to be putting them on those who are violating the laws of this country."
When asked for an alternative to the new law, Cardona said, "What we need clearly is comprehensive immigration reform. I absolutely understand the frustration of the folks in Arizona, of all of our leaders in the border states who look at this problem and have had this problem for many, many, many years. It is an issue that we need to deal with it at the federal level, which is why the president said we need to deal with this by passing comprehensive immigration reform.
"The law in Arizona is not the way to go. I agree with Bay that there is a huge problem with undocumented immigrants who are actually drug traffickers, and all of the crime is clearly an issue. This law does nothing to address this. The only thing this law will do is to make it open season for any immigrant, anybody who does not look Anglo, and it will make actually racial profiling legal in Arizona. It’s insidious and it's wrong-headed."
When asked how the law can be applied with racial profiling, Buchanan said, "Our border agents do it every day. So this is nothing new."
"They are trained," said Cardona.
"And that is what the governor of Arizona said: She's going to rain her police officers," Buchanan responded. "The key here is, this is what the people of Arizona want. They've had it with the federal government. They have refused to do the job and the answer is not amnesty for the 15 to 20 million illegals here. That's what Obama wants, that's what the Democrats want. It is not.
That just increases the number of people coming in to the country illegal. The people of Arizona on the front lines are paying the price. They've had it. This will clean up the problem in Arizona. That's what it will do."
Cardona disagreed: "It will do nothing to do that," she said.
BOYCOTT ANYTHING ARIZONA. TAKE ACTION.
You cannot currently send a star to dgyps because you have done so within the last week.
Court fight looms on new immigration law
by Dan Nowicki - Apr. 25, 2010
With Arizona's controversial immigration-enforcement bill now law, the battle will quickly shift from the state Capitol to the courts, where opponents plan to challenge it as an unconstitutional intrusion on federal authority and a violation of civil rights.
Proponents defend the legislation signed Friday by Gov. Jan Brewer as legally sound. But critics say the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the federal government alone has the responsibility to enact and enforce immigration laws. Some fear other constitutional rights will be trampled through racial profiling and that vital federal money will be diverted from other national priorities.
Under the tough new law, which goes into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, it will be a state crime for undocumented immigrants to be in Arizona. It is the only state with such a law.
Some provisions of the far-reaching Arizona legislation, opponents predict, will lead to racial profiling and possible violations of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
Under Arizona's law, local law-enforcement officers will have the authority to ask about immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is undocumented.
"It's extraordinarily vulnerable to a legal challenge," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Los Angeles-based Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and an attorney who in the 1990s helped overturn most of the provisions of California's immigration-related Proposition 187.
"I expect multiple lawsuits" in federal and possibly state courts, he said.
The ugly specter of racial profiling, which violates civil rights, has drawn rebukes from Democrats and Republicans alike. On Friday, President Barack Obama said he has directed administration officials to "closely monitor" the civil-rights implications of the Arizona law. Newly appointed interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a Republican, also expressed civil-rights concerns last week when urging Brewer to veto the bill. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, signaled Friday that he intends to pursue a lawsuit. The Justice Department also could try to intervene legally.
Until AZ repeals their racist-reactionary Tea-Party Palinesque "law" the Feds should cut-off all money flow to the rebels. Joe already has a big enough tentcityjail (Maricopa County). Mexico should close its border to amerikan corporate slave-shops as well. BOYCOTT ARIZONA. TAKE ACTION. Living in the Mex-American hyphen, Jack.
We need to remove these many millions of illegal immigrants from our country - or get them to respect our laws, follow our laws, and play by the rules like our average tax-paying, law-abiding citizen does. No excuses; no compromises.
The question is, HOW? Unless you wish to construct and operate concentration camps to put them in and ultimately exterminate them in, we will never get rid of them. The only realistic solution is to scrap the immigration laws retroctively. They are unenforcable and just make us look racist.
Now Dale, that is just silly. And that is so phucking offensive to insinuate I or anyone here supports exterminating people. Get real and stop acting so ridiculous.
We have many laws in our country and we do not erect concentration camps and exterminate people to enforce those laws.
You want illegal immigration to be legal? Good for you. I don't and either do most law-abiding, honest, tax-paying citizens in this country. Thank G-d.
You want anarchy? Good for you. I don't and either do most law-abiding, honest, tax-paying citizens in this country. Thank G-d.
Your safety as a citizen, Dale, and your protections and rights in the US are here because others take our laws responsibly and make sure you are protected. But maybe you want all our fire protection personnel, all our police, our military, our medical personal, our emergency service people, the people who build our roads and homes and do all the billions of things necessary to keep society working, maybe you want them all to just forget about laws and regulations.
Have fun living in that kind of society, Dale. You can have your anarchy. Personally, I think there's a better way.
"They" is us.
And actually, Dale H., this land belonged to them before the Anglos took it from them (1850). Those that remained were, and their descendents are, citizens. Many more we have invited back to be our cowboys and veggie slaves, at our convenience. Vaqueros and Braceros were the terms used. When inconvenient, they are called "illegals".
Most Mexican-Americans are, or are striving to be, middle class, mainstream and educated or skilled. Most are (quoting) tax paying and law abiding.
These immigrants watch soap operas and sitcoms trying to figure out how to assimilate into the American Dream.
Many also chose to remain in the "hyphen" of what it means to be an "immigrant Mexican-American".
A few are criminals (just like Blacks, Asians and others), and they are disproportionally represented in our prison population (compared with their Anglos counterpart) ratios.
We already tried concentration camps for the indigenous peoples already ("Indians", "Eskimos"), the Japanese, and at Gitmo (for "Muslims")...
Your mention of "extermination" [above post] rings of hatred and intolerance, and is horrific.
We are racist. Racism runs in our blood. What is needed is tranformation: an attitude adjustment, lots of compassion, and an overlay of decent behavior.
Non-compromise is a deadend illusion.
This post was modified from its original form on 25 Apr, 10:33
I don't think Dale was insuinuating anything, but saying it will be impossible to identify send 15 million illegals back to wherever they came from. And he's right.
Sorry to disagree, Katii. I don't know what post you read, but Dale clearly stated his insinuation about concentration camps and exterminating illegal immigrants.
Those were his words and terms, not mine.
I happen to support people who oppose this absurd bill, but what Dale said is clear, it was offensive and it was stupid. No amount of ignoring it will not make that so.
I know, I am so &%$#ing politically-incorrect, but I don't buy into the argument of, "They were here first!"
Well, the Neanderthals were "ruling" in Europe because those bad, bad ursurping Cro-Magnons came in and took their land. And the evil Neanderthals took it over from, let's see, the Pithecanthropus Erectus's or some other pre-Homo-Sapiens humanoid.
And why not go all the way and give the earth back to the oen-celled organisms that had to give way to the fascist multi-celled organisms?
Am I being facitious? Yes, of course I am, to a point.
But today's problems with illegal immigrants in the US cannot be understood or dealt with by acting as if the solution would be to give the land back to those who had it before us.
We need to either enforce our laws or drastically change them, but we can't have the situation stay as it is. Make them legal? Sure, if that can be done fairly. But whatever we need to do, we need to do it now. Allowing millions of people to just flaunt the laws, to the detriment of our society as a whole, is not reasonable, it is not righteous, it is not effective and the situation left as it is will only continue to harm us all; those ilegally here and those not.
This post was modified from its original form on 25 Apr, 11:12
there's something that i haven't seen discussed anywhere that i'd like to throw into the pot:
i don't see wtf the problem is with the law IF every arizona cop asked EVERYBODY they came into contact with legally for proof of citizenship. JUST ASK EVERYONE. that would get rid of the racial profile argument, period.
however, there is a big problem with asking everybody for proof of citizenship. that might require us all to get one of those fancy federal i.d. cards that we're supposed to have, by law, but none of the states have taken the trouble to issue to us.
i know that a lot of us here vehemently opposed the national i.d. card. do you think, perhaps, this is the first step toward getting public support behind these cards?
i'm sorry, but i smell an underhanded, dirty rat.
This post was modified from its original form on 25 Apr, 11:38
Knate, I read exactly what Dale wrote. He was comparing the two obsurdities as obsurdities: concentration camps and people believing this bill is going to do a thing to address the problem of 15 million illegal immagrants.
Excellent point Dj. That would enxplain the half-hearted, 10 second long and way late statement of opposition from the president.
right? it's part of the conspiracy brought to light in Zeitgeist. there's no doubt in my mind.
oh, godDAMN care2 and its post-eating parasite! brb.
it's either a step toward national i.d. cards, or a step toward the north american union.
"they" will lead us around by the nose ring without us even knowing it, as always. in this scenario, it goes like this:
throw some half-assedly written legislation that will stir up a national debate about ethnicity, borders, racism and the like, and let this thing run it's course. all the while, We the People feel so righteous that we're being pro-active, exercising our right to free speech, whichever side you're on...in time, it will boil down to our government saying that the only solution is to make every citizen of the united states carry a national i.d., because the arizona law IS flawed and racist; therefore, everyone in every state must be able to show proof of citizenship to any cop, whenever they have legal reason to engage us.
and this will sound like a good idea to the pro-"this-AZ-law" people off the bat, so they aren't even an issue. those who oppose it will be told to sit down and STFU because it's already been on the books for years that every citizen must carry a national i.d., and now it's being enforced, that's all.
this will be reinforced by the commander in chief making another tepid ten-minute statement acknowledging the federal government's slackness in securing our borders, and that by enforcing this existing federal legislation, we will find this facet of our national security easier to achieve.
that little speech will also shift the blame for the rampant illegal alien invasion back on the states' governments and off the federal government.
i should start a pool on what day people think this will all be announced.
Thanks Knate for not having the knee jerk racism reaction.
I am half hispanic. I do not speak Spanish. I went to college.
I do not celebrate Cinco de Mayo or protest for more welfare.
My son learned to speak English as his first language.
Those are just a few reasons citizens are tired of illegals in
this country. Killing the Arizona rancher was the straw that
broke the proverbial back.
Our population here is over 50% hispanic and I cannot get a
gardener to mow my lawn for less than 20 dollars. Its a small
lawn so I do it myself. But that is the reason the illegals all
trot out-we work so hard-Yep some might and the ones who
do make very good wages.
Their welfare costs are astronomical-California is bankrupt
and they want MORE welfare. A stupid hispanic girl was telling
me she has never had a job in her life-she is 27 and collects for
her and five children.
As a taxpayer I am sick sick sick of paying thru the nose while
welfare recipients drive new cars.
sorry folks but those are just the facts of life in Merced.
Thank you for your good words and thoughts.
I don't know what others think or what's in their minds, but my stand on illegal immigrants has nothing to do (1) with what countries they come from, or (2) their ethnicity or their race. I don't give a flying warthog's testicles where illegal immigrants come from, what is the color of their eyes, hair or skin, or what native language they speak.
What I care about, Stephanie, like I think you make clear what you talk about, is that there are millions of illegal immigrants that are here in this country illegally. And it hurts the rest of us.
I wonder: What is so hard a concept for some - mostly so-called Liberals - to figure out about the comparison between people here legally (following our laws) and those who are not?
Like you, Stephanie, if I get your drift: Legal citizens and legal guests in our country should benefit from the legal rights we provide. Illegals should not. It's that simple.
Too effing bad about the fact that some had "a hard life" wherever they came from. Boo-hoo, effing hoo. Life is hard for everyone. That gives illegal immigrants no right to break our laws and help bankrupt the treasuries of various US states. Illegal is illegal.
And for anyone here who wishes to compare my asking for laws to be observed with the atrocities of Nazi concentration camps and Nazi extermination of peoples, respectfully, you can take that analogy and stick it where the sun don't shine. If that analogy isn't clear, I will be glad to get more graphic.
That has nothing to do with absurdity. There's nothing absurd about asking people to follow our laws. It is offensive to bring extermination camps into this discussion.
Stephanie, you and I probably feel nearly the same about this illegal immigrant issue. We want our laws to be followed. We're not trying to enslave people or exterminate them. What we want is for all people in this country to be here legally, to live by the same rules our law-abiding, tax-paying citizens live by.
To me, it is the same with Goldman-Sachs or Bernie Madoff or any of those crooks. Or Defense contractors who rip us off with phony cost overruns. Or politicians who lie to us and cheat us. They all should play by the same rules and live by our laws.
Stephanie, I feel you and I are consistant. Break our laws, there are consequences. That should apply equally to all.
Fix the laws, fix the system, find ways for illegals to become legals; whatever. But the law should not be flaunted. Liberals want Goldman-Sachs to pay for ripping us off? How about getting some consistancy and applying the same outrage to the illegal immigrants who are doing us just as much damage, or more?
Special privileges to illegal immigrants, at the expense of legal immigrants and legal US citizens? No effing way. It's about time for those of us who follow our laws to stand up and demand this situation be remedied. Fairly and justly. Now. And demand that we, the legals, stop being exploited.
SO, listening is quite absent here by some. Let me be specific, Knate. What I notice is that you probably, I didn't count, have more words here that the rest of us put together. Please pull back, I respectfully ask you. You are not more important than the rest of us.
You made your own interpretation of what Dale said and your interpretation was followed by what I consider an attack.
It was George W who didn't close our border. Didn't even try. Of course the national guard was fighting 2 unjustified wars way far away from the border.
Djeilan, your intuition is the same as mine, of course this will bring on the ID card. What free country?
Here is how I see this issue: very complicated. I am driving in Phoenix and look Mexican and a cop stops me to see my papers. Hey, I was born here and I certainly don't carry my birth certificate with me. DUH. This has got to be the issue or this "law" leads to racial profiling.
Period. Thanks for listening.
Excuse me, but I will speak when I want, Gloria.
I don't censor you or anyone else's posts and you will not tell me to censor mine.
If you do not like what I say, you are free to ignore me.
Seems some people in this group do selective listening. Or, excuse me, selective reading and not actually absorbing the gist of a post. No one in this group is any more important than any other member. The host, however, does like to keep threads flowing and interesting and if that means posting alot then so be it. I will not tell anyone to stop posting. I will, however, stand my ground when someone accuses another of a slap that is unjustified. Debate, scream, holler; call a post idiotic;but, do not attack the poster personally.
Ok, I'm going to break my rule right now. Gloria, that was totally out of line to tell Knate to pull back, I don't care if you did say respectfully-that just sounds like putting sugar on top of a slap. So, if anyone doesn't like the way in which Knate comments or runs the group maybe this group isn't for you. No favoritism;but, he is doing a damn good job; his articles and posts get people to think. So read and then write not the other way around. I am now going back to read a humor thread, because I hate writing the "Please respect the poster" posts. Enough already, nighty night.
i still think it's a plot.
Do you feel boycotting Arizona is an effective way of overturning this anti-immigrant law?
There are many people (and forces) in our government who seek more control over the people. They are the ones placing cameras everywhere. They are the ones bugging our phones. They are the ones spying on our computer activity. They track what we buy, what we eat, where we go, our bank accounts, our conversations; the only thing they haven't been able to track are our private thoughts. Yet.
They want to know everything and, I think, they want to control everything.
One project they support is the national ID card. A convenient way to track every single individual in this nation.
I think you make an interesting point, saying this concern about illegal immigrants is part of a "plot" leading towards a national ID card. Personally, I think these forces will just every opportunity to advance their agenda - and the illegal immigrant issue is an opportunity ripe for their exploitation.
In any case, I agree with you that this is something we all should be opposing - and I think we all should be opposing regardless of our positions and opinions about illegal immigration.
A national ID card can be a dangerous weapon that could stifle many of our freedoms.
I spent this sunny day (after this morning) in Eastern Oregon enjoying and connecting with the desert spirits...
Just finished reading all the above posts, and then your question to me at the bottom.
Boycotting is a way of peaceful resistance which has political and economic impact...it worked for Gandhi, and for Cesar Chavez (UFW), for Fair Trade VS FreeTrade, etc. Anyone anywhere can let their dollars talk by simply making informed consumption choices as an intentional action for political and economic impact.
I think it might be a more effective grassroots approach than waiting for the Courts or Washington DC to take remedial action. There is obviously Constitution issues that need to be litigated, and that could take years.
Your efforts with this group, as a moderator, are appreciated (even if we have slightly different ideas on this issue).
Thank you, Jack.
I agree; boycotts have been used successfully and you give excellent examples.
I don't believe, however, in this case it will be successful. But successful or not, I think it is essential that each individual act from their own heart on this and other issues. The success, in that sense, is in doing what you know is right for you.
On the anti-immigrant law, I think challenges to the law will be more effective.
As to the problem of illegal immigrants, I would be very happy if there was a fair way of making them legal citizens. I don't prefer the idea of jailing them or tossing them out of the country. But I do not support allowing them to stay here illegally.
I do feel strongly that we have to live by our laws - that we have to make our laws be reasonable, sane and effective laws - and we need to have people follow our laws.
I don't reject all these people being in our country. I only reject the way they are here; illegally. There are various ways that can be remedied. Ignoring the law is not one way. Having a Police State that tries to fix these problems through ethnic profiling is also not a way. We have to find legal solutions that make sense. Not ones that make the problems worse.
Jack, you are certainly correct. Challenges to the law will take years to get through the courts. In the meantime, great damage can be done.
It is a desperate situation in the minds of all the people on all sides of these issues. And acting desperately, as people are acting, is not making things better.
boycotts are effective, but aside from tourism, what does arizona offer us to boycott?
i'll be driving through that state (the whole thing) in a few days, and it isn't practical to stock up on provisions in new mexico so i can refrain from buying food in arizona. neither is it practical for me to drive around arizona. then there are the Zoners themselves who really can't boycott the state, since they have to shop there, unless they live on the border.
i guess i'm interested in the method by which we can make a boycott effective, aside from refraining from spending our vacation dollars there, as you've done.
i'm not sure, but i think in my travels i've seen vineyards along the interstate, but i don't think boycotting arizona grapes, grape juice or wine is really going to hurt the economy there, just a few farmers who probably support the law because it ostensibly protects their property and business.
If you oppose the anti-immigrant bill in Arizona, what do you think is an effective way of opposing that bill....and getting it overturned?
True, without lawfullness we devolve, as a community, into self-destruction and/or anarchy. This is not a good solution!
We have experienced destructive riots and demonstrations in recent times due to racial profiling by police departments in various parts of the nation.
If the Maricopa AZ Sheriff, or Phoenix Police, or in Tucson, Flagstaff or Yuma local law enforcement people begin enforcing the law, and their activity is EXPERIENCED as "racial profiling" , we can expect riots.
Already, on tonights 10pm news, there are demonstrations (1000 people in the streets), with people saying they will refuse to comply with the police enforcement when the new law takes effect. THIS IS ANARCHY. Violence will ensue, especially if the cops get violent.
So yes, the reality is (beyond the politic-ing of the politicians) quite desparate.
If every Washingtonian decided to stop shopping at Walmart, how long would it be before Walmart shut their doors. If all Federal money stopped flowing into AZ, and non-redneck Arizonians withheld their taxes AND SAID WHY (civil disobedience), and everyone else in the nation stopping buying anything produced in Arizona, and the Teamsters quit driving into and out of Arizona...etc., etc., how long would it be before AZ was forced to repeal this unconstitutional law.
If the Mexican-American (Yes, this IS who we are talking about) sees some hope of change, rather than the threat of more oppression, maybe they will stay cool long enough for some non-desperate means to effect a peaceful end to this dilemma. My hope would be that they would be included in the negotiation process. They are stakeholders.
I may be completely off base, but I've been an observer of these types of social issues since about 1956. And I am a pacifist (strength through nonviolence).
I'm wondering if the students at Tempe or Flagstaff or Tucson will get involved.
This post was modified from its original form on 25 Apr, 22:41
I had a vacation at the GrandCanyon/and Powell Lake boat ride planned AND PAID FOR for ten days in October 2010. All plans have now been cancelled.
You make your case well. Yes, personal action in the face of what any of see as injustice is essential. Your personal action, Jack, is essential, and I would be wrong to say it is ineffective. It isn't. You act honorably and your actions work.
As for my points stressing that we cannot acccept lawlessness, let me be clear. I am saying we cannot accept millions of illegals remaining illegal immigrants; not following our laws. But that is a two-way street. That does not, does not mean I therefor would condone lawlessness on behalf of our government or enforcement personnel.
Example? In my lifetime I was witness to the time when the "official" laws and enforcers of laws in parts of my own country had the power, and used their power, to deny the civil and human rights of millions of our citizens, based on the color of the skin of those citizens. I witnessed segregation, the denial of voting rights, and I witnessed much, much worse - conducted by "legal" authorities who had laws passed to allow their unacceptable behavior.
I am not saying one must accept and follow laws ONLY because those are the laws on the books. I am saying, we need to have correct laws, fair laws, non-discriminatory laws...and those laws must be followed.
Are our laws about immigration, legal and illegal, all correct and fair? Nope. But neither are all of them unfair and unjust. The Arizona law? I consider it poorly written and based too much on what some may call ethnic profiling. It is a desperate law passed desperately and it is not the best that could have been enacted.
We need to stop illegal immigration, but we need to do it fairly and justly. We need to provide ways for illegals to become legal citizens, in a reasonable and fair way. We need to take these situations that are hurting our country and our people, and find ways to correct injustices and bring people into legal compliance with laws that function to make our country a better place for all.
A large task, a difficult task, but one that must be done. And should be done, together.
From the Times:
MESA, Ariz. — They stood a few
miles from each other, but as far
apart as heat and cold.
Clutching a copy of a Spanish language
article on the tough new
law making it a state crime for illegal
immigrants to be in Arizona
and requiring those suspected
of being violators to show proof
of legal status, Eric Ramirez, 29,
still waited on a corner for work.
He nervously kept watch for the
“We were already afraid, and I
was thinking of leaving for California,”
Ramirez said. “We shop in
their stores, we clean their yards,
but they want us out, and the police
will be on us.”
In a nearby neighborhood, Ron
White, 52, said he felt a sense of
relief that something was finally
being done about “the illegals”
— whom he blames for congregating
on the streets, breaking
into homes in his neighborhood,
draining tax dollars and taking
jobs from Americans.
“I sure hope it does have an effect,”
White said of the new law.
“I wouldn’t want to show proof of
citizenship, but I also don’t feel it
is racial profiling. You are going to
look different if you are an alien,
and cops know.”
Immigration has always polarized
residents of Arizona. But
the new law signed by Gov. Jan
Brewer on Friday has widened
the chasm in a way few here can
The law — barring expected
legal challenges before it takes effect
this summer — also gives the
local police broad powers to check
documentation. It has already
shaken up politics in the state, and
it sets the stage for a rematch on a
national debate between the punitive
and the practical solutions to
But the arguments are less abstract
in Arizona, home to an estimated
450,000 illegal immigrants
and to the busiest stretch of illegal
crossings along the Mexican border.
RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
PHOENIX -- An Arizona congressman urged the Obama administration not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if a tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, and civil rights activists spoke on Sunday to thousands of people gathered at the state Capitol and called on President Barack Obama to fight the law, promising to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply.
"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said.
Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. It requires police to question people about their immigration status -- including asking for identification -- if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Opponents say it would lead to racial profiling because officers would be more likely to ask people who look Hispanic.
Supporters have dismissed concerns about profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure Friday, has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion someone is in the U.S. illegally.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the Mesa Republican who sponsored the legislation, said it's "pretty disappointing" that opponents would call on the federal government to refuse to cooperate with Arizona authorities.
"It's outrageous that these people continue to support law breakers over law keepers," Pearce said Sunday.
Protesters, some of whom came from as far away as Texas, clustered under trees for shelter from Arizona's searing sun and temperatures that approached 90 degrees. Police said it was peaceful and there were no clashes.
Bill Baker, 60, took time off work at a downtown Phoenix restaurant to sell umbrellas and Mexican and American flags to the largely Hispanic crowd. He said he wasn't making much money, but he wanted to help them exercise their freedom of expression -- even though he supports the law they all showed up to oppose.
"If I go to another foreign country, if I go to Mexico, I have to have papers," Baker said. "So I don't feel there's anything particularly harsh about the law."
He said he's worried the bill will hurt the economy if many of Arizona's estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants leave the state and stop spending money here.
"But that's the price you have to pay to have a lawful country," Baker said.
Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.
The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. Other provisions allow lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and the law makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.
Arizona officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.
"Our message today is: 'Mr. President we listened, and we came out in record massive numbers to support you,"' said U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. "We need you to support us today."
Gutierrez is one of the nation's loudest voices calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States. He called on Obama to live up to a campaign promise to pass immigration reform.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking Sunday in New York, said that just as freedom riders battled segregation in the 1960s, he would organize "freedom walkers" to challenge the Arizona bill.
"We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest," Sharpton said.
Arizona's border with Mexico is the nation's busiest stretch for illegal border crossings. The state's harsh, remote desert serves as the gateway to the U.S. for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
"It divides our whole community," said Mary Hoffmann, 54, a landscape architect in Phoenix. "If people are divided they make decisions on fear and anger."
Brewer, who faces a tough re-election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen" and the state must act because the federal government has failed. Brewer said she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.
The March 27 shooting death of rancher Rob Krentz on his property in southeastern Arizona brought illegal immigration and border security into greater focus in the state. Authorities believe Krentz was killed by an illegal border crosser.
Since the shooting, Brewer and other officeholders and candidates have toured the state's border with Mexico. She has ordered a reallocation of state National Guard and law enforcement resources and called on the federal government to deploy National Guard troops.
Morning all....had a busy weekend, just read through the posts. I can't help but think back two weeks ago. My daughter's class had a field trip to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. The courage and sacrifice and illness those early immigrants endured. They wanted a better life for their children, for themselves. They came and did it legally. Sometimes being detained for quite a while at Ellis Island. (Side note: If you are ever in this area, you must go there. Truly stirs the emotions. The past really comes alive.)
In our area the immigration problem is not so much Mexican as other nationalities. I am going to speak in general terms when I say the key to illegal immigrants is the word illegal. There are methods to get in to this country. Although, sometimes not fair to good people who want a better life but we have to have some sense of legality on who is here, why they are here and for how long.
I feel sorry for the people of Arizona. They are faced with tough decisions to make regarding this. They sit right on the border. I also feel badly for those who wish a life in this country and can't get citizenship. How many of these illegals try to go the legitimate path? I wonder.
I have problems with this law. I don't like laws that don't apply equally to all. If you are an American citizen who looks Mexican, than what? In reality none of us walk around with our most important documents. I do always have my drivers license but many don't drive and they too can be acquired illegally. I just don't see how this law can be enforced without at some point infringing on someone's personal liberties. An I.D. card would seem a natural solution to this problem. I am not to fond of that either. I can only see this being a lawyers dream.
I saw Al Sharpton on the news. He is on the way to rescue the day. He will only bring more trouble. As far as a peaceful solution. Protests work. I have already seen however on the first day of protests that bottles were being thrown at police officers. Not very peaceful.
I don't believe all illegal immigrants in this country should be granted amnesty. In my area there is a big push for that by our Senator Menedez. If I thought he wanted that for equality for all immigrants, I might look at it differently. In my opinion the reason for this push is the illegals make up quite a voting block.
Illegals unfortunately do take from society without giving back fairly. Their children are in our schools, getting lunches, getting medical care. At least in New Jersey. Jobs are lost to Americans who would do the work but unscrupulous bosses see cheaper labor and a way to avoid payroll, medical, disability, social security taxes, etc. Legitimate business struggle to compete with these companies using illegal labor. There are many downsides that touch hard working Americans.
How do you keep all citizens in this country with a legal status? I don't think you can. To easy to come in and get lost amongst the crowd. No easy answers. I honestly feel if you want to be in our country, it should be with legal status.
This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 6:21
When you say: "I honestly feel if you want to be in our country, it should be with legal status."
I agree, I agree, I agree.
When I first read this thread my thought was the same as Djeilan's, just ask everyone who is arrested to prove their citizenship. This removal of illegals from the Country will be complicated. I can't see many solutions to the problem that doesn't require all citizens to carry a national ID card. When we find these illegals...what do we do with them? If we confine them, we still will be responsible for their care. If we send them back to their Country of origin...we will probably be paying the cost for that. What if we did carry ID cards? Would the government actually know anymore about us than they already do? If these cards were issued then no public services would be available to anyone without a card.
I would also combine another solution into the mix. Fine anyone who employs illegals so they can avoid paying SS taxes on them, make sure and don't exempt anyone. I get very agravated when I am listening to confirmation hearings for important political office and find that the candidate employs illegals for maid service or for nannies. IMO, that in itself should disqualify them on the spot.
Think of all those children-their quality of life- without "our schools, getting lunches, getting medical care" in their young lives. Surely the wealthy businesses that higher the refugee parents can kick in.
Wayne (in the Care2 news) says,"I find it interesting that so many attack the so-called "illegal immigrants" who come to the United States to work at substandard wages in substandard conditions to bring a bit more money home for their families-- and yet have nothing to say about agribusiness corporations and other employers who deliberately hire these people because it allows them to ignore labour protection laws. If you want to stop illegal immigration, then go after the corporations and employers who want to ignore laws that protect the health, safety and rights of workers in the United States".
I agree, and many of the working poor suffer from nerve-agent pesticide toxicity, birth defects, etc., and that should be on the employers back too, some sort of workers comp or reparations.
Another person at Waynes site suggested a Five Years in Prison penalty for employers hiring an illegal worker to, as Suzanne [above] says, "to avoid payroll, medical, disability, social security taxes, etc. (while) Legitimate business struggle to compete with these companies using illegal labor". This sounds very reasonable to me. Fining such an employer $5000.00 means nothing; it's chump-change. Five years in the slammer might be a wake-up call for them. How about those elite's who hire "housekeepers" to slave in their mansions?
Then, the legally sanctioned refugees can do the jobs, at a decent living wage, that white people are too good to do.
Knate keeps hammering-home the need for a legal baseline of operations from all sides of these issues. Why not? Are white employers exempt from the law? Aren't there enough immigration laws on the books already that need to be enforced?
And really, can't the cops down their keep up with the gang-bangers who commit crimes on the streets and send them over to Joe for the pink panty treatment?
How many (what percentage) of the refugees are criminals, and how many simply want to work, have a home, and care for their children, giving them the same opportunities to realize their human potential.
What if the whole immigrant population of AZ simply pulled up stakes and went somewhere else; the AZ agri-economy would probably collapse. How about California? There are many white American owned slave shops in Mexico-or there used to be-
In Oregon the migrants work mainly in Christmas tree and other ag production, and wage laws, payroll-tax payments, and social services do not seem to be an issue. Head Start, for the kids, has been well established for over 20 years. The two employers I know personally strive to provide housing for their legals, and will not hire undocumented people. This seems like a good working model.
Yep, Al Sharpton is jumping into the stir now in AZ, like Jesse Jackson has done here in Oregon recently (over issues of cops killing unarmed citizens). As far as I can tell, they are the first nationally known figures to take a stand, along with the President, to challenge the legality and practicality of the new AZ law. Good for them, a Green Star.
What ever happened with King George's billion dollar 700 mile long Iron Curtain along the border? Not enough slaves to build it?
Excellent point, Bev.
I say go after the employers, and especially, like you say, those now occupying high positioons in government. Why should they be exempt from consequences?
Good points, too, Jack.
I don't see these isues from one side only. For me, there has to be fairness, justice and legality from all sides. No Police State solution will work or should work. The best would be, in my opinion, to somehhow get these many millions of illegals to be legal visitors and legal citizens - and law-abiding taxpayers living by the same rules we all should live by.
This can be done fairly, I am sure. And it must be done.
Like you say, Bev, we can't all of a sudden deport many millions of people.
Enforcement of our laws is only one part. Reasonable, fair and just laws are more important. The systems we have now do not work. Intelligent representatives should realize that and be working on systems that will work. Without further dividing our nation and our people.
Position: To ensure that the United States immigration policy reflects the highest standards of human rights while protecting national security, we require that it be reviewed against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and revised according to its principles. In particular, it should reflect Articles 13, 14, and 15, which protect the rights of people to travel, protect those seeking asylum from persecution, and prohibit the arbitrary denial of citizenship. Furthermore:
We oppose President Bush's "Guest Worker" plan, which would formalize the status of most undocumented immigrants as a permanent underclass, and as economic pawns deprived of any meaningful voice in the decisions and processes that determine their destiny.
We support providing a safe and sure path to permanent legal status, and ultimately citizenship, for all of the 812 million undocumented immigrants who reside in the U.S., which must include full respect for their civil, political, economic, and social rights, both within and beyond the workplace.
We support the USA Family Act, which offers a clear path to immigrants toward legal resident status and gives work permits to those illegal immigrants and their families living in the country since the year 2000.
Persons who have been culturally naturalized should be granted the option of becoming a citizen and not be forcibly deported.
"Think of all those children-their quality of life- without "our schools, getting lunches, getting medical care" in their young lives. Surely the wealthy businesses that higher the refugee parents can kick in." - Jack
Do you not think, I was condemning those very business persons that do this? That is why I mentioned it. My husband's business is directly effected by the actions of these sleezeballs. So are our State's economies. I say jail time is a great start and pay back for lost revenues would be nice to.
I don't mean to come off as uncaring, because I do worry about those children. I worry more about mine however. I think it is not right when my tax dollars give them healthcare but my daughter goes without. Selfish possibly. It is...what it is.
As to Sharpton, he was in my old neighborhood in the Greenville section of Jersey City. He had on stage with him a young man who was shot in the face while attempting to rob a plainclothes officer. His family and friends praised what a great kid he is...blah...blah. Well he is blind in one eye now, and a few weeks after getting out of the hospital was rounded up in a fairly big drug sting that involved weapons on some. What a wonderful person. Condemn the police, praise the criminal. Even the people in the very neighborhood knew he got what was coming. People know Al Shapton for what he is around here. The Black/African American community don't hold him in such high regard.
Excellent, Jack. Thank you for posting that information.
Just one point, because some here may be involved with hiring illegals without direct knowledge. When you are hiring a contractor to do work and you pick the cheapest one. Think about why they come in under the others. There are lots of reasons. One of which could be they hire illegals and can get the job done cheaper. Just a thought, because it is a real one.
"We support providing a safe and sure path to permanent legal status, and ultimately citizenship, for all of the 812 million undocumented immigrants"
Wow, even more serious than I thought!!!!!
This is really an issue of employment and government provided benefits. This amounts to subsidizing businesses especially large Corporations. Labor costs are effectively lowered because the employers don't pay the true costs of the undocumented worker; the taxpayer does. The increase in the number of people creates demand for products, especially for the big Corporations. That increases Corporate profit which is why the government does nothing to fix the problem especially from the employer side. The foreign governments love it because undocumented workers send money back to their own country. In addition, the American worker, including legal immigrants take a hit in pay and jobs because they have to compete with illegal workers.
The solution to this is on the employment and benefits side. If an employer wishes to hire a foreign worker, that employer should be required to pay for the employees families health care and costs of schooling children. The employer should also pay for a impact fee for infrastructure. Those who employ undocumented workers should be prosecuted and given large fines at a first offense. On second offense, they should do time. The Government should not give any benefits to illegals except for emergency situations.
Once employers are forced to pay for what the illegal workers cost, they lose much of their advantage over Americans, including legal immigrants who need the jobs, and deserve a reasonable compensation for that work.
No human being is illegal, but their presence is without permission.
And are you ignorant that this law is not meant to do much directly about the immigration problem as a whole. It is a tool to get criminals off the street - either to capture the violent intruders directly or as a lever to get information from those "undocumented" against the same. Ignoring the problem sure is not solving it.
I am suspicious of anything said or done by Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson or Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton.
In my opinion, both of them are self-serving opportunists and racists.
That is truly what I feel.
there are a lot of posts between knate's "If you oppose the anti-immigrant bill in Arizona, what do you think is an effective way of opposing that bill....and getting it overturned?" and this one. not to be disrespectful to anybody here, i haven't read any posts beyond that because i have some packing to do and a truck to load in the morning, and i don't have the time right now. this is a great discussion, and i'll be back when it's okay to kick back and catch up.
knate, i don't really oppose the law's premise. i'm a legal citizen of the united states, so i have nothing to worry about EXCEPT that i don't have any means by which to prove that to arizona law enforcement, unless my california driver license is acceptable.
as a native-born citizen, i don't want illegal immigrants here. they don't have a right to live and work here, which means they're not paying taxes, et cetera blahblahblah.
i don't have the right to live and work in mexico. i don't have the right to live and work in england, france, viet nam, thailand, australia, nigeria...and in any of these places, i would be profiled as a non-citizen by my accent. right?
an aside: i saw the fairest, freckle-faced, green-eyed, red-headed teenager on the bus in san diego many years ago, chatting with his friends in perfect mexican spanish. to me, he was obviously mexican, but only after i heard him speak.
anyway, if i was a legal mexican immigrant in the united states, i would expect to be asked at some point to prove i have a legal right to be here. that's why i went and got a green card and have to carry it with me. no problem, i already entered this contract with the government of my own free will.
i think the mexican people who are making all the noise in the streets are people who have no fear of deportation, because whether they were born here or not, they're legal. i think they're there to protect their friends and family members from deportation, for whatever myriad reasons they have.
if these are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, naturalized citizens, or folks here on a work or education visa, why don't they take this opportunity to screech about the wall street thugs, too? they're crying about "civil rights" that really don't exist, and yet they're willing to bend over and take a reaming from goldman sachs et. al. without a peep?
as far as i'm concerned, to answer your question finally, i don't oppose the law's spirit. the premise of the law is fine. i think every non-citizen needs to explain their presence. a passport visa, green card/resident alien card, work permit or educational visa (is that what they get?) is proof of one's legal presence IN ANY COUNTRY. it's no big deal. there is no civil right being violated in being asked for proof of one's legal presence in any country.
the problem with the law is that it's poorly written, way too vague. there's nothing to do except wait for the lawyers to challenge its language, but by the time that happens, all this civil unrest is going to force the federal government to intervene and enforce the REAL ID Act of 2005 (which i researched and found NOT to be about a national i.d. card, but rather state-issued driver licenses and i.d. cards tied into a national database, and ALSO very vaguely written).
so, i don't oppose the law, because i don't think it's a real law, and i wouldn't do anything to get it repealed because somebody's gonna come along and knock it down soon enough. i think it will be washington, d.c.
i'm listening to rick sanchez ask his interviewee (paraphrase), "Wasn't this law put on the books because the federal government isn't doing it's job?"
the response was, "That's what the governor said."
and here we have the media rolling out the red carpet for Obama, Napolitano and Holder to hold press conferences telling us that the federal government is going to step up to the plate and settle the issue by enforcing the REAL ID Act, and making it federal law that every citizen can and must provide proof of citizenship in any legal situation in which they are asked for it, and all they'll need to do this is show their state-issued driver license or i.d.
and people will say, "That's a bitchin' idea!" because they don't have to lift a finger or do anything different, unless it costs significantly more to renew these documents.
if i had to move my lazy ass into action, i'd start getting on my congressional reps about the constitutionality on the REAL ID Act, rather than worry about the law in arizona. this law was designed to piss people off and distract them from the real issue, the Big-Brothering the entire population, by riling up the masses about some imagined transgressions that have yet to occur, thus deflecting the debate to one of racism from the debate we had before the REAL ID Act was passed, which was truly a civil rights issue: THE THEFT OF ANOTHER OF OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED LIBERTIES.
i have to go pack, dagnabbit. see you later.
one last thing: the significant difference between the discussions of racism and constitutionally-protected rights should be obvious: people are more than willing to spout off about how they FEEL than about what they KNOW, because they know exactly how they feel and therefore more comfortable with discussing it.
ask these people about how the arizona law is unconstitutional and i doubt many of them could begin to discuss it, or want to discuss it, because it's not their issue. their issue is personal.
this is why i believe the law is on the books. it's purely misdirection, engineered by the government.
Didn't Bush try, twice, to do something about illegal immigration? If I remember correctly he did, but was met by a loud constituency of anti-amnesty people when some kind of amnesty is the ONLY way to make most of the illegals here 'legal'.
Now, why, when it's the "illegality" of these immigrants that everyone is so upset about, are they also against making these people 'legal' so they can stop working under the table (for the law breaking employers who get away with hiring them) tax free ? Couldn't be racism, could it?
"White" Arizona is on the brink of becoming the minority to Hispanics. I agree with Rep. Grayson (D. FL) when he said on Bill Maher's show the other night that this AZ law is in large part about racism.
OF COURSE the millions of illegals in this country are a burden on the American tax payer - so let's make them legal while simultaneously getting serious about our immigration 'laws' - and NAFTA since it was after NAFTA that we started experiencing the flood of illegals from Mexico.
Targeting Hispanics or people speaking Spanish is NOT racial profiling and it is not racism. Targeting Hispanics and people speaking Spanish is ethnic profiling. There is a difference.
There is no Spanish, Latino, Latina or Hispanic race. Those are ethnic groups.
Rep. Lamar Smith Highlights Rapid Decrease in Workplace Enforcement
Monday, November 23, 2009, 3:38 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has issued a press release highlighting the deplorable state of the Department of Homeland Security's workplace enforcement efforts.
According to Rep. Smith's release, between FY 2008 and FY 2009,
- Administrative arrests fell 68%.
- Criminal arrests fell 60%.
- Criminal indictments fell 58%.
- Criminal convictions fell 63%.
"It is hard to conceive of a worse time to cut worksite enforcement efforts by more than half," said Rep. Smith. "There are 16 million Americans out of work. And yet, the administration has chosen to ignore the fact that there are nearly eight million illegal immigrants in the workforce. Those stolen jobs should be returned to out-of-work citizens and legal immigrants. The Obama administration should put citizens and legal immigrants first, especially when it comes to jobs."
Here's a site that provides quite a background on worksite enforcement.
What makes you so sure that those who have broken our laws to be here, won't continue to break the law to work under the table?
As far as racism? I personally know of three instances of extreme difficultly in getting citizenship or even a visa. One was a gainfully employed Irish lady with an Graduate level education. One was a Canadian, also gainfully employed, married to an American and mother to his child. One was a Korean married to an American with a graduate level degree and employed for several years here (she was forced to go back but later returned).
Since you are obviously talking about Hispanics, my own personal experience is mostly positive. Mexican laborers and Americans of Mexican heritage are the backbone of the California and West Coast Wine industry. I met many terrific people when I was in this industry. They have a dedication to the land that is rare. I have also had incidents recently that were not so positive. One included an assault.
That being said, I strongly oppose Amnesty. We have had versions before, and it has led to more illegal immigration. There are valid questions about the people that are coming in now. Crime is a problem. We have very high unemployment now. Cost is another problem. Many states are effectively bankrupt. We need to put the people who are citizens to work.
We have a right to control the numbers of immigrants and need to bring in people that will immediately be a positive for our struggling economy. I don't blame the illegals. We send them mixed messages. We give them benefits and essentially we hang signs out saying "help wanted". What are they to think?
There is no Spanish, Latino, Latina or Hispanic race. Those are ethnic groups. ~Knate
Racist, Ethnic-ist, it's all the same to me, it's all bigotry and it's all hate. I doubt the 'ethnic-ists' know the difference, or care.
"I doubt the 'ethnic-ists' know the difference, or care."
How about the "legal-ists". Many hispanics have been in the Southwest much longer than us Anglos and I have no problem with that. But no state should endure up to 15% of their population burgeoning with illegals, with all the burden that entails.
I fully agree with Jim.
And by the way there has been a flood of illegals before and after NAFTA. Certainly NAFTA did not SOLVE the problem, but it was NOT the cause.
Ignorance is no excuse for ignorance.
New Arizona law forcing hard choices on migrants
PHOENIX (Reuters) - With Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants looming, Guatemalan Samuel Roldan is swapping the family's battered Chevy Suburban, which he feels marks them out as low-income migrants, for a smarter, more corporate-looking Nissan.
PHOENIX (Reuters) - With Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants looming, Guatemalan Samuel Roldan is swapping the family's battered Chevy Suburban, which he feels marks them out as low-income migrants, for a smarter, more corporate-looking Nissan.
"When you have an old car (covered) with stickers for a Spanish-language radio station ... it's only logical that they will think you are Hispanic and you don't have papers," Roldan said.
Roldan is among an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in the Mexico border state carefully weighing their options on Monday, three days after Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the United States' toughest immigration measure into law.
Interesting that Samuel Roldan shows no inclination to become a legal immigrant or legal citizen of this country - and pay taxes (etc) and follow the law like the rest of us. All he cares about is hiding his "status" and making excuses for being here illegally.
His actions have nothing to do with bigotry or hatred; his actions have everything to do with lawlessness.
Anti-Hispanic bigots are wrong; there's no question about that. Hatred and discrimination are wrong. But illegal immigrants who continue to insist they be allowed to remain here illegally, and continue to rip off our country, are also wrong.
I have absolutely no respect for anyone here in this group or anywhere who makes excuses for either of them - who makes excuses for bigotry or who makes excuses for lawlessness.
This as I see it is not the same as the racial profiling of say the african American who is stopped because and only because he/she is black in the "wrong" neighborhood. This is a war stopping the flow of not just cheap labor but of a war in Mexico that is spilling over the border into Arizona. Not all the illegals are "poor" mexicans looking for some way to get money home.
If I looked Spanish/Mexican/arab/Pakistani/Iraqi whatever and the law are in the frame of mind to stop me, you bet I would carry proof of citizenship in my wallet. The proof you need when you are hired at most companies involves a picture ID a social security card and something with your address showing like say a driver's license, a phone bill, a utility bill etc. It is not asking for a birth certificate. I have always had to prove I am a US Citizen in order to renew my nursing license or be hired anywhere legitimate.
Excellent post. Very well-said.
I, too, have to carry a picture ID and proof of residence and I have to present them all the time, for various reasons, to legal authorities. Recently, to renew my driver's license, I had to provide proof I am a US citizen.
Most employers here make all employees provide proof of citizenship.
This is true for hispanic and non hispanics.
Tax dollars here are paid by both white and hispanics. Neither like the
drain illegals place on the system.
Thank god I can't see Al Sharpton on t.v. being so obnoxious. He knows
nothing about being hispanic. What a joke.
Well, there is a difference between needing to prove one's citizenship for a job or to get forms of ID and being randomly stopped on the street because one "looks" illegal.
I think a law that gives the police the right to, and actually requires them to, investigate anyone who looks suspicious opens all kinds of doors. We already have laws to deal with any criminal behavior.
The flood of immigration is certainly a problem and we can't just ignore illegals. I do wonder though what any of us would do if our family was hungry and we had no means to take care of them where we were at.
Great article on NAFTA Katii. Curious that this policy that has caused much immigration from Mexico and has been so damaging to US and Mexican workers never really gets any discussion in the media. You'd think it might now. It has certainly put more people out of work in the US than those who come here to work in fields, meat packing plants, or to wash dishes.
This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 21:28
just peeking in...no time to say anything important, but there's time to say this...
knate said, "Ignorance is no excuse for ignorance." i dunno why, but that set me LMcreamywhiteAO.
knate, you need to go tell that to congress.
This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 21:57
Yes, you have made a good point. There is a difference between voluntarily showing ID proof to an employer (or to a government agency) than being randomly approached "on the street" because one speaks Spanish or one looks or dresses "Hispanic" ...whatever that may mean in the eyes of a police officer in Arizona. One is a pain in the butt and the other reeks of ethnic profiling.
Furor grows over Arizona's illegal immigration law
PHOENIX – The furor over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.
Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government's authority to regulate immigration and violates people's constitutional rights by giving police too much power.
The measure — set to take effect in late July or early August — would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.
"If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.
Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for an eighth straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant ethnic profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.
The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law's implications before deciding how to proceed.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the law is discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the crackdown.
Currently, many U.S. police departments do not ask about people's immigration status unless they have run afoul of the law in some other way. Many departments say stopping and questioning people will only discourage immigrants from cooperating to solve crimes.
Under the new Arizona law, immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. That is a significant escalation of the typical federal punishment for being here illegally.
People arrested by Arizona police would be turned over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government could thwart the law by refusing to accept them.
This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 23:56
Supporters of the law said it is necessary to protect Arizonans from crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the nation's busiest gateway for people slipping into the country.
Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill on Friday, said Arizona must act because Washington has failed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs from Mexico. Brewer has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is in the U.S. illegally.
The crux of opponents' arguments is that only the federal government has the authority to regulate immigration.
"If every state had its own laws, we wouldn't be one country; we'd be 50 different countries," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Kevin Johnson, dean of the law school at the University of California-Davis and an immigration law professor, said such a lawsuit would have a very good chance of success. He said the state law gets into legal trouble by giving local law enforcement officers the authority to enforce immigration laws.
"States can't give them that power," Johnson said. "The federal government could if it wanted to, but it hasn't."
However, Gerald Neuman, a Harvard Law School professor, said Arizona could make a compelling legal argument that it has overlapping authority to protect its residents.
Johnson said opponents could also argue that the law could violate their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure because it gives police officers broad authority to determine who should be questioned.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the Arizona legislation, said he anticipated legal challenges and carefully drafted the language. He said the state law is only prohibiting conduct already illegal under federal law.
In a statement Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the state's new law would probably hinder law enforcement in dealing with more serious crimes. Napolitano vetoed similar proposals when she was Arizona governor.
"They would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve," she said.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera urged policymakers in the city to stop dealing with Arizona and Arizona businesses. Leaders in Mexico and California also demanded a boycott, as did civil rights leader Al Sharpton.
During a town hall meeting Monday in Tucson, Brewer dismissed the threat of a boycott, saying she doesn't believe the law is "going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think it might," the Arizona Daily Star reported. She added that outrage over the ability of police to ask people for citizenship documentation will fade.
The law has strong public support in Arizona, where passions have been running high since a rancher was killed close to the Mexican border last month, apparently by drug smugglers from across the border.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Really, there should be "reasonable" here. "upon probable cause"....... is the fly in the pudding.
Police should be allowed to check id if someone is stopped for traffic violations including random (emphasis on random), disturbing the peace, or any other ordinances.
Employers should be required to have a valid social security number. Public services should require a valid id.
Under these Constitutional restrictions, and since the Federal government has failed to protect our borders Arizona has the obligation to it's citizens to enforce the law. Those who are not here legally, should be deported. Those that hire illegals should be heavily fined, to discourage the employers that benefit from illegal labor.
This post was modified from its original form on 27 Apr, 7:29
This post was modified from its original form on 27 Apr, 7:31
This post was modified from its original form on 27 Apr, 7:33
You make the case well, Jim. Thank you.
We already have laws to deal with any criminal behavior. ~Bryan
Exactly. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out the obvious fact that police already have the power to deal with criminal behavior.
That goes for 'suspicious' behavior as well, and ID is always demanded by the police in these cases. The difference now is that if a Hispanic person is thought to be behaving 'suspiciously' and just happens to not have his ID on him/her at that moment they will be arrested and taken to jail. It's "guilty until proven innocent" and that = UnAmerican.
The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or ancestral groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics. The physical features commonly seen as indicating race are salient visual traits such as skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture. The term race may vary from country to country, changing according to specific cultures. For example, in the United States the term race is used in the description of individuals (e.g. white, black, etc.).
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not the socially constructed and perpetuated beliefs regarding race are biologically warranted, and the degree to which differences in ability and achievement are a product of inherited "racial" (i.e., genetic) traits.
The term race is often used in taxonomy as a synonym for subspecies. In this sense human races are said not to exist, as taxonomically all humans are classified as the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. Many scientists have pointed out that traditional definitions of race are imprecise, arbitrary, have many exceptions, and have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions. Thus, those rejecting the notion of race typically do so on the grounds that such definitions and the categorizations that follow from them are contradicted by the results of genetic research.
Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Large parts of the academic community take the position that, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact.
Now, repeat after me: "Hispanic is not a race."
Disregard nearly every U.S. Government form which asks for race and shake your head in dismay at the cultural ignorance of nearly every writer in practically every newspaper in the United States, yes! the United States, because the term "Hispanic" or the equally misused "Latino" is nowhere used in so many wrong applications as it is in our politically correct, but sometimes culturally incorrect nation.
Go ahead, pick any random issue of the Washington Post, or the latest book of essays by the great Camille Paglia or the wording in some of our 50 states' Equal Rights laws.
You will also find countless medical surveys or economic studies where "races" are broken into Black, White, Asian and Hispanic; Congressional Black Caucus members complain that U.S. Government policy is different for Cubans because they are "light-skinned Hispanics."
The samples go on and on.
For the last time: Hispanicism is NOT a race!
Hispanicism is the cultural legacy which sometimes unites nearly every country in the New World south of California into a diverse group of peoples and races joined by a common language.
Oh, by the way, I suppose one must throw in Spaniards, although I was shocked and amazed to listen to a San Francisco Mexican-American politician declare a few years ago that " Spaniards were not Hispanic because they were Europeans and white."
i vaguely remember being taught back in elementary school that there are four races: Caucasian, Negroid, Mongolian, and the fourth I can't remember.
is that the gist of the point you're making, knate? i totally agree. i was taught that the races of mankind are basically breeds, with specific characteristics of the specific breeds, just like dogs and cats and pigs, et. al.
"The law has strong public support in Arizona, where passions have been running high since a rancher was killed close to the Mexican border last month, apparently by drug smugglers from across the border. "
Well there you have it--the people of Arizona are afraid for their lives and welfare. Not completely facetious, the Ozark mountains around these parts harbor some pretty mean and strange people that would just as soon shoot first then run. People have disappeared there, especially non whites. We in Missouri could argue that passing through that territory requires a well running car and courage to get through. State troopers probably ought to have some authority to stop dull and stupid looking people who can't speak a decent sentence of their own language no matter what their color, and have that dull stupid look that only a meth manufacturer/user could wear.
But I digress from the topic. But I am from Missouri, the state known as the "Puppy Mill capital" of the nation along with the Meth capital. So what do I know.
btw, if i remember correctly, the races' specific characteristics were mainly differences in facial bone structure.
This post was modified from its original form on 27 Apr, 10:28
An Examination of Minority Voters’ Views on Immigration
Steven A. Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
While it is sometimes assumed that minorities, particularly Hispanics, favor increased immigration and legalization for illegal immigrants, a new Zogby survey finds that minority voters’ views are more complex. The poll of Hispanic, Asian-American, and African-American likely voters finds some support for legalization. But overall each of these groups prefers enforcement and for illegal immigrants to return home. Moreover, significant majorities of all three groups think that the current level of immigration is too high. These views are in sharp contrast to the leaders of most ethnic advocacy organizations, who argue for increased immigration and legalization of illegal immigrants. The survey used neutral language, avoiding such terms as “amnesty,” “illegal alien,” or “undocumented.”
Among the findings:
In contrast to the leadership of many ethnic advocacy groups, most members of minority groups think immigration is too high.
- Hispanics: 56 percent said it is too high; 7 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.
- Asian-Americans: 57 percent said immigration is too high; 5 percent said too low; 18 percent just right.
- African-Americans: 68 percent said it is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.
Most members of minority groups do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration as many ethnic advocacy groups argue; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.
- Hispanics: Just 20 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 61 percent said inadequate enforcement.
- Asian-Americans: 19 percent said not enough legal immigration; 69 percent said inadequate enforcement.
- African-Americans: 16 percent said not enough legal immigration; 70 percent said inadequate enforcement.
Most members of minority groups feel that there are plenty of Americans available to fill unskilled jobs.
- Hispanics: 15 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill unskilled jobs; 65 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do unskilled jobs, employers just need to pay more.
- Asian-Americans: 19 percent said increase immigration; 65 percent said plenty of Americans are available.
- African-Americans: 6 percent said increase immigration; 81 percent said plenty of Americans are available.
When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of minority groups choose enforcement.
- Hispanics: 52 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 34 percent support conditional legalization.
- Asian-Americans: 57 percent support enforcement; 29 percent support conditional legalization.
- African-Americans: 50 percent support enforcement; 30 percent support conditional legalization.
A friend just sent me this:
Here we go again with the Hitler/Fascist stuff again.
Many of us were taught that there are specific and separate races of humans but science has proven that our concept of race is social; it is not scientific. Essentially, there are minor differences between groups of people, depending on where they have lived over time, and their breeding patterns, but in reality, there is only one race: the human race. We have, by our language and ideas, "created" races.
I'll start another thread, soon, about the fallacy of the "scientific" concept of race....and the difference between that and our "social" concept of race.
I know, Jim. That was my point for placing that here.
But isn't how that goes?
Ask people to follow the law, and someone screams, "You fascist!"
Other than myths of divine creation, we have science-based artifacts and pure speculation to assist us in understandings about human origin(s). The out-of-Africa theory is not enough, except to say that there may have been a singular event of origin. To me this is doubtful. Emergence from primordial ooze if occurring in one place could have occurred universally. Variable could be climate, ice ages and simply good luck.
Certainly though the time-line includes a great pre-history (about which we can only speculate with our best educated guesses, or with wish fulfillment).
I think that all things, especially living organisms and systems adapt to the natural world outside themselves and we call this evolution of the species. The goal is balance, and if left alone is self-regulating for the most part.
Imagining these things, I am assisted by use of timelines, partly to keep a broad worldview as part of any construct.
Who then were the original people of Latin America? How should we properly identify their descendents? Is there a prehistoric race of humans prior to the Aztec and Mayan people living in what we now call The Americas?
Jumping forward, we know that Spanish blood tainted whatever was there, and that these new people had migrated as far north as present day Utah and up the California coast. The people already there (the Indians ) and the Az-Spans probably mixed it up even more, and today we call that mix Mixtec.
Various distinct groups throughout Mexico (Central and South America too) we identify as Mexican Indians. Latin seems to connote a Spanish blood-connection, as does Hispanic (both of European origin). Chicano, once used to identify activism, hasnt come up YET in this latest round of resistance.
Racism to me means considering others with uniquely different physical features as inferior (ethno-centricity). Ethnicity is more than having a different mix blood (DNA, genetics), it includes cultural idiosyncrasies and social learning as well. Hate is based in insecurity around fear, ignorance, and greed (that one might have to share resources or social status).
We will suffer without (non-politicized) compassion and generosity.
This post was modified from its original form on 27 Apr, 12:43
Scientific basis of racism (physical) ...... Let's see now, our genes are about 99.98% identical. Often we are more similar in physical or intellectual characteristics to people of another origin than our own "race".
Ipso facto; the one thing racism does prove is how stupid the human "race" can be.
This post was modified from its original form on 27 Apr, 13:42
Arizona's immigration law has ripple effect
by Erin Kelly - Apr. 28, 2010
WASHINGTON - Arizona's tough new immigration law has spawned calls for boycotts, a travel warning from Mexico to its citizens and a possible federal lawsuit, but a key Republican senator said Tuesday that it is not likely to result in comprehensive immigration reform this year.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham had been the lone GOP senator supporting reform, but he said it appears a reform bill must wait until 2012 to gain enough public and political support to pass. A reform bill could not pass without bipartisan support.
"Good people in Arizona are so afraid of an uncontrolled border that they passed a law that I think is unconstitutional," Graham said at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We've got a long way to go to prove we can secure the border."
Arizona's law is under review by the U.S. Justice Department to determine whether it violates the Constitution, and Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he may challenge the law in court.
Dennis Burke, U.S. attorney for Arizona, said his office is working closely with the Justice Department to review the immigration law, which makes it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requires police and other law-enforcement agents to check documents of people they reasonably suspect to be illegal.
"The president clearly has concerns," Burke told The Arizona Republic. "The Justice Department has been in discussions with us about the bill and its impact on federal law."
• Because of the new law, the Mexican government warned its citizens to use extreme caution if visiting Arizona.
• The Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association said six groups have canceled meeting or convention plans in the state. Member hotels and resorts said the groups' reservations ranged from 20 to 120 rooms.
• Calls for boycotts of Arizona and the state's businesses continued to pour in from neighboring states and countries.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that the government has made huge progress in securing the border but argued that reform is needed.
Arizona's action, and violence along the southwestern border, should not be used as an excuse for Congress to avoid taking up comprehensive immigration reform, she said.
"The border is as secure now as it has ever been," Napolitano told the Senate panel.
Napolitano, who served as Arizona's governor before joining President Barack Obama's administration in January 2009, said the number of Border Patrol agents has doubled to more than 20,000 people in the past five years. That's the highest level of staffing in the Border Patrol's 85-year history, she said.
At the same time, Homeland Security has increased the amount of technology deployed at the border, Napolitano said.
For example, she said, Customs and Border Protection now has 30 Z-Backscatter mobile X-ray units that screen passenger vehicles crossing the border. That's up from nine units in 2009.
But Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who has been at the center of the immigration firestorm since signing Senate Bill 1070 into law on Friday, made it clear Tuesday night that she doesn't think the federal government has upheld its responsibilities when it comes to border security.
"Why don't they do their job and uphold their laws?" said Brewer, who lashed out at the Obama administration and Napolitano in particular.
The issue "just falls on deaf ears," Brewer said.
Napolitano, Brewer added, probably knows the border issue better than anyone. But, the governor said, "now that's she's on the other side of the fence . . . she's just ignoring us."
Federal officials say that increased security has resulted in fewer immigrants trying to enter the country illegally and an increase in the seizures of illegal drugs.
Mark Qualia, a spokesman for the CBP, said the number of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the southwestern border has been steadily declining since 2005, when about 1.2 million illegal immigrants were apprehended. In 2009, he said, the number dropped to about 541,000.
At the same time, seizures of illegal drugs continue to rise.
Since March 2009, federal agents have seized 1.65 million kilograms of drugs along the border, an increase of 15 percent, Napolitano said.
She said she fears that Arizona's new law will divert time and money from catching drug smugglers and other felons to go after people who have committed misdemeanor immigration violations.
"We believe it will detract from and siphon resources away from those committing the most serious crimes," she told the senators.
Meanwhile, the Mexican state of Sonora announced that it will not attend a meeting it and Arizona has held every year for the past four decades.
The meeting of the Sonora-Arizona Commission, scheduled to take place June 3-4 in Phoenix, was canceled as part of a protest of the state's immigration laws, officials said in a letter to the state.
California officials are taking action, too. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday introduced a resolution calling for a boycott of Arizona because of its new anti-immigration law.
Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn said she planned to introduce a similar resolution for the City Council, according to the Los Angeles Times. California Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, sent a letter to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, asking for a list of Arizona businesses and agencies that do business for California.
Steinberg proposes that "California do everything legally possible to sever its economic ties with the state of Arizona until that state's newly enacted racial-profiling law is repealed," according to a statement posted on his website.
Brewer called such boycotts and actions "unfortunate."
"I am really disappointed that people would try to resolve their problems with the legislation by boycotting the state," Brewer said Tuesday. "They are only depriving the legal residents of Arizona when they do that. I think it's both unfortunate and unnecessary."
Brewer, who is reaching out to her gubernatorial counterparts in other border states, said she has not specifically addressed the boycott issue but is trying to explain Arizona's position on the immigration issue.
She spoke with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson a few days ago and hopes to talk to Schwarzenegger and Texas Gov. Rick Perry soon.
The Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association said the estimated economic value of the cancellations ranges from $5,000 for the smaller groups to $45,000 for the larger.
Kristen Jarnagin, vice president of communications for the association, said the properties did not report the types of groups, other than a meeting of immigration attorneys. Also, a number of tourists have been calling or writing hotels to cancel plans.
"What the biggest unknown is and what our biggest concern is," Jarnagin said, "is that a lot of groups who are currently in the process of planning and would have considered Arizona won't even consider us. They will just mark us off their list.
"So it's almost like the silent boycott. We likely won't ever know the real economic impact because we will just never hear from those people."
One person, complaining about this (in my words, unwise and poorly-written) law said,
"This law, when enforced, will have the unfortunate side-effect of chasing (illegal) Latino immigrants out of the state of Arizona."
Huh? Well, wasn't that their idea?
We need to deal with this issue and these problems head on. Millions of people are in our country illegally. Unless Draconian measures are taken, they will remain here. We must find ways - somehow - to have illegals comply with our laws and regulations and become "legal" vistors or residents or citizens of our nation.
Can this be achieved completely by force? No, and it shouldn't be. Should we just grant blanket amnesty and automatic citizenship to all illegals? No. There has to be a middle path where people assume responsibility to follow our laws; a middle path where our laws are written and enforced justly and fairly; a middle path that ends up benefiting illegals, and all our citizens and taxpayers, and our country as a whole.
In my opinion, there is no other choice.
Arizona immigration law divides Republicans and conservatives
Republicans, who have stood together in opposition to Democratic policies like health-care reform, have not yet cobbled together a unified response to Arizona's controversial anti-illegal-immigration measure. The law, which requires police to ask for immigration papers from anyone whom they have a "reasonable suspicion" might be in the country illegally, was signed into law Friday by the state's Republican governor.
Sarah Palin came out swinging in defense of the law on Fox News yesterday: She accused the Obama administration of a "shameful" attempt to make the law into a "racial issue" by suggesting it will encourage cops to stop and question legal Hispanics in their search for illegal immigrants.
"It is telling the federal government that they better wake up, buck up, and do their job in securing our borders," Palin said. But Palin's defense followed criticism of the bill by several prominent Republicans.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said the law will most likely be found unconstitutional (law professors interviewed by the Wall Street Journal agree, because states are not allowed to have their own foreign policies). Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman both expressed reservations, and Marco Rubio, a conservative darling and Republican Senate candidate in Florida, said that requiring people to carry documentation is "not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state." Even former Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a longtime crusader against illegal immigration, thinks it goes too far.
"I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over," he said.
The split is perhaps most apparent in one prominent Republican family of Arizonans: the McCains. Sen. John McCain, who is facing a strong primary challenge from the right, tepidly endorsed the law and insisted the Obama administration had failed to secure the border and left his state in a dangerous situation. But his daughter, Meghan McCain, wrote a column in the Daily Beast denouncing the measure, saying it gives police a "license to discriminate."
The same divide existed between conservatives in the media. MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough — a former GOP congressman from Florida — said he thinks Hispanics in Arizona who are in the U.S. legally will be targeted and called the bill "un-American." But Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative magazine National Review, defended the bill and attacked what he called the "hysterics" of its critics, arguing that Arizona is simply trying to enforce existing law.
— Liz Goodwin
The solution is simple but Obama's going to have to show some leadership: instead of fighting this bill, eliminate the reasons for this bill and it's popular support. All Obama has to do is actively start enforcing the border. George Bush dropped the ball on this issue and Obama can't even seem to find the ball. All he can seem to do is say we shouldn't do anything; not even enforce the existing laws.
Thank you, Dan. Well-said.
Some say illegals should be given amnesty:
Thursday, April 29th 2010
Guilty until proven innocent. Or more to the point: illegal until proven innocent.
That's what the racist immigration law signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last Friday does to the people of that state. Now, anyone can be stopped by the police at any time and for no reason other than the color of their skin. They can be questioned about their immigration status and forced to carry papers 24 hours a day.
It "sounds a lot like the old 'driving while black' law," Smith correctly pointed out, referring to a time when African-American drivers were allegedly stopped by New Jersey State Police in inordinate numbers.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) asked the relevant questions: "Tell me, how does an undocumented person look? What does an illegal look like? And how far will one go to prove it?"
Obviously, in Arizona some are willing to go as far as ignoring the Constitution, trampling human rights and becoming a police state.
The new law forces the local police to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they are in the U.S. illegally. That's the same as saying if you "look foreign," you can be asked for "your papers, please."
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that SB1070 makes racial profiling and discrimination the law of the land in the state of the former maverick, John McCain.
While speaking about undocumented immigrants, the old senator once said, "We need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well." It now appears McCain has joined the sorry conga line of immigrant bashers and become a big supporter of SB1070.
But let's not be too harsh on McCain's flip-flopping. He is after all fighting for his political life in a GOP primary against J.D. Hayworth, a conservative with extreme anti-immigrant views. And if in order to get Arizona Republicans to vote for him, the good senator has to betray God's children, so be it. Sad.
Yet, much to the chagrin of the menagerie of assorted proto-fascists, spineless politicians, white supremacists and professional hate-mongers that are salivating at the prospect of legal racial-profiling and discrimination against Latinos, SB1070 could be a blessing in disguise for immigrants.
For one, it has made clearer than ever that the foot-dragging on immigration reform by Congress and President Obama has to stop. Also, anger among immigrants and their supporters has injected a new militancy into the movement for immigrant rights.
Since Brewer signed the law, organizers have seen a huge rise in the numbers planning to join the nationwide demonstrations on May 1 - a designated day of activism for immigrant rights.
In New York, the two biggest rallies will take place at Union Square and Foley Square.
"The only way to respond to this un-American legislation and stem the ugly tide of criminalization of immigrants is for the President to take bold executive action to stop the senseless deportations and exert leadership on enacting just and humane immigration reform," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.
It will not happen without the tireless commitment of immigrants and progressive Americans.
I am against this bill in its present form, as I am becoming more liberal in my views on immigration reform all of the time. That said we are in a state of war and need to control our borders, as those who would commit mass destruction can walk into America on either our north or south border quite easily. And why not? We need the jobs and it does need to be done.
You cannot currently send a star to Edward because you have done so within the last week.
enthusiastically weighed into the blistering national debate on immigration today with a resounding assertion that America needs more immigrants -- not fewer -- to ensure its long-term fiscal future.
Maybe more Greeks?
Yes, quite true Mary - but the Greeks though we're sending to our 51st state, Puerto Rico, to encourage some diversity.
Does Bill (President Clinton) not understand we are speaking about ILLEGAL immigrants? I guess he has difficulty with the concept of that word also.
This post was modified from its original form on 29 Apr, 10:45
There is one race: Human.
Arizona-like Immigration bill coming in Texas; Lawmaker says Obamas Gods punishment
Last weekend, Berman told a crowd in Tyler that he believes Barack Obama is Gods punishment on us today, but we are going to make Obama a one-term president, according to a report in the Tyler Morning Telegraph.
Berman also plans a broad bill similar to the Arizona law, which makes being an undocumented worker a crime. He specifically wants to include the measure to allow law enforcement officials to ask people who they believe may be in the country illegally about their status. I think almost every state in the union will follow suit, Berman told the Star-Telegram during a recent call from Switzerland, where he is vacationing
I tried to politely say what I think of anyone who would, in their own ignorance, stupidity and absurdity, describe Barack Obama as "G-d's punishment"...but I couldn't find the proper words that wouldn't break every Care2 rule of proper language decorum.
So you'll just have to guess what I think about that %&$# &%$#&* *&&#@$$#...
While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA's ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:
- NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their 'death warrant.'
- NAFTA's service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.
- Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.
So rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA. The initial growth in the number of jobs has leveled off, with China's even more repressive labor system luring US firms to locate there instead.
But Mexicans must still contend with the results of the American-owned 'maquiladora' sweatshops: subsistence-level wages, pollution, congestion, horrible living conditions (cardboard shacks and open sewers), and a lack of resources (for streetlights and police) to deal with a wave of violence against vulnerable young women working in the factories. The survival (or less) level wages coupled with harsh working conditions have not been the great answer to Mexican poverty, while they have temporarily been the answer to Corporate America's demand for low wages.
With US firms unwilling to pay even minimal taxes, NAFTA has hardly produced the promised uplift in the lives of Mexicans. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Gustavo Elizondo, whose city is crammed with US-owned low-wage plants, expressed it plainly: "We have no way to provide water, sewage, and sanitation workers. Every year, we get poorer and poorer even though we create more and more wealth."
Falling industrial wages, peasants forced off the land, small businesses liquidated, growing poverty: these are direct consequences of NAFTA. This harsh suffering explains why so many desperate Mexicans -- lured to the border area in the false hope that they could find dignity in the US-owned maquiladoras -- are willing to risk their lives to cross the border to provide for their families. There were 2.5 million Mexican illegals in 1995; 8 million have crossed the border since then. In 2005, some 400 desperate Mexicans died trying to enter the US.
NAFTA failed to curb illegal immigration precisely because it was never designed as a genuine development program crafted to promote rising living standards, health care, environmental cleanup, and worker rights in Mexico. The wholesale surge of Mexicans across the border dramatically illustrates that NAFTA was no attempt at a broad uplift of living conditions and democracy in Mexico, but a formula for government-sanctioned corporate plunder benefiting elites on both sides of the border.
NAFTA essentially annexed Mexico as a low-wage industrial suburb of the US and opened Mexican markets to heavily-subsidized US agribusiness products, blowing away local producers. Capital could flow freely across the border to low-wage factories and Wal-mart-type retailers, but the same standard of free access would be denied to Mexican workers.
Meanwhile, with the planned Central American Free Trade Agreement with five Central American nations coming up, we can anticipate even greater pressure on our borders as agricultural workers are pushed off the land without positive, alternative employment opportunities. People from Guatemala and Honduras will soon learn that they can't compete for industrial jobs with the most oppressed people in say, China, by agreeing to lowering their wages even more. Further, impoverished Central American countries don't have the resource
That ^^^ makes it hard for me to feel too terribly sorry for America's probleml with illegal immigrants coming from Mexico (the target of this new AZ law), especially when the American public just sits idly by as NAFTA was crafted, signed, then to this day ignored.
This post was modified from its original form on 29 Apr, 12:42
Direct quote from the Arizona law text:
· Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:
Ø A valid Arizona driver license.
Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.
You can read the entire law here
Expressed premise: There is one race: Human.
Unexpressed premise: All humans have a right to be in America.
Logical conclusion: Therefore, the population of America is potentially 6.8 billion
Robert, where do you come up with this shyt? There was no such "unexpressed premise." If you can't follow the conversation without inserting your personal fantasies then just shut the fukup.
Oh then some humans don't have a right to be in America.
There's a starting point for conversation - would those humans be those who don't have papers?
NAFTA corn is low priced and high priced, (and subsidized also whatever that means?)
NAFTA supposedly means Walmart can sell Chinese goods, but wouldn't that be a Chinese trade agreement?
(It must at least be Chinese goods assembled and distributed by North American vendors with that markup going to North America.)
The likelihood of development of "local producers" who aren't in a global market competition is zilch which is the proven history of Mexico.
And finally the piece de resistance of the argument "NAFTA's ruinous impact on US (and).... its catastrophic effects in Mexico":
which of course Katii summarizes as "NAFTA was crafted, signed, then to this day ignored." ????????
When you can explain your logical inconsistencies in argumentation, I'll be listening......
Some Hispanic Americans hope law deters illegal immigration
Susan Schwartz, whose great-grandparents are from Mexico, supports Arizona's new immigration law.
- Woman who supports the new immigration law says she has been called racist
- She also believes illegal immigrants are taking away jobs
- Some with Hispanic roots say illegal immigrants are turning towns into "mini-Mexicos"
- One woman says negative experience in school system helped form her opinion
See an interview with an Arizona police officer who has filed a lawsuit over the state's new immigraton law on tonight's "AC 360" 10 p.m. ET
Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Sue Schwartz says she's been called a racist so many times she doesn't mind the label anymore. If wanting immigrants to enter the country legally, like her great-grandparents from Mexico, and obey the laws of the land makes her racist, then so be it, she says firmly.
"I'm getting to the point I wear it with pride," says Schwartz, a lifelong Arizonan who has warily watched the growth of the illegal immigrant population in the state over the course of her life.
About 500,000 unauthorized immigrants were believed to live in Arizona in 2008, and 11.9 million nationwide, up from 3.5 million nationwide in 1990, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report published in 2009.
This year, the tide is finally turning in her favor, she says, with the passage of SB 1070, aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.
The new law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.
"I hope it makes a lot of them leave on their own, self-deportation. Hopefully that'll open up more jobs. There's a lot of people here who will do menial jobs -- maybe not pick lettuce, but these people aren't just picking lettuce any more," says Schwartz.
The new law also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
Schwartz, a retired USPS worker, says undocumented workers are taking jobs from citizens like her teenage granddaughter, who hasn't been able to find a job since she began looking after she turned 15.
"She can't even work at the Hometown Buffet if she doesn't speak Spanish. How fair is that?" she said.
But Schwartz and some other Americans with Hispanic backgrounds who spoke with CNN say the problem with illegal immigrants isn't just the jobs they take. It's how they're overrunning towns like Phoenix, turning them into "mini-Mexicos" with their trash-filled streets and loud music, according to Schwartz.
Of equal concern to her friend, Martha Payan, is how she claims illegal immigrants "fleece" government coffers by collecting welfare on multiple children, or vanish without a trace after an arrest or a hospital visit.
The two women, who became acquainted through various demonstrations in the metro Phoenix area, met Thursday to discuss their views outside the Maricopa County Municipal building, as more backlash against the controversial immigration law continued to flood the city.
Latin pop star Shakira arrived in town Thursday to discuss SB 1070 with Mayor Phil Gordon, who has vowed to fight the law. This comes a day after Mexico urged its citizens not to travel to Arizona.
Sporting a white baseball cap that that reads, "100% American Citizen," Schwartz says she believes that SB 1070 came about because law enforcement in Phoenix was fed up over not being able to ask suspects about their immigration status.
"Any time an American does something wrong or breaks the law they're going to pay the consequences. Whenever an illegal does something wrong they get a new ID and become a new person," she says. "I want the laws same for everybody here, not bent for them."
The 59-year-old mother of four adult children says her Mexican parents and grandparents taught her a respect for the law at an early age. Her grandmother, who lived in Juarez, Mexico, after being kicked out of the United States for smuggling drugs, encouraged her to get a good education and speak English, her second language, outside of the home.
"If I entered another country illegally I'd go to jail, yet they're demanding better treatment than their government would give us," she says.
Anna Gaines, a Mexican-born U.S. citizen, says she took up the fight against illegal immigration after becoming disillusioned by the attitudes of immigrant families that she witnessed as a teacher in the Paradise Valley School District in Paradise, Arizona.
"Many of these families were having one child after another just to earn a paycheck from the U.S. government and they didn't care about their children's education," says Gaines, the controversial founder of American Citizens United, a grass-roots organization known for its extreme views on immigration enforcement. "They didn't want to contribute, just take."
I hope it stops trespassers and lets people know ... you cross that border illegally, it's a crime.
"There used to be a level of dignity and self-respect. They were hard-working people who wanted to contribute to American society because it was better than where they came from," says Gaines, a petite woman in her 70s. "But our government has been giving them handouts for so long that now they expect them."
Gaines says SB 1070 mirrors federal law on fortifying the borders, allowing local officials to enforce immigration law in a manner that the federal government should have been doing all along.
"We as Americans have the right to defend this country's laws. There's nothing racist about protecting the country," she says.
Payan, originally from Puerto Rico, hopes the law will deter future illegal immigration.
"I hope it stops trespassers and lets people know the law is the law and you cross that border illegally, it's a crime," she says.
Payan has also been called "traidora," or traitor, by neighbors in her primarily Hispanic neighborhood who know how she feels about illegal immigrants.
"They know how I feel. I don't hide my feeling," she says. "I've already had by apartment broken into and had my car hit by an illegal. What more do I have to lose?"
Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law
Legislators ban race from being used by police as a factor to identify illegal immigrants. The initial law allowed the use of race to form the suspicion but said it could not be the sole factor.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Arizona lawmakers late Thursday narrowed a controversial immigration law signed last week by the governor in hopes of quelling a national firestorm over suggestions it will force police to racially profile Latinos while looking for illegal immigrants.
The law makes it a state crime to lack proper immigration papers in Arizona and requires police to determine whether people are in the country illegally. The initial law forbade race from being used "solely" to form the suspicion but not from being a factor. Civil rights lawyers contended that it essentially legalized racial profiling.
In the final hours of their legislative session, after three federal lawsuits were filed contending the law is unconstitutional, lawmakers removed the word "solely," explicitly banning race from being used at all by police. "It should quell the fears that a lot of people have vocalized," Lyle Mann, who oversees training of police officers for the state, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "This will make the training and policymaking much clearer and simpler."
Lawmakers also lessened the penalties that local governments must pay if residents successfully sue because police are not enforcing the law.
Gov. Jan Brewer must sign the legislation containing the changes for them to become law. The entire package will go into effect at the end of July.
The law has been criticized by a wide range of figures, including President Obama and Colombian pop star Shakira, and sparked calls for boycotts of Arizona. It is also supported by 51% of voters nationally, according to a recent poll.
AZ will probably force the feds to do something. It should be fun to watch. Particularly since NEITHER party wanted to fix the problem. Thats right, Neither party.
The dems didn't want to fix it because they feel everyone should have a shot at the american dream. Plus, it gives them a chance at new voters.
The repubs didn't want to fix it either. In spite of everything they claimed.
Why is that?
There are two classes of conservatives. Business conservatives and Social conservatives. The social conservatives want the AZ type laws and gun towers on the borders. The business conservatives want the cheapest, least complaining labor they can get.
The repub politicos get elected by promising the social conservatives they will fix the problem. That gets them the votes. They promise the business conservatives they won't do anything to hurt them. That give them the money to run for office. It's a win win for them. (Particularly since the modern social conservative will never vote for the opposition politico anyway.)
Where I live is a classic example. Western Washington state is the classic "left coast" Nearly every state legislator on this side is democrat and leans liberal.
Eastern Washington is a classic example of conservative values (and occasional hypocricy. (see * below for example)) Every state legislator on this side is republican.
Most of eastern washington is labor intensive agricultural. AKA, lots of cheap workers from south of the border keeps the owners here in business.
(*In spite of all the "red state welfare" they get. Many of these farmers drag down taxpayer supplied handouts that would embarass nearly any liberal cadillac driving welfare queen. (While they constantly complain about said liberal welfare queens)
I've listened to the republicans yell about fixing immigration in this state for years. For years, I've countered with a biblical type challenge: Find and name just 5 conservative, eastern washington republican reps. who will introduce or sponsor a (AZ type) state law cracking down on illegals. (No one has succeeded with this challenge yet. Because none of the eastern washington republs are that stupid.)
We are neighbors; I'm in Seattle. I totally agree with your assessment of our "local" conditions and your opinions about the Democrats and Republicans. Well-said.
When you can explain your logical inconsistencies in argumentation... ~robert
When you point out these alleged "logical inconsistencies in argumentation" I'll do my best to explain what you are unable to grasp.
I am going to weigh in on this subject,for those out there who believe it has nothing to do with bigotry you know nothing of my state,I am a second generation native of this state and have understood for most of my life that I live in a very bigoted,racsist state,the sponsor of this bill Russell Pearce was once overheard saying that we have to do something about the brown-skinned people in this state before we lose our majority at the voting booth.
Now for the practicality of this law,you are making much ado about nothing,there is no provision providing funding to the local enforcement agencies,and all the counties and cities in this state have very serious budget issues and will not have the funds to deal with this problem whether they are being sued to enforce it or not.
And for enforcing the law it will not be done even handedly,a measure went into effect just last January here saying that not only would prosecutors go after the illegals but prosecute their employers to,here in this county the sherriff arrested thousands of illegals and prosecuted them but not one corporation or business owner has been charged or indicted that I know of and one place they raided 80 out of 100 employees were illegal and you want me to believe this guy has no ideal that these people were here illegally BS.
My big question to those who support this law how do you seperate the numbers I am using are not totally accurate because their numbers reduced when the economy crashed in 2008 but anyway how do you seperate 250,000 hispanic speaking illegals from10,000,000 hispanic speaking legal residents that are American by birth just like you and me without violating their civil rights.
I can understand the concern about illegal immigration. However, I just can't see how these laws could be enforced without racial profiling and inequality before the law.
I think that laws like this are missing the point. If we really want to control illegal immigration, then we should reduce the supply of illegal jobs. I agree with those who have called for harsher penalties for employers who hire illegal workers.
The problem of illegal immigration - or whatever one wishes to call it - should be a Federal government problem. Of course, it affects the States, but the burden of enforcement (etc) should not fall disproportionately on the States - as it does now.
The Federal government makes the laws concerning citizenship and immigration and permits for temporary workers. Have them enforce the laws. And have them write reasonable and fair laws.
But I do not accept any argument that says some illegals deserve to be here and some don't. The law must apply equally to all; fairly and justly.
No country in the world allows illegal entry into their country. In fact, many nations have far stricter rules than anything we have in the States.
Ethnic profiling? I don't like it. I don't accept it. But the illegals are coming, predominantly, from one ethnic area. Some enforcers are haters - and that is wrong - but to use an example: If a crime is committed in a community, and the suspect happens to have dark skin, having the police interview and look for people with dark skin is NOt in itself, racial profiling or ethnic profiling. Likewise, if the criminal is white, they shouldn't be picking up people who are Asian or black.
We have intelligent people in this country. I know that is true because we have intelligent members in this group. Surely, some intelligent legislators can write laws that are NOT written discriminatory, that do not allow rampant racial or ethnic profiling, that are fair and just laws. Is that too much to ask?
The people who wrote this law in AZ are frustrated. Not all are racists or haters. They are frustrated. And out of their frustration they wrote a poor law.
In any case, the Federal government has to step up and deal with this and the millions of illegals in our country. We have to deal with this. Find a way to get them to be citizens; fairly and justly. Without Draconian rules or Draconian laws.
Surely, intelligent people can come up with intelligent solutions. Can't they?
Please Go To:
AZ Anti-Immigrant Bill (Part II) to continue this discussion.