Because apparently we’re losing sight of this whole “Huddled masses yearning to be free” thing.
We’ve got Arizona going rogue, targeting people who–let’s face it–don’t look like they should be here. There’s a lunatic ex-governor from Alaska who is challenging the male anatomy of the president of the United States because he’s more concerned about, y’know, following his oath to uphold the Constitution with its pesky illegal search-and-seizure laws than he is about allowing states to grill people based on the color of their skin (even though they claim that’s not what they’re doing, except we all know it is.) And now there’s a movement afoot to try and repeal the Fourteenth Amendment so that people who are born here aren’t necessarily Americans, because (so the claims go) people are coming here specifically to pop out children who will become American citizens.
I mean, considering how many people around the world are being taught that America sucks, you’d think we’d be flattered that people would want to come here seeking better lives for themselves.
So if this keeps up, then yeah, let’s just auction off Lady Liberty, because if we’re not going to attend to the principles she represents, then isn’t it kind of false advertising having her there? At the very least, perhaps we should redesign her so that rather than holding aloft a torch, instead she has a middle finger extended to greet those huddled masses yearning to be deported back whence they came.
PAD
• 
Well said. As a resident of Phoenix, AZ, I’ve had the unfortunate opportunity to be at ‘ground zero’ of this whole mess. As someone who tries to find homes for the latino community, I’ve also seen its effects firsthand.
It’s odd to live in the USA but be surrounded by a prevailing sense of oppression and fear. Moreover, I’ve always loved to vote and ‘fight the good fight’, but for the first time I truly feel powerless.
Red state/blue state mentality is becoming more prevalent as our country moves toward polar ideologies – and it makes me wonder if I should leave the state I once loved to find a state that loves others.
I hear you. I’ve lived here my entire life (except for while I was in college, but I don’t think that counts.) Discussion has changed from “Oh, but it’s a DRY heat!” to “You’re going to that PROTEST! You support THOSE people?” Because standing up for being a decent human being has suddenly become… well, weird.
This was never about jobs, or drugs, or whatever the latest talking point is. It’s that the name “José” passed the name “Jacob” in the baby name charts here.
OK Arizona, well……….. don’t have my heart in this debate because I have some news I need to share with you
Me and the wife are splits-ville and I am taking the kids. I need to get out and soon so….I want to see you. In fact tickets are booked for today and with the help of Google I got your address, I should be there tomorrow, now I realize you have a lot going on so don’t worry about us we won’t be a bother, I see you have an extra room so we will stay there. If you are not home when we get there I will just pick the lock, might break the door down but I will pay you back eventually.
That’s not really breaking and entering because as we all know, no one is illegal. The kids are pretty fussy so none that Chinese food we like hot dogs, and the TV must be available for English please.
OK let’s talk Arizona. It is quite touchy for A) the race issue and B) most Mexicans are more worthy to live happily in North America then the unappreciative jáçkáššëš who currently reside here.
Ignoring the major crimes happening in Arizona due to the drug/civil war that is going on .
The border is a joke. For many reasons. We would not allow this ,no country would allow the border to remain this way. Mexico has a bloody fence on its southern border to keep out the unwanted masses and there punishment is very severe.
Illegal’s are also being abused- without “papers” it is practically slave labour
The underground Counterfeit papers industry is huge, and yes the 9/11 bombers had papers garnered from these illegal sources. You cannot have a legitimate country with protecting your border and who enters.
The Actual Arizona law has been so exaggerated, the reality is you need to produce documents verifying one’s legal status if police ask for them.
And many don’t mention the narrow prerequisites for police to ask, that are carefully written into the statute.
Oh, wow. How clever.
.
How droll.
.
I’m feeling too polite today to respond properly – i used up my day’s supply of ire on a couple of other boards.
.
But come back tomorrow and i’ll try to save some for you.
You can start with the fact that Arizona border towns (and Arizona in general) actually experience rather low crime rates. Probably due to the fact that, in addition to the majority of the citizens being completely law-abiding, the illegal immigrants keep their noses otherwise clean, because (a) the rampant crime on the other side is why they left in the first place, and (b) the last thing they want to do is attract the government’s attention.
And now there’s a movement afoot to try and repeal the Fourteenth Amendment so that people who are born here aren’t necessarily Americans
.
The effort is specifically targeted at the part that gives automatic citizenship to those born in this country, regardless of whether their parents have citizenship.
.
As for Palin, well, she’s doing *so* well with those candidates she supporting. Oh, wait, one of them lost a primary last night.
.
And you didn’t even get to the whole issue of a group of Muslims wanting to build a mosque a couple of blocks from the WTC site and the uproar that’s caused amongst the supposedly religious tolerant in this country (including a major Jewish group).
I’ve never understood how anyone could support any kind of immigration restriction and still be able to sleep at night. Freedom of Movement has always been one of those truths I hold to be self-evident. It should be absolute, and I can’t comprehend any real concept of Liberty that doesn’t include it. I can’t even stomach the idea of passports or visas, and I’ve never understood the point of citizenship either (Shouldn’t rights apply to everyone? I can’t figure out any reason why they shouldn’t, other than simple cruelty.)
I don’t have much time here, which is lucky for you, because I feel a strong urge to break into an intense and very long rant.
What’s wrong with asking people to follow the established procedures to first enter the country and then to stay here? It’s not like there aren’t already rules that tell the correct way to do it.
I always thought that the best way to be anti-illegal immigration without coming off as racist would be to interview LEGAL immigrants, and talk to them about the amount of hoops they need to jump through, and ask how they feel about how criminals can just sneak in and have an easier time than them, who actually follow the laws of the nation they want to enter.
Because most people would be unable to ever enter the country if they followed the established procedures. If you don’t have certain necessary skills, or if you don’t have close relatives here already, then you’re chances of getting in legally are almost nil. Your only hope is to put in your application and hope that your name is one of the few lucky ones to be accepted. It’s like a lottery, and the odds are not much better.
If everybody tried to go through all the legal procedures to immigrate, most would have to wait decades, or even more than a century.
It’s simple. If something is too difficult for most people to do legally, they’ll do it illegally.
A few months ago (I can’t remember precisely when), Reason magazine had a big two-page spread showing how complicated US immigration law is, and how few people ever qualify to come legally. It was titled ‘What Part Of “Legal” Don’t You Understand?’. It needs to be reprinted and distributed to all the anti-immigration people around the country.
Your only hope is to put in your application and hope that your name is one of the few lucky ones to be accepted. It’s like a lottery, and the odds are not much better.
If everybody tried to go through all the legal procedures to immigrate, most would have to wait decades, or even more than a century.
Not that much of an exaggeration.
Had cousins who got put on the list when they were under 5. They got in just in time for college..
(I REALLY don’t think a lot of people realize how entwined with racism the whole immigration thing is).
Then work to change the immigration laws! Just because a law is too tough, doesn’t give anyone the right to break it.
Right! Tell that to the ancestors of these anti-immigration wowsers in Arizona.
.
Or those great heroes of the Western Expansion who went into places like the Black Hills that were the property of the American Indian and took them away … in violation of applicable laws.
The problem isn’t the illegal immigrants, it’s the legal ones. You’re essentially asking Hispanic US citizens to endure a constant, unending low-grade police harassment campaign because hey, they look kind of like Mexicans, and you can’t expect us to just tell, right? So have your papers on hand, expect to get stopped by the cops two or three times a day for things like “suspicion of vagrancy” or “potentially reckless driving”, and just accept that despite being as American as everyone else, you’re not treated that way.
Nope. Not going to fly.
And now there’s a movement afoot to try and repeal the Fourteenth Amendment so that people who are born here aren’t necessarily Americans, because (so the claims go) people are coming here specifically to pop out children who will become American citizens.
.
Just to give everyone how radical this idea is: Lou Dobbs came out against it the idea. Lou Dobbs!!! CNN’s (former) head immigrant-basher thinks modifying the 14th Amendment’s specifications on granting Citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. is going too far. He even specifically said that he’s against this wacko idea even if pregnant women actually are coming to the U.S. so that their children will be U.S. citizens. He said that they should still be counted as citizens even if they are “anchor babies.” If Lou Dobbs is saying your idea is too radically immigrant-bashing, then you should probably take a step back and think things through again.
Sorry. The italics should have ended after “Lou Dobbs!!!”
Having just spent a week in AZ where it seemed to me like 3 out of every 4 people there could be pulled aside and asked for ID, I think these folks really need to pull together and organize to show they have some clout and how the country pretty much could not run without them.
Having just spent a week in AZ where it seemed to me like 3 out of every 4 people there could be pulled aside and asked for ID
.
Wow Rudy, did you just racially profile?? My god man repent. Do you really think that law enforcement would have just broken down and started rounding up dark skin folks (because AZ isnt on the Canadian border) and putting them in camps? You really have that little faith in law enforcement? Remember that the next time you call 911 for help.
.
Rudy, you need help…..
I actually just posted about this myself earlier…
http://hughcasey.livejournal.com/1298250.html
I think a lot of this is a reaction to having a black Democrat in the White House. “He’s not white? Let’s start by honoring the Confederates who wanted to split the country in two for slavery. Then let’s make a law where police can demand papers from people who *look* different — and the police can be forced to do this. Oh, and the Constitution lets children of illegal immigrants become citizens? Well, let’s change that pesky document so it doesn’t provide that right no non-whites — I mean immigrants.” Because clearly these anti-immigration laws are targeted at the British and Swedes.
Sadly, as some have pointed out, the problem with immigration goes well before Obama. As soon as any discussion of immigration reform starts, someone says “amnesty” and suddenly conservatives form a wall against any further discussion. And if that happened under a Republican, imagine how much harder it’ll be to reach any compromise between Obama and the Party of No.
I’ve always thought the solution to the Amnesty blockade, is to introduce a period where illegal working immigrants are allowed to rat out their bosses to the authorities, in return for amnesty.
.
That way, you’re getting the people who actually had work and were not afraid of hard work. And you also target the cheap-labour-seeking folks who are making money from the illegal immigrants.
.
Surely that’s a win-win for the country? I’m not talking about illegal immigrants who tend gardens or clean houses. I’m talking the fields of illegals picking fruit, or the sites of illegals working construction. The employers who make it widespread and endemic.
.
The talk about repealing the 14th amendment just seems like dancing to me. As in, the foreigner hating nutjobs said dance and the Senators who count on their votes started dancing. Everybody knows it’s all just a show and won’t amount to anything.
Maybe Arizonans who venture out of their state by car should be stopped by police in other states JUST to make sure there aren’t any illegals in the car. I don’t mean stopping vehicles that are clearly breaking other laws (like speeding or dangerous driving or bad headlights or broken taillights), but rather because their car tag reads “Arizona.” Or, would that be considered a type of profiling?
Can we do it just to the ones who have “Sheriff Joe” “J.D. Hayworth” “John McCain” or any number of Republican names plastered on their cars? (We can extend that to certain school bumper stickers, but usually those come with the Republican stickers.) Because some of us that live here are kind of stuck and would move if we could but oppose the law with everything we have.
Highly unlikely, since the vast majority of the police (even outside of Arizona) tend towards right-wing authoritarian attitudes.
In all seriousness, when has this not been the history of this country? The high-falutin’ philosophy of freedom and justice for all has rang hollow for centuries.
Chris Rock put it best: “America is like the uncle who puts you through college but who molested you.”
I’ll give you five bucks for it. (That’s Australian dollars, couldn’t afford it in US currency.)
Could you please deliver it to Christmas Island?
E.
I’m thinking we should leave the statue the way it is, just for the irony.
Irony indeed. I wonder how many people in the ‘land of the free’ know that it is now impossible to go up to the top of ‘Lady Liberty’ because we might be, you know, terrorists or something. So much for ‘liberty’.
Access to the Statue of Liberty’s crown was restored on July 4, 2009, mostly due to the effort of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner refusing to let the issue drop. I can attest to this as a former park ranger at Liberty Island. The torch was closed in the aftermath of the Black Tom Island incident of World War I; it’s a matter of structural integrity.
Also, if you’re looking at the Statue of Liberty as primarily something you can get into… I question if you get what she represents.
The Republicans can be such dûmbáššëš.
“Hey, we got here an ethnic group that is the fastest-growing demography in America and that shares a lot of the family values we’re so mad about, those people would love to vote for us. Let’s alienate them!”
You left out also driving illegal and hitting school buses and killing 4 children.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331989,00.html
oh, I just realized its a link to Foxnews. Sorry I forget they’re bias.
.
Wow, Pat! That changes everything. I mean, after all, we could never find stories all over the net about white, Christian, legal residents who have had family in this country for generations getting drunk and killing someone else by getting behind the wheel.
.
My God, you’ve shown us all the light. How could we have ever questioned you?
.
.
.
.
That’s sarcasm by the way. Figured I’d point that out since it’s pretty good odds that anyone who thinks the article your linking to actually means anything significant at all in the overall discussion might not be able to actually figure that out on their own.
.
Er.. “… you’re linking to…”
Yeah, sorry. I forgot you guys never had vehicular manslaughter before you let those pesky immigrants in.
And they probably smell bad too.
And CNN is so unbiased?
Well, Jerry already raised the main objection to this, but I have more to add. This is one of those examples of bigotry that really makes my skin crawl– the idea that crimes commited by illegal immigrants are somehow indicative of the true nature of immigrants in general, whereas similar crimes commited by citizens are merely crimes, with no aspersions cast upon other citizens.
Back in the early ’90s, 48 Hours did a show about immigration. At the time, their format was to run several short reports all dealing with the same general topic. One of their ‘immigration’ stories dealt with a Mexican construction worker who raped a little girl in Utah. The made a big deal about how this had been a small town with little crime until all these Mexicans came in to build the new subdivisions, and now crime was on the increase, finally culminating in the rape of children. And this was portrayed as an ‘immigration’ issue.
Of course, they never mentioned that since these Mexicans had only come because of the construction jobs, that the town was growing rapidly (otherwise there would be no construction), and rapidly growing communities always experience an increase in crime, no matter where the new residents come from. Nor did they ever explain how rape by an illegal Mexican is any different than rape by a White American– there was simply an unspoken assumption that such crimes naturally arise from the presence of illegal migrants, without any evidence given as to why this would be.
Considering the history this country has with rape being used as a justification for persecuting minorities, I was shocked that this story ever got past the producers and network bosses. You’d think that somebody would have noticed the implications and the historical parallels.
.
But people, for some reason I can’t figure out, seem to have blind spots when dealing with immigration. Even the most obvious examples of prejudice and lapses of logic seem to go unnoticed.
.
Denise, Pat is far right conservative. He was being sarcastic.
Now I’m the racist. of course. You guys do know this is a fight against ILLEGAL immigration right? I know, it might be hard to wrap your heads around, but Jerry, you of all people should know the difference between legal and illegal.
.
thats sarcasm by the way. Just one ILLEGAL immigrant caused the death of 4 children and your trying to tell me that it isn’t significant? really Jerry. dead children are not significant?
.
Wow, now you have shown me the light. How could I ever place the lives of children above ILLEGAL immigration.
.
That was not sarcasm by the way…ASSHAT
and before you start throwing around that racial card again, look in the mirror and tell me you like it when that card is played on you in your line of work.
.
“Now I’m the racist. of course. You guys do know this is a fight against ILLEGAL immigration right? I know, it might be hard to wrap your heads around, but Jerry, you of all people should know the difference between legal and illegal.
.
thats sarcasm by the way. Just one ILLEGAL immigrant caused the death of 4 children and your trying to tell me that it isn’t significant? really Jerry. dead children are not significant?
.
Wow, now you have shown me the light. How could I ever place the lives of children above ILLEGAL immigration.
.
That was not sarcasm by the way… ASSHAT and before you start throwing around that racial card again, look in the mirror and tell me you like it when that card is played on you in your line of work.”
.
So much staggering stupidity in such a tiny post. Oh where do I begin?
.
How about the fact that I didn’t call you a racist or accuse you of racism, you semi-literate áššhølë.
.
How about all your ranting and raving changes nothing about the very simple fact that your posting that link means exactly jack and squat. Yes, one illegal alien driving drunk killed some people. I can easily point out ten or twenty crimes committed by legal citizens for every crime you point out that was committed by an illegal alien.
.
If you want to argue that we need to better enforce the laws we have on the books, fix some loopholes in the system and get a tighter reign on the flow of illegal aliens into this country from all other countries then I’ll be right there with you fighting that fight. If you want to muddy the debate with meaningless drivel or, to take it further, start playing the game that several Republican politicians (like McCain and several other Arizona politicians lately) have of making up “facts” about how documented decreasing crime rates are actually figures showing crime rates soaring to staggeringly new highs…
.
Well, your post is going to be treated with the respect it deserves. ZERO.
I think the point is– Yes, in this instance, one illegal immigrant did cause the deaths of four children, but it could as easily have been one legal resident or one citizen. You have yet to explain how the driver’s legal status has any connection to these deaths. It seems to me (and you can correct me if I’m wrong) that your prejudice against illegal immigrants (not necessarily racism, but prejudice of some kind) has caused you to consider this driver’s immigrant status as somehow being the cause, or at least a contributing factor, of this tragic accident. But I fail to see how they are in any way related. The driver was also female– would you say that females are a threat to the country and we should get rid of them, or at least limit their numbers? What if she had buck teeth? Would that be a factor? Or if she were wearing a hat? Maybe you’re merely saying that since some immigrants are going to cause car crashes that we should keep them all out, even if they’re no more likely to crash than natives (I suppose this could make some sense if you consider deaths like these so tragic as to be avoided at all costs). But then she could’ve still killed a few kids back in Mexico, as could any other foreigner that no longer gets to come here to crash their cars. I assume you feel that Mexican kids’ lives are just as important as American (I sure hope you feel that way), so that wouldn’t work either.
Maybe it would just make more sense to ban driving, in every country. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about Green Cards.
Gee Jerry…Does this mean your breaking up with me?
.
Yes, a quicker more stream-line road to citizenship is long over due, but until that is accomplished an ILLEGAL immigrant is still ILLEGAL.
.
Do a google search Jerry, Add up all the deaths caused by ILLEGAL immigrants and tell me that it isn’t significant.
“You guys do know this is a fight against ILLEGAL immigration right?”
.
I’ll agree that a fight against illegal immigration is a worthy one.
.
I disagree that infringing on the rights of legal residents is in any way the appropriate way to do so.
.
I was born in this country. I do not have immigration papers. I do not carry my birth certificate with me when I travel.
.
This means that if my company sends me to Arizona, I may not come back.
.
Pat, please explain how risking my freedom as an American citizen is being protected by putting me in jail.
.
Theno
Pat, please explain how risking my freedom as an American citizen is being protected by putting me in jail.
.
Why would you be put in jail? For what reason would you be giving the police to check your legal status? Do you plan to commit crimes when your business sends you to Az.? If not then I would think you have no more reason to fear being harassed then I would.
I simply have much more faith in the legal system.
“Why would you be put in jail? For what reason would you be giving the police to check your legal status? Do you plan to commit crimes when your business sends you to Az.? If not then I would think you have no more reason to fear being harassed then I would.
I simply have much more faith in the legal system.”
.
In accordance with the code in question, it is a misdemeanor to be an illegal immigrant. And, the police have the duty to check the status of anyone suspected of committing a misdemeanor.
.
Circular law making FTW.
.
And, it is entirely possible that you have more faith in the legal system than I do. A little over ten years ago, I experienced a stint where every night on my way to work I was pulled over by the same officer and my car was searched on the basis of the probable cause granted by my “appearance” which I took to mean the fact that I am not white.
.
When I complained at the police department, they considered the officer’s actions reasonable. They suggested that I take an alternate route to work if I wanted to avoid … well, I called it “harrassment” but they called it a “delay.”
.
So, maybe I do have less faith in the system than you do. But, in my defense, I think that your opinion probably comes from a lack of such incidences happening to you or to people you know. I could be wrong.
.
Theno
In accordance with the code in question, it is a misdemeanor to be an illegal immigrant. And, the police have the duty to check the status of anyone suspected of committing a misdemeanor.
.
I see your point, but I have to disagree with the procedure. I’m not a lawyer or do I work in law enforement but my understanding is that you have to have some kind of contact with law enforcement before your status can be checked. Traffic stop etc.
I’m not sure but I think possessing a small amount of marijuana is also a misdemeanor but the police are not allowed to throw anybody they think might be carrying pot against the wall and search them.
.
A little over ten years ago, I experienced a stint where every night on my way to work I was pulled over by the same officer and my car was searched on the basis of the probable cause granted by my “appearance” which I took to mean the fact that I am not white.
.
Man, I would call that discrimination. That is just bûllšhìŧ. Unfortunately, there seems to be the lawless among the law. I will not pretend that it will not happen in AZ. but if it does, I hope its taken care of fast. Out of curiosity, what did you end up doing?
.
You know, you seem to be having a much more substantial debate on somewhat the same subject going on down below. I wont keep you going back and forth.
“I see your point, but I have to disagree with the procedure. I’m not a lawyer or do I work in law enforement but my understanding is that you have to have some kind of contact with law enforcement before your status can be checked. Traffic stop etc.
I’m not sure but I think possessing a small amount of marijuana is also a misdemeanor but the police are not allowed to throw anybody they think might be carrying pot against the wall and search them.”
.
Technically, an officer can’t randomly search someone for marijuana. In practice, if an officer asks you if they can search your car, apartment, or person, and you refuse, then they now have probable cause to believe you are hiding such a substance. Again, technically, this shouldn’t work. In practice, I’ve seen it work far too many times to believe that we live in a world where the technical side of things stands up in court. (My father is a news paper reporter.)
.
In fact, the officer who pulled me over every night was looking for drugs in my car.
.
Also, don’t forget section 2, subsections G through J, which as also been reported in the news. These clauses state that a legal resident of Arizona may sue the police and the individual officer if they report that a person is an illegal immigrant and the officer does not follow up. The citizen may sue for between one and five thousand dollars, plus court costs.
.
Please don’t try and tell me that people aren’t going to look at this as a chance to get a free five grand out of a lawsuit. Not in this day and age.
.
You ask what I did about my harrassment. That is a funny story, and by “funny” I mean “sad.” I got the officer’s badge number and went to see the county magistrate. At the time, the magistrate was an old college fraternity brother of mine. He put some pressure on the police and the harrassment stopped.
.
So, the system worked? No, it failed. I had to go outside the system. If the system was working, then my first complaint would have stopped it. I shouldn’t have had to give the secret handshake and say, “Can you help a brother out?”
.
Theno
I’m starting to believe everything is racially motivated. According to what I read here, I can’t possibly oppose illegal immigration because it’s illegal. The only reason to oppose it is racial. The fact that my family entered the country from Mexico while fleeing Pancho Villa doesn’t enter into it. The fact my Grandfather was proud he grew up in Mexico and taught me to love the land where he was born doesn’t matter. If I oppose illegal immigration, I must hate Mexicans.
.
I oppose illegal immigration because I want increased legal immigration. I believe in Dr. King’s dream where a man is judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. I don’t care if Swedes were coming in through the southern borders illegally, if they’re seeking to stay here illegally, I oppose them. The fact that this influx of illegals has led to a corresponding growth in violent crime only adds to my argument.
.
The fact is that the Arizona law doesn’t contradict any Federal law. It only pledges to enforce laws already on the books. If “reasonable suspicion” is the same as “color of skin” then we might as well shutter all law enforcement in the country as they’ll really have nothing to do.
Well said Malcolm
.
“According to what I read here, I can’t possibly oppose illegal immigration because it’s illegal. The only reason to oppose it is racial.”
.
Then you obviously don’t read very well.
‘… this influx of illegals has led to a corresponding growth in violent crime..’
It has?? The statistics I’ve seen show violent crime rising and falling over the past few decades with a particularly rapid decline after the early ’90s. I haven’t seen any correlation with illegal immigration, which has been pretty high over the same period, particularly during the construction boom.
.
If you’re opposed to illegal immigration solely because it’s illegal, does that mean you would’ve supported the return of fugitive slaves? After all, they were illegal, too. Would you be in favour of handing over heretics to the Inquisition?
If you’re opposed to illegal immigration solely because it’s illegal, does that mean you would’ve supported the return of fugitive slaves?
.
I’m sorry, but this is just absurd. Do you really think you can compare slaves – people who were brought here against their will – to people who come into this country willingly?
The point of the analogy was that if one insists that the law must be obeyed, simply because it’s the law, then one must also insist on obeying other bad laws as well. I chose to use the Fugitive Slave Act to illustrate this because it’s well-known and almost everybody agrees that it was a horrible law.
Let’s try to look at the basic matter here, without too many of the ancillary issues. What is the horrible crime that ‘illegal immigrants’ are actually committing?
Moving.
That’s it. Moving from one home to a new one. Something that pretty much every American adult has done at least once. Is there anyone here who’s has never moved out of one house and into another? Most of us have done it several times. It’s so normal that few, if any, have ever questioned the practice.
Immigration law takes something that is perfectly legal for some people, and so accepted that its legality is never questioned, and turns it into a major crime for others. And for no reason other than they were born incorrectly.
Think about that. People are forbidden to engage in normal activities, by Government fiat, for something they had no control over. Denied a right so basic that most of us take it fully for granted, not a privelege we had to earn– a right we attain simply by our existence.
Why should anyone else have to struggle, to work for years for the slim chance of gaining rights that others simply receive automatically?
Immigration laws are nothing more than a crime against humanity.
As someone else wrote, if it is a ‘right’, why do I need a visa to visit fiancee in Brazil? A visa requirement which was foisted on us by the US government, by the way. They arm twisted ours into adopting that stance. And why do I need a passport to visit friends in Japan, or the US? Or anywhere else? Clearly there is no universal right of movement between countries. Or are you in favour of Taliban moving to the US and performing their dastardly deeds there? No? Then I’m guessing you do think SOME screening of who gets in and who doesn’t isn’t such a bad idea after all.
Actually, I’m against any screening of anyone who comes in. Not without a warrant and probably cause.
Let’s try to look at the basic matter here, without too many of the ancillary issues. What is the horrible crime that ‘illegal immigrants’ are actually committing?
Moving….
Immigration laws are nothing more than a crime against humanity..
.
Unless your post is a brilliant piece of parody, I am stupefied by your naiveté.
I was completely serious about everything I said.
Immigrants breaking laws are not indicative of future immigrants breaking laws. Of course not. But they’re certainly indicative of illegal immigrants breaking laws, and their future potential to do so. When one lives in a supposedly civilized society one doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore. Otherwise, just scrap all the laws and be done with. Do I like the lengthy, convoluted immigration process? Ask my [Brazilian] fiancee who’s been going through it seemingly forever. But it’s the LAW. And we respect it, however inconvenient it may be. How am I supposed to respect someone who decides to ignore it and sneaks in the back door? No sympathies. Throw them right back out and they can stand in line like the rest. People here legally don’t like those laws? Get in government and change them. Heck, I’d help vote them in. Otherwise, is it OK is I steal a neighbour’s computer because my [hypothetical] kid needs one for school and I can’t afford one? Of course not. It’s against the law. And that’s what it comes down to. Do I think Arizona’s law is a good one? Not really. But it IS the law. And until it’s changed, obey it. Otherwise one may as well say “hey, let’s try out anarchy and see how it works out”. I’ll pass on that, thanks. And, yes, I would be in favour of that law against ‘anchor babies’. Allow them to remain – under close supervision such that they can’t escape into the general population – until the child can travel safely with its mother, but then send them right back. No doing the equivalent of sneaking in the ‘back door’, thank you. If it’s no longer legal to marry someone to ensure their immediate entry into the US (or Canada), then ‘anchor babies’ should not be legal either. Again, one can’t pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore. And ‘anchor babies’ are clearly designed to get around at least the spirit of the law. I expect I’ll get some negative comments about this, but I do believe that one of the big problems in our societies is clever lawyers using the letter of the law to bypass the spirit of the law.
Unamerican. Not really Americans. Peter, you just hit all the launch codes at once.
But I’ll be nice, old friend.
In “Charlie Wilson’s War”, Gust Avrokotos mentions the thousands of CIA agents that were fired by Stansfield Turner, all of them first or second generation Americans who could actually speak the language of the people they were spying on. These people served their country with honor, courage and dignity. And they were kicked to the curb for not being American enough.
This country didn’t spring from the forehead of God. Immigrants from England, Holland, pretty much every country on the planet came here looking for a new start, another chance. Mexicans our across the border looking for a better life. We catch the ones we can and send them back. Some are over the border again before we get the car turned around. If they didn’t need what’s here, why try? Arizona’s idiot governor and cowboy cops can’t see that. Or won’t.
It’s said that there are people here who’ll happily do what the Mexicans will. Truth is, they won’t. A lot of the illegals are migrant farm workers who do what others won’t, for half the pay. Doesn’t make it right. And if the politicians want to fix immigration, they need to streamline the process and make it fair for all; no tax breaks for Somali refugees if you’re not gonna do the same for Mexicans, Venezuelans, or whoever else wants to find a better life here.
Because, really, most of us are immigrants. We came here on little wooden boats, willingly or by force, and stole this country from the people who were already here. In a way, we’re all illegal immigrants.
Ummmm…no. Most of us aren’t immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. Most of us have ancestors that were born in this country for at least 2 or more generations.
And those generations came from…?
.
For the record, my father was born in Germany and my mother in what was then called Palestine.
.
When he says we’re a nation of immigrants, he means that most of us have roots in other countries. And he’s right.
.
PAD
PAD, that’s not what Miles said. That may be what he meant, but that’s not what was said.
Back when the country was “discovered”, there were no laws about immigration. In fact, there was no country. It was a vast area of mostly unexplored land. So there was no way to have illegal immigrants at that time. Currently we have a country bound by laws, which unfortunately too many people think that it’s OK to break them because they are too inconvenient.
‘When the country was “discovered”, there were no laws about immigration. In fact, there was no country. It was a vast area of mostly unexplored land. So there was no way to have illegal immigrants at that time.’
.
Actually, back then it was a large number of smaller countries, with their own laws and customs regarding immigration and naturalisation. But the Europeans mostly ignored that and just moved in anyway. Whenever the natives tried to stop them, the illegal European immigrants killed them or drove them away.
“Actually, back then it was a large number of smaller countries, with their own laws and customs regarding immigration and naturalisation. But the Europeans mostly ignored that and just moved in anyway. Whenever the natives tried to stop them, the illegal European immigrants killed them or drove them away.”
.
Maybe the intended outcome is for the immigrants to arm themselves and create a new country, the way the Europeans did?
.
After all, the same right is against gun control.
.
Theno
PAD, that’s not what Miles said. That may be what he meant, but that’s not what was said.
.
Welllll…uh…yeah. Which is why I said, “what he means is…” So you’re agreeing with me except…you’re just reiterating what I said but in an aggressive manner that makes it sound like you’re disagreeing. Not sure what you’re going for.
.
PAD
Is mud vital to the environment? I only ask because at the rate it’s being slung there will soon be none left.
.
I want to thank and congratulate those of you who seek a solution to the problems with our immigration process without engaging in a personal war of one-up-manship (sp) through condemnation and dámņáŧìøņ of the dreaded and inherently Evil “Other Side.”
.
This whole automatic assumption of racism is getting so old that it no longer carries any weight and is an insult to those who have experienced true racism.
.
Are we basing claims of racism on geography now? Arizona shares a border with Mexico. Would anyone be nearly as pissy if Arizona enacted the same law and applied it to Canadians? How about Ukrainians? Honestly it would annoy the Hëll out of me since Arizona shares no border with those countries and would have wasted time, energy, and money on a fruitless endeavor. Yes, the existing Arizona law is far from perfect, but at least an effort is being made that involves more than the “immediate discussion” bûllšhìŧ we get at the federal level and something good may yet come from it. It’s a process. An imperfect process, indeed, but it’s what we have to work with. A sword is not forged from metal and fire without hammering it into shape.
.
This other thing is just bugging me. The fact that one or more of my ancestors came to this land by way of “little wooded boat” is not a commentary on me. Would you have me jailed because my great, great grandfather robbed a bank and shot a teller?
This whole automatic assumption of racism is getting so old that it no longer carries any weight and is an insult to those who have experienced true racism.
No, what’s an insult is ignoring that immigration has been entwined with racism for such a long time. Ignoring that history and not bothering to disengage from that is what’s bothering (and frankly is enraging to me).
You’re using the same arguments are racists did with my grandparents. I can’t ignore that.
I’m sorry Roger.
.
It was not my intent to imply that all cries of racism are invalid or that those aspects of history should be forgotten. I honestly thought I was being clear in that racism is so often the first card out of the deck these days that it’s starting to come off as a tool for dramatic effect, thus more easily ignored and dismissed, than a means to speak out against injustice. Meanwhile genuine racism get’s swept under the rug as well because it’s been made a cheap cry by those who bandy it about too freely.
.
I hope that helps to clarify and I apologize again if I didn’t articulate well enough in the first place.
“This whole automatic assumption of racism is getting so old that it no longer carries any weight and is an insult to those who have experienced true racism.”
.
Do you mean the racism of being harrassed by the police for not being white? Because, I’ve experienced that. And, that appears to be what I would get to experience again should I go to Arizona.
.
Or, do you mean the racism of waking up to the flickering lights of a cross burning in the front yard? Because, I’ve experienced that. But, I don’t think I would encounter that in Arizona.
.
From someone who has experienced both, I prefer the second. At least that time I was able to phone the police and complain and believe (even though I was probably incorrect) that the authorities were intending to do something about it.
.
When I was pulled over for not being white every night on my way to work, I had no such recourse.
.
Theno
Hey, Thenodrin,
I don’t know if you caught my other post clarifying my statement for Roger Tang or not, but what I’m referring to is when someone pulls out racism for nothing more than dramatic effect or, even worse, to justify a wrongful act. For example let’s say a lady is abusing her kid in public and gets arrested then claims that the arrest is racially motivated even though no one of another “race” (I’ll say it again: We’re ALL human!) was beating their kid at the same time or place. That’s the kind of bûllšhìŧ cry of racism I’m talking about.
In regards to your experiences with the police… There is more to it, I believe, than just racism. While I believe that racism is one factor, I believe that another is some manner of perceived power of authority dynamic that pervades law enforcement at every level. Enough of these people behave as though they can do as they wish that I am left with absolute distrust of them. This is made worse when the Blue Wall of Silence goes up and the guilty cop is punished with paid administrative leave for two weeks. This translates to me as being rewarded with a two-week paid vacation for sodomizing a handcuffed suspect with a PR-24.
.
So yeah, I agree that it was pretty sad that you had to give the secret hand shake and pull out your decoder ring to get the harassment to stop. In fact it straight-up pìššëš me off.
.
P.S.
Sorry it too a couple of days to get to you. Always busy with something.
As far as I can tell, I’m the only one offended by the other side of the coin – this law requires (yes, requires) that law-enforcement officials in Arizona arrest and detain anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant until they have time to verify the individual’s status.
.
Now, let’s take a hypothetical (yet believable) case. Say you’re a native-born US citizen, whose grandparents came from, let’s say, Guatemala decades back. (We don’t consider how they got here, because the 14th Amendment doesn’t either.) You speak English with an accent – not uncommon among second-generation citizens. You live in California, and are visiting Arizona to see relatives, or possibly just as a tourist. You’re walking down the street, when you are stopped by police because you look kind of like a wanted criminal. They determine that you aren’t the person they wanted – but due to your accent, they suspect that you might be an illegal.
.
Since you were walking, you didn’t bother grabbing your wallet – after all, here in the Land of the Free, we’re not required to carry our papers with us at all times to present to the nice jackbooted officer, are we? So you are now arrested and incarcerated until the officers, who are now overworked because of this new mandate, can get around to checking with authorities in California to verify your citizenship status. Your 4th Amendment rights against “unreasonable search and seizure” have just gone out the window, all in the name of fighting the Other.
.
I don’t think I like where this is going…
Jonathan (the other one),
“The Dreaded, Evil, Other Side” statement above was aimed at those whose arguments consist of phrases like “Fox News” or “CNN” or any other red/blue left/right ideological dogma. It just seems that too many want to prove the Other wrong instead being willing to understand why their position is what it is, recognizing where they are right (cuz sometimes they are), and moving forward to a viable solution. Perhaps by doing so there would be time to prevent the scenario you presented above. Which I’m all for.
.
I may have taken your point out of context, though. That happens allot in this kind of medium, so please correct me if I’m mistaken.
Jonathan,
As a person who was born a US citizen from US citizens but with a heavy hispanic accent and appearance I have to say you have voiced my concerns perfectly. I wouldn’t dare going to Arizona without my passport.
.
It seems as if the burden of proof is on the defense instead of the prosecutor. This is an analogy, I know it is not a trial and they are not arresting you they are detaining you but still it bothers me a lot.
How many deaths from firearms yet no elected official will even suggest that we revisit the second amendment? Instead, our elected officials advocate for repealing an “outdated” amendment in which any abuses related to it do not result in people’s deaths.
It’s truly insane, especially after what just happened in Connecticut.
Abuses do not relate in deaths? I disagree.
.
Here’s but one example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20012650-504083.html
Second Amendment issues do not equate to Fourteenth Amendment issues except that in diminishing one makes it easier to diminish the other.
It’s lower than you would expect. It’s certainly lower than car accidents and/or alcohol. By a HUGE margin.
I’m sorry Roger.
.
It was not my intent to imply that all cries of racism are invalid or that those aspects of history should be forgotten. I honestly thought I was being clear in that racism is so often the first card out of the deck these days that it’s starting to come off as a tool for dramatic effect, thus more easily ignored and dismissed, than a means to speak out against injustice. Meanwhile genuine racism get’s swept under the rug as well because it’s been made a cheap cry by those who bandy it about too freely.
.
I hope that helps to clarify and I apologize again if I didn’t articulate well enough in the first place.
As long as there’s an effort to disentangle the arguments from historical racism, I think that’s fine. I realize that’s a fairly high bar to clear, but it’s a bar that has to be cleared; as a group that was clearly discriminated against in immigration issues, I think I owe it to others, no matter what side they’re on, to make sure that people are aware of how immigration was used in the past. It’s not being irrational to fear racism in this debate when you’ve been a victim of racism in the past.
.
(And note that I’m not rejecting arguments from people out of hand; I’m just not accepting that they’re automatically free of racist effects, either conscious or unconscious).
“(And note that I’m not rejecting arguments from people out of hand; I’m just not accepting that they’re automatically free of racist effects, either conscious or unconscious).”
.
You know Roger, I have often wondered if anyone is free of racist effects. I don’t think anyone truly is free of it.
.
Once I was talking with my friend Al and I told him my first impression of him. I was new to my job and Al walks in for his shift looking in every way like the big angry black dude stereotype. I said to myself, “Screw that!” then said, “What’s up Al!” in a cheerful manner. Since he didn’t know me yet he just replied in a truly impressive baritone with, “Aaaaaayy…” After I told him about my initial impression and how I reacted to it I asked him if it was racist. Al said that he didn’t know. He wasn’t sure if racism applied to the initial observation or in the reaction to it. I don’t know either, but I would hope that more people, law-makers in particular, have the presence of mind to ask such a question of themselves and each other.
I don’t think anyone here has mentioned this, but I could have missed it as I just scanned the posts. Everyone screaming about racism is drowning out what should be the real debate about immigration. It’s ECONOMICS people! No sysytem can support that many people getting government services without paying anything in. If you are not here legally, then you get paid under the table and DON’T PAY TAXES. Why do you think California, which should be one of the wealthiest states, is bankrupt?
Because the people of California used the initiative process to reduce their taxes dramatically, while increasing state expenditures for various social programs. This was somewhat sustainable while areas like the Silicon Valley could carry the brunt of the expenses; after the dotcom bust, however, it no longer had this excess income.
.
You see, if you’re in the state illegally, you aren’t getting state services; you’re required to prove your citizenship in order to get anything from the state. Nice regurgitation of right-wing talking points, though. You even got the exclamation points and misspellings!
Jonathan,
Do you live in California? If so, you need to take a better look at the welfare and similar lines, especially for such social programs as education, food stamps, medical care, etc. There you will find the real cost of thousands of un- and underemployed illegal aliens on the California budget. however, this has little to do with California’s budget woes. That actually rests more on pensions, where self-interested law makers and office holders realized that they couldn’t just keep giving themselves raises, so they kept increasing the pension benefits, since they would be Somebody Else’s Problem when the bill came due. The bill is coming due…
And don’t forget that illegal immigrants still pay sales taxes like everybody else, and sales taxes are a major revenue source for state governments.
(And please keep in mind that illegal immigrants are usually on paid under the table because Federal [and often State] law forces it. If employers weren’t required to verify legal status on the tax forms, they would be payed on the books and taxed just like everybody else. You can’t use the effects of persecution to justify that persecution.)
Maybe Lady Liberty could be placed in Miami harbour. After all, Florida is the only state that willingly accepts illegal immigrants: Cuban boat people, if they manage to land ashore.
In 2003, at the hight of french-bshing, people on various newsgroups and forums (fora?) wanted to send the Statue of Liberty back to France. However, I don’t think its place would be here, given the demagogic racist rants of our current president. All I can say is that, if my ancestors had received the treatment of illegal immigrants today, I probably wouldn’t be here (they came from great Britain between the fourth and the sixth century, chased by the Saxons, and settled in Britanny. In those days, it was really easy to travel, and settle where you pretty dámņ pleased).
To be fair, Emma Lazarus’ beautiful poem, The New Colossus, referred to legal immigrants. And it still does welcome those who enter the country legally.
On a related matter, this story surfaced this week.
http://www.cis.org/kephart/ICE-mission-melt-1
Funny, my volume doesn’t include the lines,
.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door
As long as they have filled out the correct paperwork first.”
Well the inconvenient truth is that those immigrants passing by the Statue of Liberty to Ellis Island DID have the correct paperwork. Or at least the system was set up to welcome them.
How do we justify ignoring the law now and spitting in the eye all our ancestors who came here legally because we’re don’t want to be realistic.
Many of my ancestors were sent to the Americas by the British government, as an alternative to imprisonment. They filled out no paperwork; it is doubtful that many of them could read and write effectively, being of the lower classes in the early 1700s. Were they “legal” immigrants?
.
How do I justify enforcing this law now, spitting in the eye of all those who made their way onto this continent as best they could because we don’t want none of them durn furriners ’round these here parts? They were once “durn furriners” too, after all…
Sorry – that was supposed to be appended to Mr. Haberberger’s post above. I may have been a little excited. Beg pardon.
Since your ancestors were sent here by the British government in the early 1700’s, it’s obvious that they were legal immigrants. And since their descendants were here in 1776 they became citizens of the US.
.
What is it about my post that prompts the “durn furriers” characterization? I have no such accent or attitude. Do you think because I am against open borders that I am a racist? I work with a lot of Hispanic people everyday. The company I work for needs people who are bilingual and I assure you they are all here legally.
“And now there’s a movement afoot to try and repeal the Fourteenth Amendment so that people who are born here aren’t necessarily Americans, because (so the claims go) people are coming here specifically to pop out children who will become American citizens.”
Not specifically, no, – trying HARD not to come across as racist (born in US myself) and maybe not an incentive but it IS used (can be) like a loophole.
If a person arrives here illegally they already BROKE a law – defying the sovereign border of a country – regardless of how they’ve lived their lives since arriving or the reasons that led them to arrive.
For every inspiring account of an illegal doing more, working harder than many legal citizens there can be a counter story of people failing to assimilate – fighting for cultural reasons against even learning English.
While clearly inhumane to separate such a family it is (for now) lawful and to those waiting years to enter the country, with their families legally (from their POV) – fair.
I don’t agree on an outright repeal but maybe a modification. Children born in US from proven illegal immigrants are made a LEGAL citizen after 21 years of age – or voluntary inscription in military service at eighteen – something along those lines.
Again, I wish to state, I trying hard to stay between the lines of what’s legal and what’s a humane treatment of people just trying to live their lives.
In this, as in many other things, Bob Heinlein may have had it right. In Starship Troopers, to become a citizen, you needed to do a stint of federal service. If we allowed an ‘illegal’ immigrant to do the same, it might be a valuable lesson in citizenship…
Charlie
As you might recall, Peter, I’m a longtime fan of your work, and although we’re not exactly close buddies, I do consider us to be friendly acquaintances. I normally have the utmost respect for you and many of the things that you stand for, such as the fact that gay marriage should be legalized. Indeed, I believe that simply referring to it as “gay marriage” instead of simply “marriage” does the gay community a big disservice, reinforcing in the minds of the general public that to be gay is to be forever separate from “normal” society. We don’t refer to male and female African-Americans getting married as “black marriage”, now do we? But I’m getting off topic here. The main point is that I normally agree with you on many of the things you say in your blog.
However, in your recent post regarding selling the Statue of Liberty, I’m afraid that I simply cannot agree with the position that you’re taking.
First, let me point out that I’m not going to harp on the actual statement that we should sell the Statue. That was obviously meant to underscore the real points of the post, included for shock value…i.e. to shock people into thinking that what Arizona is doing as regards illegal immigration, and the measure up before Congress to modify the 14th Amendment’s provision that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen, are tantamount to violating the principles behind the Statue of Liberty, so much so that if those principles no longer mean anything, we might as well sell the sucker. I’m not recapping this because I think you don’t get it. I’m recapping it so that you’ll understand that I do get it.
Taking your observations point by point, let’s start with the comment about Arizona going rogue. I don’t see anything in what Arizona is doing that suggests to me that they’re going rogue, unless you’re using the adjective definition as follows: no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade. And even then, I still don’t see that what they’re doing is going rogue. No longer obedient? What they’re doing is actually less stringent and militant than what’s already on the books as Federal law regarding immigration enforcement. People seem to keep wanting to ignore that part as they’re getting all indignant. No longer belonging or accepted? Kind of depends on who you ask, doesn’t it? Not controllable or answerable? Who is Arizona and their government supposed to be answering to? The laws as established by the Federal government, or a segment of the populace that is there illegally? Deviating? Again, from what? The established laws of the Federal government?
It frankly seems to me that the response of people who are infuriated by Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants is itself out of line. The people who are protesting Arizona’s actions appear to feel that it doesn’t matter whether or not the immigrants in question are here illegally; that the immigration laws should no longer be enforced at all, and that anyone who wants to ought to be able to come to the USA and stay as long as they want without having to worry about immigration laws and rules in any way. Worse, it also seems to be the position of these protestors that anyone who does insist that they follow the rules first and obey the laws must be a racist. Why else would we have a problem seeing that the illegal immigrants have every right to be here?
Ummm…how about because they don’t? Immigration laws and rules exist for a reason, and the reason has nothing to do with racism. From my reading on the subject, which has been limited to Wikipedia (for whatever that’s worth) it seems to me that it’s more about ensuring the country isn’t flooded with more immigrants than can be adquately handled or kept track of. It may well be that the time has come to look into modifying those laws, to account for modern conditions and to make things more fair. That’s fine. I have no trouble with people wanting to work to change existing law. What I have a problem with is people deciding that since the existing laws don’t work for them anymore, that they should have the right to disregard them as they see fit. That just creates more problems and solves none.
I’ll use my own extreme example. I’ve been unemployed since October 2008. Since then, as I scour the want ads looking for work every day, I’ve survived (barely) on unemployment benefit extensions, which I know can’t last forever. With the economy the way it is now, should I be allowed to decide that the current laws about stealing don’t work for me, and just take what I want whenever I want it? Aren’t I entitled to a better life than I currently have, even if I have to disregard the law to achieve it? Aren’t the current anti-stealing laws discriminating against the poor? Why should someone else be allowed to flaunt the laws of the land when I can’t?
You could argue that we’re talking about two different things, claiming that stealing hurts people whereas ignoring immigration laws doesn’t. However, since it’s a proven fact that the impact of the rampant illegal immigration in this country is having a negative impact on an already-struggling economy, I would maintain that it does hurt people…just not in the immediately tangible way that stealing does.
Then there’s the comment about Arizona’s crackdown targeting people who “let’s face it, don’t look like they should be here.” Well, the crux of the whole matter is that we do need to clamp down on illegal immigration. If someone can tell me how to do that without a certain amount of racial profiling, I’d love to hear it. And again frankly, I think that for anyone to claim that if we can’t curb illegal immigration without racial profiling, then we shouldn’t try to curb it at all, is asinine. Just because facing up to a problem makes us uncomfortable with what we pretty much have to do, doesn’t mean it doesn’t still have to be done. To do nothing about illegal immigration…which has grown increasingly out of hand over the years…would be even worse.
I’m not going to challenge your comments about Sarah Palin that came next, because for one thing, I agree that she’s a moron; and for another, her outbursts are just more of the back-and-forth bashing that goes on between the Repubs and the Dems and has been for years. I think by now, everyone ought to just accept that this is a part of modern politics and not get so incensed when they indluge in it. Treat it like the trash-talk it is and don’t take it personally.
What I will challenge is the assertion that by being among the outraged about Arizona’s actions, Obama is upholding the Constitution and its laws about illegal search and seizure. In particular, I have to take umbrage at the statement that, even though Arizona’s governor and police have repeatedly insisted that they aren’t just going to start challenging every Hispanic person they see without any cause, “we all know that it is” what they’ll be doing.
Proof, please? And what I mean is, tangible proof…not the wild-eyed reactionism that continues to insist that “if you’re anti-immigration you’re automatically racist.” To be honest, right now it looks to me like that’s all you’ve got. And while you can probably find a news story here or there that shows that some cops on the Arizona force are indeed racist…that hardly makes it right to tar them all with the same brush (assuming that’s an appropriate way of phrasing it). You can also find examples of racist cops in other states that aren’t doing what Arizona is…so what does that prove?
Finally, we come to the comment about wanting to repeal the 14th Amendment and make it so that illegal immigrants can’t come here, and drop “anchor babies” to ensure that they can’t be deported because their child is an American citizen.
Point one: in all the news reports I’ve heard about this, not one has indicated that a repeal of the 14th Amendment is being sought. Only a modification of its terms to eliminate one of the protections that illegal immigrants can use to remain here illegally. If we’re going to insist that our politicians and pundits stick to the facts, I think we owe them and everyone else the same consideration.
Point two: if anyone actually thinks that the claims of “anchor baby” abuse of the immigrations laws is not really happening, and happening frequently, I’d have to say that they aren’t paying attention. It may not be true of every illegal immigrant pregant female, that this is their main reason for coming over while pregnant, but it’s got to have crossed their minds. Are we now at a point where we have to feel so sorry for these people that we can’t ascribe any sinister or ulterior motives to them at all?
It has been my opinion, ever since the illegal immigration problem began to become front-page news (maybe even before) that the answer to curbing illegal immigration is not to build a wall, as some have tried to do. Rather, the answer is to make it less attractive for them to come here and freeload…and the sad truth is that many of the illegals do, in fact, take full advantage of all the benefits that we bend over backwards to offer them and that they do freeload. We obligingly print DMV forms and other public records in multiple languages so that they don’t have to learn English to survive; we allow them to have children on our side of the border and make them automatic citizens, so that even if the parents are here illegally, they can’t be deported. I feel that if we stopped the gravy train, and made it so that it was less attractive to come here and suck up benefits, they wouldn’t be so anxious to come over here. I honestly feel that the answer lies there. So I support the notion of modifying the 14th Amendment to say that if the parents are here illegally, the child born on US soil is not automatically a citizen. At the very least, I think it’s worth trying to see if it does help to curb the problem as it stands now.
Now, I realize that you’re probably not going to agree with me on much, if any, of this. I respect you enough to realize that this is your right, and to think about any rebuttal points you may wish to make in reply, should you choose to do so. I just felt I had to get this off my chest. I hope that it will not change the way that we interact with each other in the future, to adversarial instead of friendly. I’d hate that.
“We obligingly print DMV forms and other public records in multiple languages so that they don’t have to learn English to survive; ”
Please somebody correct me if I am wrong on this but I believe that you do not “need” to know English to legally be in this country.
.
To be a citizen you do need to pass a language test but even then there are loopholes regarding the age of the applicant. On the other hand to be a permanent resident, popularly known as a green card holder (but the card is no longer green), you do not need to prove your proficiency in the English language.
.
My wife became a citizen last year and she can now request permanent resident status for her parents who live overseas. I believe they do not need to show they know English to qualify.
.
I am not debating your point. I just wanted to say that DMV forms in foreign languages are use by legal residents who do not speak English and not only for people illegally in the country.
Tony,
Point taken. It is not currently required of even legal citizens or residents that they be able to speak (or read or write) English.
What I was trying to say is that printing DMV and other forms in multiple languages, in addition to English, removes what might otherwise be one more way of deterring people from entering the country illegally, in that it allows them to bypass any difficulties that might occur because of a language barrier. It has been pointed out to me by a number of people that if an English-speaking person chose to take up residence in a country where English was not the primary language, no such provisions of multi-language forms would be made for them. They would simply have to try to learn the primary language of that country as best they could…and if they complained about how hard that was, the general response would be “why did you choose to come here without learning the language?” Which seems to me a valid point. Visits for business or pleasure, such as Peter’s trip to Romania (as covered in another recent post, reprinting from his BID column) are one thing…you’re not expecting to be there long-term. But if you do choose to take up long-term residence in a place where you don’t speak the primary language, it certainly can add to your difficulty if you don’t learn that language, and I don’t think anyone can argue that point.
Congratulations to your wife on becoming an American citizen. I’m sure she worked hard at it and is quite proud of her achievement, and I applaud her for going about it the legal way. My comments here were not to discourage anyone from wanting to come to the USA to live; they are more to point out that while the legal procedures may have problems or drawbacks, it is still better to follow the rules than it is to ignore them…and to also point out that the consequences of not enforcing or curbing illegal immigration are already being felt in our economy, and are contributing to making things worse.
And in certain countries, you would be required to profess the majority religion there, even if you disagreed violently with its tenets.
.
That’s another of those matters where I have to respond, “I thought we were supposed to be better than that.”
I know you are speaking to PAD. I’m not attempting to speak for him. Just wanting to reply to your comments as a fellow frequenter of this forum.
.
” We don’t refer to male and female African-Americans getting married as “black marriage”, now do we?”
.
Not anymore, we don’t. But, we used to not only have a separate name for mixed race marriages, but it used to be against many state laws.
.
“No longer obedient? What they’re doing is actually less stringent and militant than what’s already on the books as Federal law regarding immigration enforcement.”
.
See the Fourth Ammendment to the US Constitution.
.
“Who is Arizona and their government supposed to be answering to? The laws as established by the Federal government, or a segment of the populace that is there illegally?”
.
Federal government. See above.
.
“It frankly seems to me that the response of people who are infuriated by Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants is itself out of line. The people who are protesting Arizona’s actions appear to feel that it doesn’t matter whether or not the immigrants in question are here illegally; that the immigration laws should no longer be enforced at all, and that anyone who wants to ought to be able to come to the USA and stay as long as they want without having to worry about immigration laws and rules in any way.”
.
You may be right. Personally, my issue is with the harassment and persecution of citizens who “look illegal.” I sincerely hope that a citizen wealthy enough to take the state to the Supreme Court gets “detained” for walking down the street. I really think that is the only way that many people are going to realize why people are upset about the ramifications of the law.
.
“I’ll use my own extreme example. I’ve been unemployed since October 2008. Since then, as I scour the want ads looking for work every day, I’ve survived (barely) on unemployment benefit extensions, which I know can’t last forever. With the economy the way it is now, should I be allowed to decide that the current laws about stealing don’t work for me, and just take what I want whenever I want it? Aren’t I entitled to a better life than I currently have, even if I have to disregard the law to achieve it? Aren’t the current anti-stealing laws discriminating against the poor? Why should someone else be allowed to flaunt the laws of the land when I can’t?”
.
But, that isn’t really the same thing. And, not in the way you describe in the snipped out part. The same thing would be if you were arrested or detained by the police because you LOOK unemployed, and therefore may be a thief.
.
“Then there’s the comment about Arizona’s crackdown targeting people who “let’s face it, don’t look like they should be here.” Well, the crux of the whole matter is that we do need to clamp down on illegal immigration. If someone can tell me how to do that without a certain amount of racial profiling, I’d love to hear it.”
.
Here it is: arrest the employers of illegal immigrants. Enforce laws that are already on the books. You need to present your proof of citizenship, your SSN, to get a driver’s license, to get state aid, to get a job, etc. Impose fines on companies, and jail time on individuals (and individuals within those companies) who hire workers who do not have valid SSNs.
.
This will cover all illegal immigrants but those who can get by without work and without social programs. And, since these people are not a burden on the state or federal government, then we can avoid making them a burden on an already overworked and underpaid police force. Should one of these illegal immigrants commit a crime, then that person’s status will be discovered during due process.
.
I think that covers every possible situation short of hiding someone in the attic. And, again, I think that our non-police-state country can focus attentions on other, more important problems at this time.
.
“In particular, I have to take umbrage at the statement that, even though Arizona’s governor and police have repeatedly insisted that they aren’t just going to start challenging every Hispanic person they see without any cause, “we all know that it is” what they’ll be doing.
Proof, please? And what I mean is, tangible proof…not the wild-eyed reactionism that continues to insist that “if you’re anti-immigration you’re automatically racist.” To be honest, right now it looks to me like that’s all you’ve got.”
.
(http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm)
Here is the proof.
Section 3, Subsection H: “A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor”
Section 6, Subsection A: “A peace officer, without warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe: … 2. A misdemeanor has been committed in the officer’s presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.”
.
So, if an officer has probable cause to believe that the person is an illegal immigrant, defined as a class 1 misdemeanor, that officer may arrest that person without warrant.
.
Of course, some people say that you simply shouldn’t be an illegal immigrant in the presence of a peace officer. In Section 2, Subsection B, you can see how to avoid being an illegal immigrant: “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following: 1. A valid Arizona driver’s license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid US federal, state, or local government issued identification.”
.
This tells me that if I am in AZ and a police officer asks me for my license, and I have left it in the hotel room, or dropped my wallet somewhere, or let my license expire either intentionally or unintentionally, I am not assumed to be a legal resident, and can be arrested simply because I was in the presence of a police officer who thought that I might be committing the misdemeanor of being an illegal immigrant.
.
Furthermore, Section 2, Subsections G through J states that if a legal resident of Arizona tells a police officer that I may be illegal, and the officer refuses to detain me until such time as I can prove that I am a citizen (as in, the police officer obeys the Fourth Amendment) then the citizen may sue the state and the individual officer for between 1 and 5 thousand dollars, plus court costs.
.
“Finally, we come to the comment about wanting to repeal the 14th Amendment and make it so that illegal immigrants can’t come here, and drop “anchor babies” to ensure that they can’t be deported because their child is an American citizen.
(snip)
Point two: if anyone actually thinks that the claims of “anchor baby” abuse of the immigrations laws is not really happening, and happening frequently, I’d have to say that they aren’t paying attention. It may not be true of every illegal immigrant pregant female, that this is their main reason for coming over while pregnant, but it’s got to have crossed their minds. Are we now at a point where we have to feel so sorry for these people that we can’t ascribe any sinister or ulterior motives to them at all?”
.
Are we now at a point where we have to be so cold hearted and callous that we have to ascribe sinister or ulterior motives to them all? Isn’t it possible that a woman simply wants her child to have a better life, and to grow up in a freer country than she does?
.
That was hyperbole. My real issue here is that it takes well longer than 9 months for a legal immigrant to become a citizen. Which means that a woman who is not pregnant, who is here legally on a work visa, will give birth to an illegal immigrant.
.
“It has been my opinion, ever since the illegal immigration problem began to become front-page news (maybe even before) that the answer to curbing illegal immigration is not to build a wall, as some have tried to do. Rather, the answer is to make it less attractive for them to come here and freeload…and the sad truth is that many of the illegals do, in fact, take full advantage of all the benefits that we bend over backwards to offer them and that they do freeload. (snip) I feel that if we stopped the gravy train, and made it so that it was less attractive to come here and suck up benefits, they wouldn’t be so anxious to come over here. I honestly feel that the answer lies there.”
.
Personally, I think that they key to all of this is to streamline the immigration process. Make it something that a person doesn’t have to get extension after extension on their visa in order to survive the process, but something that can be accomplished in a matter of months. I don’t see why it should take less time for a background check to get a gun permit, than it does for a person to become a legal citizen.
.
Besides, I think we have done all we can to make America less attractive short of randomly shooting people in the streets, and executing people who offend political and religious leaders. We have an economy that is currently existing at the whim of a handful of the richest people in the world. We elect officials based on whose name comes first in the alphabet. We pass laws not based on facts but based on decibel level. Our biggest “grass roots” political movement was started by a major corporation with an obvious political agenda, and their own official mission statement is filled with contradictions (like, they want a reduced deficit with increased tax breaks and no reduction in social programs.)
.
The reason to come to America is because other nations recognize that all of these problems are self-inflicted. At any moment, the American people could fix everything. We simply don’t yet care enough about the real issues to do anything about it. We’d rather argue immigration, marriage, class division, and reality TV than develop alternate energy sources, or reform our economy.
.
Theno
Theno,
Some good points here. Let’s discuss, and before I begin, thank you for keeping it civil instead of going off the rails.
“Not anymore, we don’t. But, we used to not only have a separate name for mixed race marriages, but it used to be against many state laws.”
True enough. And I see your point: we got away from that because we realized that it was wrong. Taking this in the context of where my original post mentioned it, I hope that we will also come to a point where we all realize that segregating gays from society in this way is wrong. We’re on our way but we aren’t there just yet.
“See the Fourth Ammendment to the US Constitution.”
I went back and checked, and doggone if you don’t also have a valid point here. It does appear that the currently existing laws on whether or not someone who looks as if they might be an illegal immigrant can be stopped on just those grounds is, in fact, in contradiction with the 4th Amendment. So I do have to concede that point.
However, I maintain that to do nothing to curb illegal immigration is not the answer either. It is indeed unfortunate that this conundrum has to exist…that someone’s race automatically makes them suspect for being in the country illegally. I wish I had an answer that would satisfy both sides of the argument, but I don’t. I wonder if anyone does.
“Here it is: arrest the employers of illegal immigrants. Enforce laws that are already on the books. You need to present your proof of citizenship, your SSN, to get a driver’s license, to get state aid, to get a job, etc. Impose fines on companies, and jail time on individuals (and individuals within those companies) who hire workers who do not have valid SSNs.
.
This will cover all illegal immigrants but those who can get by without work and without social programs. And, since these people are not a burden on the state or federal government, then we can avoid making them a burden on an already overworked and underpaid police force. Should one of these illegal immigrants commit a crime, then that person’s status will be discovered during due process.
.
I think that covers every possible situation short of hiding someone in the attic. And, again, I think that our non-police-state country can focus attentions on other, more important problems at this time.”
Worthy ideas, and ones I support. Those go hand-in-hand with my opinion that we enable, that we make it too easy, to be an illegal immigrant…too attractive. I daresay that you might be right: if Arizona and other states were as willing to crack down in those areas as they are with what they’re currently doing, then the current uproar in Arizona might not be necessary after all.
“Here is the proof. (snips)”
I see your point. However, what I was driving at was that Arizona’s governor and police have said that this is NOT what they will be doing…and thus far, I have yet to see any proof that they’re lying about it. It may happen, it may not. Why not deal with it and protest it when it does happen, instead of assuming it will beforehand?
“Are we now at a point where we have to be so cold hearted and callous that we have to ascribe sinister or ulterior motives to them all? Isn’t it possible that a woman simply wants her child to have a better life, and to grow up in a freer country than she does?”
Of course it’s possible. It’s certainly not any more impossible than to go to the other extreme, which is to presume that the only reason a pregnant woman would be an illegal immigrant is to drop an anchor baby and avoid deportation. Each individual case is undoubtedly different; my main point is that to assume it never happens at all (which THE DAILY SHOW’s Stewart and others seem willing to believe) is equally naive or disingenuous.
As with illegal immigration itself: like it or not, it is happening. And as such, must be dealt with.
“My real issue here is that it takes well longer than 9 months for a legal immigrant to become a citizen. Which means that a woman who is pregnant, who is here legally on a work visa, will give birth to an illegal immigrant.”
I don’t think anyone is seriously considering that. I’m sure that if changes to the 14th Amendment are made, there will be provisions that if the pregnant woman is on a legal work visa, the child, when born, will be added to that legal work visa so that the child is here legally without being an automatic American citizen. There are ways to deal with situations as they come up.
“Personally, I think that they key to all of this is to streamline the immigration process. Make it something that a person doesn’t have to get extension after extension on their visa in order to survive the process, but something that can be accomplished in a matter of months. I don’t see why it should take less time for a background check to get a gun permit, than it does for a person to become a legal citizen.”
Another excellent point, and one that I would support as well.
You’ve got some good ideas, here, Thren. Why not start your own grassroots movement to make these positive changes, pointing out that they could well be viable alternatives to Arizona’s current actions? You’d get my vote.
“Besides, I think we have done all we can to make America less attractive short of randomly shooting people in the streets, and executing people who offend political and religious leaders.”
You mean we’re not already doing those things?
” We have an economy that is currently existing at the whim of a handful of the richest people in the world. We elect officials based on whose name comes first in the alphabet. We pass laws not based on facts but based on decibel level. Our biggest “grass roots” political movement was started by a major corporation with an obvious political agenda, and their own official mission statement is filled with contradictions (like, they want a reduced deficit with increased tax breaks and no reduction in social programs.)
.
The reason to come to America is because other nations recognize that all of these problems are self-inflicted. At any moment, the American people could fix everything. We simply don’t yet care enough about the real issues to do anything about it. We’d rather argue immigration, marriage, class division, and reality TV than develop alternate energy sources, or reform our economy.”
Well, while it’s true that many of our current problems are self-inflicted…and that government, at least, doesn’t yet care enough to really work on solving them…I might point out that there are other countries besides America that have many of the same freedoms and fewer of our economic problems. What I don’t see is illegal immigration being an issue for those countries, at least not on the level that it is here. (Maybe I’m not well-informed enough about those other countries.)
I have heard that with the American economy the way it is now, that some immigrants from Mexico are returning there, finding that it’s not so economically advantageous to be in the USA after all. So in that respect, I guess we could say that the Bush economic strategy is working just fine. (Joke!)
At any rate: when all is said and done, I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I think you have some good ideas, and I’ve tried to concede ground where I honestly thought it was due. I’ve enjoyed chatting with you about this.
“I see your point. However, what I was driving at was that Arizona’s governor and police have said that this is NOT what they will be doing…and thus far, I have yet to see any proof that they’re lying about it. It may happen, it may not. Why not deal with it and protest it when it does happen, instead of assuming it will beforehand?”
.
You have a good point. My worry is that if the lawmakers did not intend for people to be persecuted in the way many of us worry, then why word the law the way they did? It seems inconceviable to me that the wording is unintentional.
.
This is why I assume it will happen. But, maybe you are correct. And, there is no reason that we both can’t be right. Maybe the lawmakers intended what they wrote, but the law enforcers plan to avoid the enforcement of that part of the law.
.
“I don’t think anyone is seriously considering that. I’m sure that if changes to the 14th Amendment are made, there will be provisions that if the pregnant woman is on a legal work visa, the child, when born, will be added to that legal work visa so that the child is here legally without being an automatic American citizen. There are ways to deal with situations as they come up.”
.
You have a good point. Maybe I’ve become jaded, but I don’t expect any such consideration from the kind of person who begins a press statement with the phrase, “tough on babies.”
.
It seems to me that if the actual intent were to prevent immigrants from using a loophole, they would be tough on parents, not on babies.
.
But, I agree that on both issues there is little we can do but wait and see what falls out of the controvercy.
.
Theno
Jonathan,
I think we are better than that, even with the things that Arizona and others are doing to try to curb illegal immigration. Nobody coming to the USA…legally or illegally…is required to adhere to the majority religion, nor would they be if we even had such a thing.
That’s the big difference. In those countries you speak of, someone wanting to live there long-term can be FORCED to do something they find to be against their personal beliefs. What the people in this country, who feel that illegal immigration must be brought to heel, are suggesting is that we stop enabling those who are breaking the law to be here. What we’re suggesting is to stop making it so attractive to enter the country illegally. I see a big difference there.
Theno,
An additional thought just occurred to me, regarding the notion of going after employers of illegal immigrants.
How do you catch such employers without randomly invading their businesses and checking to see if all the employees are legally in this country? Doesn’t that also violate the 4th Amendment?
I’ll address your longer post later today. You’ve given me a few things to think about. And, thank you as well for keeping it civil.
.
As far as this question, it is a tax issue. Companies have to report their income and expendatures. If they are paying workers who do not have SSNs, then they must be falsifying at least one document.
.
So, I don’t think this would violate the 4th, as this is something that should be routinely checked for accuracy anyway.
.
Actually, this is something that I honestly don’t understand about the whole issue in the first place. The argument claims that the illegal workers are stealing jobs. But, how do they do that without an SSN? The argument claims that they don’t pay taxes. But, how do they do that if they get paid, and if they purchase anything? The argument claims that they benefit from social programs like unemployment and welefare. But, how do they do that without an SSN?
.
My suggestion would be to enforce the SSN requirement on all of these things. But, I confess to not understanding how they are skirting this in the first place. I assume that it is a joint effort, the worker who wants the work and the employer who wants the cheap labour working together to swindle the federal government. And, I assume that the risk is less to the employer, because I hear on the news about illegal immigrants being deported, but I can’t think of one single report of a company being fined, or an employer going to jail for hiring these illegal immirgrants.
.
This led to my suggestion to punish the employers as well as the employees. I assume that the employers have little to lose. If they had more to lose, maybe all of these issues would reduce or even cease.
.
Just off the top of my head, I would fine the company whatever the current state or federal minimum wage is, whichever is higher. That way the company not only has to pay the wage they gave to the illegal immigrant, but also whatever they would have normally paid to a citizen. It simply wouldn’t be economically sound to hire such a person. And, the revenue acquired from the fines could pay for additional IRS agents to confirm that the employee records are accurate.
.
Theno