Says an Arizonan named — to the NYT's delight? — Mr. White.
[The new Arizona law] gives the local police broad powers to check documentation “when practicable” of anyone they reasonably suspect is an illegal immigrant....What will be seen as constituting reasonable suspicion? How will it be possible not to unfairly burden all the Hispanic citizens?
“This law might kick some of these immigrants out,” said Mr. Lowis, 76.... “They vandalize the golf course, throwing flags in the ponds. Burglaries. There are too many immigrants. I get tired of seeing all these people standing on the corner.”The linked article is called "Growing Split in Arizona Over Immigration."
Such sentiments propelled the bill through the Republican-controlled Legislature, with supporters listing well-publicized cases in which illegal immigrants committed rapes and shot and killed police officers....
No Democrats in the Legislature supported the bill, and only one Republican voted against it.No details in this article about that.
While those opposed to the law are making the most noise....
... the quiet support can be found here, though some people are uneasy about being cast as anti-Hispanic and several people interviewed declined to be named out of concern they would be thought of as prejudiced.So where's the "growing split"? I don't get the headline, and I sense the NYT's frustration looking for evidence of anti-Hispanic attitudes. Where is the discord? It seems like ordinary people are struggling with a serious problem and the ethics of solving it. (The 2 political parties are, of course, acting in accordance with their perceived political interests.)
“I don’t want people to be afraid to come,” said Pam Sutherland, who is a window manufacturer and a fan of the crime sweeps but is also concerned about the state’s image. “I just want them to do it legally.”
For many, though, support for the law comes down to a way to vent frustration that, in their view, the federal government has not done enough to control immigration — particularly in a state on the border where reports of drug busts, houses overcrowded with illegal immigrants and people dying in the desert trying to get here fill the airwaves.
पोस्ट्स
९८ टिप्पण्या:
They're just trying to foment a split, right?
In reality, we need the law, and we need a very high well.
"Good fences make good neighbors."
I mean, Wall. we need a very high wall. How high?
What model of wall should be built? It should be somehow polite, but firm.
In order to advance egalitarianism, we must not question whether people are here illegally or not.
And the crimes committed by illegals must not be mentioned, but endured. Granting amnesty will magically convert them to solid law-abiding taxpaying citizens.
If not, take one for the team, Arizonans. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
I think the states should watch with interest how Arizona's new law works. If it works, or part of if works, the other states will have an idea of what to do.
Some of the law seems a little guilty until proven innocent to me. But I've not read much about it because it's a glorious Spring here and I'm outside a lot. So maybe I'm wrong.
Do any of the new laws in Arizona run counter to Federal Laws? That's not my impression. So what's wrong with yanking a little power away from DC?
Funny isn't it that we are once again trying to keep out the very folks we stole the entire southwest from in the 19th century!
Tear down the walls and let freedom ring, Mr. Obama...
The Republican Party is not acting in its own interest. As usual, the party leaders are acting the way the Democrats tell them they should act as Republicans, which is in the Democrats' interest, not the Republicans.
Smarts has never been a hallmark of Republican politicians.
There is, I suppose, the option of deputizing and arming the citizens like a good western movie. It is an invasion. It is dangerous, but only to those rubes in Arizona, not to NYC.
Maybe a remake of The Alamo.
But, isn't Arizona's action civil disobedience writ large?
Well, DUH.....of course there is going to be racial profiling when checking for illegal alien status. You don't see swarms of blond Norweigans coming illegally across the Mexico border.
The Federal Government and the Democrats (who benefit by the illegals being in the US)turn a blind eye, while the ordinary citizen is inundated with criminals who rape, murder, cause deliberate accidents, trash the neighborhoods, trash the wilderness areas, trash the cities and UNDERCUT all the wages for those who are still trying to work.
The citizens are afraid for their lives and see their communities becoming worse than a third world slum. They see their cities becoming the territory in drug and gang wars.
AND the Federal Government the Democrats and the RINOs: like Graham, Bush, McCain do NOTHING or worse, try to appease the criminals at the expense of the citizens.
If this law and laws like it are not enacted, the citizens will decide at some point to take matters into their own hands. The American People do respect the law, but more than that they respect their own independence and to become serfs in a Mexifornia controlled by gangs will not be tolerated.
And all you whining liberals in Minnesota etc.......walk a fucking mile in my shoes. Don't bother with the racist slurs either. I was raised in Mexico and have relatives from Mexico and South America who feel the same way.
NYT sucks.
DBQ: "The Federal Government and the Democrats (who benefit by the illegals being in the US)"
Exactly how do the Democrats benefit?
“I don’t want people to be afraid to come,” said Pam Sutherland, who is a window manufacturer and a fan of the crime sweeps but is also concerned about the state’s image. “I just want them to do it legally.”
This is how most of the country feels. We need and welcome people who love America for what it is, who want to work hard and claim their piece of the American Dream. It's good for the country for people to come who want to be here.
But nobody likes a line-jumper. Sign up and wait your turn.
I live in southern New Mexico, fifty miles from the most dangerous city in the world. I've been around illegal aliens my whole life and this is not really about the guy coming here to work construction and send money home to his family.
This is about many areas along the border (in the US) where its not safe due to drug trafficing. Over the last five or so years it has become very violent and is spilling over to here.
Most of the country has no idea how bad it is and hopefully this law will bring attention to the real problem.
I don't think it so much that the Democrats benefit from the "illegals" being here, as it is that they think they do.
By the intellectual elite's classification system all "Hispanics" form a coherent block, such that all "Hispanics" will automatically vote Democrat if they can be persuaded that the Republicans are persecuting one constituent of their identity, in this case the "illegals."
What will be seen as constituting reasonable suspicion? How will it be possible not to unfairly burden all the Hispanic citizens?
Hey, let's draw the distinctions properly here. It will burden the citizens who look Hispanic. There are plenty of Hispanics who don't look "Hispanic" at all. And there are non-Hispanics (like me) who are regularly mistaken for Hispanic, to the point that people in the street or -- most recently -- at the dry cleaners address me in Spanish, and persist in doing so even after I explain that I don't speak Spanish, and they demonstrate that they can speak English perfectly well. Evidently, they think I am lying -- that is how Hispanic I look. I shall have to bring my passport next time I am in Arizona.
Exactly how do the Democrats benefit?
Votes and power.
Here you go: one from your very own neighborhood Florida.
"In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Census Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state."
Think it has gotten any better since then?
It is epidemic in California as well. Can you say Fresno.
"Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials. Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting."
Allowing illegal aliens to vote is the ultimate goal of the Democrats and the activists on the "progressive" left because they know they can grow a reliable group of uninformed, illiterate Democrat votes that will help them to retain power.
Grow a population of people who are uninformed, who rely on entitlements, pay little to no taxes, are under the thumbs of third world gangland corruption sytles that they also imported with themselves and they can VOTE.....yeeeehaaa...... success for the Democrats and ruination for the rest of us.
Don't be fooled....non of the bleeding heart crappola you hear from the left is really about the illegals. It is about keeping power.
"Funny isn't it that we are once again trying to keep out the very folks we stole the entire southwest from in the 19th century!"
Not really. Wealthy Mexican land owners are still able to come and go as they please.
We even let them control some of our most important newspapers.
The folks who are entirely illegally were mistreated by the Spanish and are even more still mistreated by the rich in their own country, which is why they want to be here.
Let freedom ring, Mexico.
Care for your people and don't make them wander through the desert so your rich can be more rich and your poor can be someone else's problem.
Bill Jacobson of Legal Insurrection has actually read the bill. He makes a good case that it is a perfectly reasonable bill that echoes the federal law as it stands today. The libs are in hysterical mode as usual.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/saturday-night-card-game-arizona.html
What a same the Left and their leader always leap before they look.
Do any of the new laws in Arizona run counter to Federal Laws?
No, in fact the bill brings Federal law down to the state level so that state and local agencies can enforce it.
Most people here are not in favor of mass deportation. Preventing the influx of new immigrants and getting the ones who are here to leave of their own volition -- prevention and attrition -- are very popular ideas. The recent murder of a rancher, with the murderer's footprints leading back over the border, has been a public relations nightmare for the "immigrant rights" groups. A recent poll came back with about 70-80% of the population supporting the new legislation. The local Democrats weren't doing themselves any favors by voting against this bill, and the governor saw the writing on the wall (that is: kiss your chances of re-election, already slim, goodbye if you veto this) so she signed it.
We'll see what happens. We've already had significant attrition because of the economic downturn. The illegal immigrant population here is a factor in the number of foreclosed homes we still have flooding the RE market. There are a lot of empty homes around -- but there are many fewer day laborers lolling about the corners of Arizona Ave, too.
Again, if the AZ statute itself is not found unconstitutional, the courts are likely to hold that "reasonable suspicion" require "specific, articulable facts" to support a stop based on immigration status.
That will require something more than racial identity.
I suspect that political equilibrium will be achieved when those here illegally can no longer flout their illegal status in ways they could before (e.g., anything from petty to serious offenses, using public services).
Kind of a "will ask, don't show" policy.
Anybody that's paying attention knows that the border towns are a mess right now. Obama doesn't care, since he's far, far away, but for people in Az, Tx, Ca, etc... it's a real problem and they're trying to deal with it somehow. I don't know how they're going enforce this particular law, though, without problems.
"And the crimes committed by illegals must not be mentioned, but endured. Granting amnesty will magically convert them to solid law-abiding taxpaying citizens."
I think there were a TOMN of conditions attached to what was called amnesty so we need to be clear about that
"Do any of the new laws in Arizona run counter to Federal Laws? That's not my impression. So what's wrong with yanking a little power away from DC?"
It is hard to argue for a consistent Federalism Adovcates of that don't decide to violate those principles when it suits them
If the "burden" is showing your driver's license, then what's the problem? That seems like the least oppressive burden of all if the state is trying to maintain national sovereignty.
The real story in this country is that legal Hispanics approve of having illegals in this country and disapprove of doing anything about them. This is how the Democrats have the Hispanic vote locked up.
"AND the Federal Government the Democrats and the RINOs: like Graham, Bush, McCain do NOTHING or worse, try to appease the criminals at the expense of the citizens."
I am afriad it is a lot more complicated than that.
What is frustrating is the extremes in this on one side "There is not such things as being illegal" and stop the deportations" and on the other side "NO AMNESTY NPO PATHWAY NO MATTER WHAT" have combined to give to give us the status quo. Their responsibility in this matter is for some reason overlooked.
Further one can be for immigration reform and not be a RINO. Many conservatives are for immigration reform.
THe problem will not go away. THe fact that these illegals are in mixed marriages of legal status and have millions of children that are American citziens adds to the problem in many ways.
We had a chance to do something about in 2007 but sadly the extremes got in the way. Oh well welcome ot the status quo aint it great
"The real story in this country is that legal Hispanics approve of having illegals in this country and disapprove of doing anything about them. This is how the Democrats have the Hispanic vote locked up."
ALex that is incorrect. In fact that attitudeI think shows the problem.
Many Hispancic are for comprehensive reform that besides giving what some people call"amnesty" also had tough border provisions, worker ID and tough employee sanctions, and yes would involve deportations. The GOP was doing wuite well with the hispanic vote in many quarters till the silly season of 2006 arrived.
Regardless Republicans have run on a comprehensive platform that has yes puntative sanction in it. They get Hispanic votes.
James - Republicans got 20% of the Hispanic vote in 2006/2008. So yeah not ALL of them are illegal-lovers, but most of them are.
All the AZ law did was make federal crimes enforceable on the state level....
As for the underlying issue -- the way I see it, the penalty for coming illegally is, well, having to live as an illegal. No need to give amnesty, no need to give a special path to citizenship. Just secure the border and do nothing else.
It'd be nice if we made it easier to come legally. I'd favour giving a Green Card to anyone who took a four-year college degree or did a professional degree or doctoral degree from reputable American universities (say the flagship state campuses and the top private colleges) between 1965 and 2010. I don't think we're well served by making it hard for those American-educated people to stay.
But I don't think we're very well served by condoning the actions of people who went outside the system, either.
"James - Republicans got 20% of the Hispanic vote in 2006/2008. So yeah not ALL of them are illegal-lovers, but most of them are."
I am not sure what a "Illegal" lover is.
Regardless yes 2006 and 2008 were not great years. Latinos and Hispanics(which comprise many sub groups that are distinct) were no doubt reacting to the over the top rethoric that was unleashed. Some of it was very nasty.
I am not hispanic but I supported immigration reform. I was called a traitor and quisling. It got all very depressing and tiring.
That is one problem with this issue is it is hot and emotional and you can't really control the message especially in this internet age
Republicans have done quite well with hispanic voters whne they are targeted with the right messages. Also they like a good many of the American people are all for compromise that yes includes tough sanctions.
"No need to give amnesty, no need to give a special path to citizenship. Just secure the border and do nothing else"
The problem is you cannot just "secure the border". As many of us Advocates of immigration reform pointed out a good bit of the problem was not just peole crossing the border illegally but people overstaying their work visas. In other words they came here legally but became illegal.
We see this dynamic a good bit wiht the significatn Asian and Irish illegal population but we also see it with people South of the border
So in oder to deal with that problem we had a solution but to get their we had to compromnise on some pathway to Citzenship.
Well we got no where and pood we have the status quo.
For the problem to be fixed we will need
Workable border enforcement
internal enforcement
employer sanction
pathway to citizenship with needed conditions
and a sane workable guest worker program
No one wants to hear that because everyone is in their own faction and are under the illusion that somehow they will be able to convivne everyone that just doing x is sufficent. It appears after going throuhg the immigration wars of 2006-2008 that has not worked out too well for either side
It'd be nice if we made it easier to come legally. I'd favour giving "a Green Card to anyone who took a four-year college degree or did a professional degree or doctoral degree from reputable American universities (say the flagship state campuses and the top private colleges) between 1965 and 2010. I don't think we're well served by making it hard for those American-educated people to stay."
THe problem with that of course is that the leading adovcates against illegal immigration are also quite radical on drastically restricting LEGAL IMMIGRATION. These people are in the forefront of the debate and have the influence. They are at National Review and other places. They lobby against giving visas and citizenship to people with high skills and don;t like the fact that non Americans are able to obtain citizenship by serving in the military.
I often hear I am not against immigration but just illegal immigration. Well fair enough so am I. However the problem is a lot of folks have not distanced themselves from the Tanton groups which contributes to the distrust in the hispanic community.
While the hispanics have La Raza we have people concerned about illegal immigration in alliance with CIS and other radical groups
I am not hispanic but I supported immigration reform. I was called a traitor and quisling. It got all very depressing and tiring.
The problem with immigration "reform" ( and yes, I do mean to use scare quotes) is that it was a constantly moving target.
The ultimate goal was and still is: is for amnesty and forgiveness for illegals breaking the laws. Breaking LOTS of laws.
The people aren't completly stupid, despite what the politicians think. We can see that "reform" is just a path to opening the floodgates of uncontrolled immigration.
So yes. Not only are you a Quisling, you are a DUPE and one of the useful idiots.
I favour a guest worker program that is tailored to the labour market's needs.
I still see no reason whatsoever for a pathway to citizenship -- let the illegals live as illegals. They were happy to come under those conditions -- they can stay under those conditions, as long as they remain good at dodging the police. When those conditions become intolerable, they can go back home.
Any time you grant amnesty to the people who snuck in or overstayed visas, you make fools out of those who obeyed the law.
"Funny isn't it that we are once again trying to keep out the very folks we stole the entire southwest from in the 19th century!"
That would be the Comanches, Kiowa, Apache, Navajo?
THe problem with that of course is that the leading adovcates against illegal immigration are also quite radical on drastically restricting LEGAL IMMIGRATION. These people are in the forefront of the debate and have the influence. They are at National Review and other places. They lobby against giving visas and citizenship to people with high skills and don;t like the fact that non Americans are able to obtain citizenship by serving in the military.
I don't give a damn what those other people are saying, I'm telling you what is right.
No amnesty for the illegals, rationalize our laws for the legal immigration of skilled people who have something extra to contribute.
And if y'all are going to line up with the open borders folks, well, I'm going to line up with the people willing to secure the border.
There, polarization achieved.
"So yes. Not only are you a Quisling, you are a DUPE and one of the useful idiots."
Well I guess I am in good compnay. The Cato Inst, the Americna Chamber of commerce, the Catholic Chruch, The leadership of the SOuthern Baptist convention, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Jouranal, Sen JOhn Kyl, Sen Brownbeck and one of the most conservative members of the United States Congress Rep Flake of AZ
As ot dupes yes I saw them. On the left it was lots of people duped by Obama despite the fact that he played a large role in jilling immigration reform in 2007.
On the right I saw it among most of the internet chattering class that promoted people send money to build a fence to a group headed by Alan Keyes which turned out ot be a big scam. Of course when I raided those concerns I was called a illegal lover and a quisling.
I am afraid the problem will not be able to be solved by enforcement only. There are votes in the various places to get it passed.
I am afraid it will not be solved by just a MASS "amnesty" as some people call it.
There are not the votes to get it passed.
That is the reality of our system and yet it seems the extrmes on either side can't just grapple with that reality
"And if y'all are going to line up with the open borders folks, well, I'm going to line up with the people willing to secure the border.
There, polarization achieved."
AH "Open Borders". Another term that is used quite quite too loosely. I suspect out of the groups I named that perhaps only the hardcore Libertarians at Cato are truly for Open Borders. No one else is for that since what we wanted also involved stronger immigration controls and a policy as to guest worker.
That is one problem with this. One side mistakely thinks all people that are against illegal immigration are racist. The other side thinks that we are that for comprehensive immigration reform are for Libertarian concept as "Open Borders"
Both sides throw these terms around too loosely and guess what nothing gets done
The problem is you cannot just "secure the border".
Sure you can. In fact, just securing the border solves 90% of the problem. If the Feds lived up to their responsibilities and secured the damn border, you wouldn't see laws like the one we're discussing now.
As many of us Advocates of immigration reform pointed out a good bit of the problem was not just peole crossing the border illegally but people overstaying their work visas.
That is a relatively small portion of the problem and you know it. Pure misdirection to make the issue appear more complex and nuanced than it really is.
So in oder to deal with that problem we had a solution but to get their we had to compromnise on some pathway to Citzenship.
A "path to citizenship" for existing illegals is nothing more than a signal to everybody back in Mexico that if you stick around long enough, they'll eventually legalize you. An open invitation to next round of poor, put-upon illegals who will eventually need their own "path to citizenship".
We had an amnesty in 1986 -- it was part of a comprehensive immigration reform plan that involved employer sanctions.
It was a good idea to try it out at the time.
It didn't work. We should learn from our failures.
No, securing the border is not some sort of cure-all. But it is a sensible measure to take, given the number of criminal elements that are now entering, quite apart from the normal consideration that a modern state should control its entry-and-exit points.
Amnesty now is just a sign that we are going to have rolling amnesties -- every time the illegal population gets too large, we'll legalize them again.
That sucks. We're not going to fix the leaky border problem, and so there's no reason to amnesty the illegals. (There's no reason to give them an amnesty in any event.) Heck, the status quo is better than that.
Long live the status quo!
"Sure you can. In fact, just securing the border solves 90% of the problem. If the Feds lived up to their responsibilities and secured the damn border, you wouldn't see laws like the one we're discussing now."
No as I mentioned that no where comes close ot solving the problem. How did all those Asians and illegal Irish get here. By crossing the border illegally. Uh no.
While I know the Border FENCE with watch towers and all is a great symbol in reality that is all it is. A symbol. It is one huge boondaggle. There are ways to secure the border more and it has to be a prt of it. However that is just partof the equation.
"That is a relatively small portion of the problem and you know it. Pure misdirection to make the issue appear more complex and nuanced than it really is."
NO that is false. We had pretty good stats on this during the 2007 debate
The problme has become worse because int he old days we actually had a good pattern of circular migration. People coming to work and then returning. Increased enforcement at the border has caused many people just of stay put because we have not dealt with in a comprehnsive way and appear to want to ignore the economic dynamics of supply and demand/
"A "path to citizenship" for existing illegals is nothing more than a signal to everybody back in Mexico that if you stick around long enough, they'll eventually legalize you. An open invitation to next round of poor, put-upon illegals who will eventually need their own "path to citizenship"."
The lat time we had this was nearly 30 years ago. I am not sure people shall be sticking around that long!!! Of course the reason that failed to address the problem in the 80's was not worker ID, no severe emplyer sanctions, and no sane guest workers programs that recongnized the changing economic needs of all the parties involved.
It seems when we try to deal with this problem with just one part and the whole disaster results
That is one problem with this. One side mistakely thinks all people that are against illegal immigration are racist. The other side thinks that we are that for comprehensive immigration reform are for Libertarian concept as "Open Borders"
And the rest of us KNOW the government consists of a pack of liars and that none of the proposals from the RINOs like Bush and McCain or the Dems are truthful.
The real issue is that we do NOT trust our Federal Government to look out for the best interests of the citizens of the US in immigration or much of anything else. They are looking out for their own asses and for any and all special interest groups so that they can get re-elected and retain power. Case in point.... Obama blatently throwing down the race card to keep power.
The real issue is that we KNOW that they don't give a rat's behind about "US" or the Country as a whole.
They lie all the time. Obama care....yup....sure you can keep your Doctore (if he is still in business). Nope...your premiums won't go up...wink wink.
A "path to citizenship" for existing illegals is nothing more than a signal to everybody back in Mexico that if you stick around long enough, they'll eventually legalize you. An open invitation to next round of poor, put-upon illegals who will eventually need their own "path to citizenship".
Exactly. A path to uncontrolled immigration.
Tart it up with any "nuances" you like, this is what we know to be the ultimate goal.
When you are under siege and in the midst of an actual invasion and the Federal Goverment won't act, the States must. If the States won't act.....eventually....the people will have to.
"...the Catholic Church"
All of South and Latin America are Catholic countries. Don't they dare accuse the US of treating the poor poorly when they abdicate their voice in all the countries these poor people travel from.
It is Christian to take in the poor and the outcast. '
It is not Christian to abuse the poor and make them the outcast, forcing them away from their homes.
The Catholic church is complicit in the massive inequality in all these nations, and it would do much better to assert its role in judging and transforming the societies from which these immigrants come, rather than abuse on one side of the border and accuse on the other.
This is my frustration. Until the supposedly moral advocates raise awareness that these societies which shove away their own poor need to change there's going to be far too much hypocrisy for anything to actually change anywhere. America is very, very happy to take in those who struggle and want to better themselves.
But we should not be the only ones. Especially when there are priests and bishops and cardinals who supposedly are on the side of Christ in the midst of all these countries.
If the Catholic Church had any moral standing, they would not put up with societies who send their own poor off to other lands, under threat of starvation and destitution. Yes, there are some in the Catholic church who argue for the poor in these countries. But the Catholic church has don its best to silence these people.
There is nothing in the Bible to countenance other Christians treating their own people in shameful ways. Yet, in this question we only look to US as the only supposedly moral actor--a racist claim that apparently argues that those south of the border can't advance enough to have their own moral obligations.
If we want to help the poor, we need to advocate for them in a way that does not demand they leave their homes and become another people's servant class.
"We had an amnesty in 1986 -- it was part of a comprehensive immigration reform plan that involved employer sanctions.
It was a good idea to try it out at the time.
It didn't work. We should learn from our failures."
It largely failed because we did not deal with worker ID, real empl;oyer sanctions, and immigration policy as to guest worker that would handle our needs.
Now I am under no illusion that none of thisis easy. You start talking about ID and people start talking "Mark of the BEast". You got Union concerns and other matters.
But it appears that is the wya we shall have to go. If not ten years from down we shall be here arguing this same topic and wondering why nothing was done
"It seems when we try to deal with this problem with just one part and the whole disaster results"
I think this is true. And the whole part has a lot more than simply US policies and laws. The whole part includes the governments and policies and laws of all the nations that use the US as their dumping ground.
Illegal immigration from Ireland finally came under control when Ireland was freed from its oppression by England and developed economic policies that helped it give its people opportunities.
The Irish would rather stay in Ireland, and Mexicans would rather stay in Mexico. They are patriotic and love their culture and land. That's a good thing. We should not approve of a system that makes them leave, just so they can feed their families.
The whole part means going beyond moral outrage against the US and applying it equally or more against Spanish legacy governments that cater to corruption and despise the poor.
"All of South and Latin America are Catholic countries. Don't they dare accuse the US of treating the poor poorly when they abdicate their voice in all the countries these poor people travel from."
What? This is completey a 180 from the reality. In fact when the Pope came to the USA he mentioned the need to create condtions in countries where the people could stay put.
In Mexico the Church has been persecuted for most of the last century. Ther has been no "abdicating"
"The Catholic church is complicit in the massive inequality in all these nations, and it would do much better to assert its role in judging and transforming the societies from which these immigrants come, rather than abuse on one side of the border and accuse on the other."
Well I am a Catholic and partof the USA so I think I can make some jusgments. Again I think we would have to forget a lot of well history over the last 30 to 40 years to think the Catholic Church was neglecting the poor or not concerned about people SOuth of the Border
James said: "The GOP was doing quite well with the hispanic vote in many quarters till the silly season of 2006 arrived."
Baloney. The GOP consistently gets about 35% of the Hispanic vote, give or take 5% or so depending on whether it is a good or bad year for the GOP generally, The Bush/Rove/McCain Hispandering strategy was, predictably, a total failure. The fact is that as long as Hispanics have an illegitimacy rate of 50%, they are going to continue voting for the party of the welfare state- i.e. the Dems- regardless of what position the GOP takes on immigration.
Sane immigration policy=
1) build wall, no amnesty.
2) reform legal immigration, replacing chain migration with a merit-based points system.
"When you are under siege and in the midst of an actual invasion and the Federal Goverment won't act, the States must. If the States won't act.....eventually....the people will have to."
We shall see. The People seem to be a lot more divided and to use your word "nunanced" on the solution.
I think the Federal GOvt (which is our Reps) just shows the divide we have over these tough issues that are involved. I don't think John Kyl, and Flake, and McCain, and others are lying. It might be comforatable for us to put this in the realm of EVIL versus good of VILLIANS vs the good guys but that is largely counterproductive
Well, this is unfortunate.
1. No offense to him, but I'd like to see someone more nationally-known than Walter Moore to go into that aspect of the law. (He's a lawyer)
2. Althouse - of course - missed a little "gotcha" that Randal Archibold snuck into the article that shows where the NYT is coming from. I'm not going to tell you what that is: you'll have to hope that I have the time to discuss it on my site.
"Sane immigration policy=
1) build wall, no amnesty. "
I am afraid a WALL that many people envison will not be built. Further If World War II Americans can tunnel out of Prison camps I suspect a Berlin Wall is not going to be useful unless we REALLY want to go to the extremes the East Germans did. There is not the political will to do that(Thank God)
Again people are going to have to compromise which puts us immigration reform folks in a bad position at times.
On the right we are called Quislings. On the extreme left we are called immoral because we do not agree with them that all Deportations should stop.
As soon as Obama got elected I knew there would be no immigration reform because of his past actions.
What we shall be seeing the next few months as to the "proposed immigration Bill is all smoke and mirrors.
Yet everyone will play their part. The LEft will rant and the Right will rant but the dirty secret is everyone knows this not going anywhere. We have known that since last year when Pelosi gave the word that her members would not have to make a tough immigration vote.
So while these posts and discussions are useful I suppose I think the main result will be that each side will use this for fundrasing letters and emails for me to send 25 dollars so Organization x can fax all the members of congress.
In the end everyone will play along because they will make money at it.
No as I mentioned that no where comes close ot solving the problem. How did all those Asians and illegal Irish get here. By crossing the border illegally. Uh no.
Why would you target the Asian and Irish illegal immigration problem? Latin American illegal immigration, including from Mexico, is almost 80% of the problem -- no other population group even comes close. True, not all of this is just people traipsing over the border illegally. But an awful lot of it is, and that's the part that is most insulting and demeaning to the United States.
Besides, people who come here legally on visas -- whatever their race -- have to get fingerprinted, so it's not like we can't identify them afterwards, if we catch them at some other mischief, or want to prevent them from collecting benefits to which they are not entitled or whatever. The problem, while more difficult to address, in some respects (in terms of integrating systems, and setting up procedures and so on), is also more manageable in theory, given the current tool set.
Establishing better control over the border is the low hanging fruit, and will make a substantial dent in the illegal immigration problem. Why would we condition solving the easy part on solving the hard part first?
No as I mentioned that no where comes close ot solving the problem. How did all those Asians and illegal Irish get here. By crossing the border illegally. Uh no.
Uh, I don't know if you're aware, but we're talking about Arizona here. Their issue is obviously not with Vietnamese and Irish immigrants. Again, you're just attempting to cloud the issue and make it seem so complex that we all have just throw up our hands and legalize everyone. Yes, there are illegal Irish immigrants out there. But no, that is not the issue that Arizona is attempting to deal with. At all.
Arizona's issue is that they're being overwhelmed by illegals who walk across the border with Mexico.
How do you solve that without building some kind of a barrier to people who walk across the border?
Further If World War II Americans can tunnel out of Prison camps I suspect a Berlin Wall is not going to be useful unless we REALLY want to go to the extremes the East Germans did.
Hmmm, Berlin Wall?
I seem to recall that the Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, not out. Slight difference there, wouldn't you say?
What's made the AZ law necessary is the increasing level of violence along the border spilling over into place like Laredo and El Paso. the Blonde and I were in Tucson about 18 months ago and ran into a woman who had been a police office there (she was retired) and were told we were about as far south as we dared go. When it's so bad you can't go anywhere on this side of the border, it's time to do what AZ did.
And, yes, the Demos are slobbering at the thought of another 10 million or so registered Demos.
KV said...
Funny isn't it that we are once again trying to keep out the very folks we stole the entire southwest from in the 19th century!
We didn't steal anything, moron. There was a war, started on this very day in 1846, and the Mexicans not only shot first, the government made sure it placed one its most bellicose commanders on the scene to ensure there'd be a fight.
The Polk administration was afraid of a two-front war (we were also negotiating for Oregon) and offered to buy San Francisco Bay and enough country to get to it, the Santa Fe area, and to indemnify Mexico after the annexation of Texas. We didn't even want Southern California, what is now Arizona, and the southern parts of New Mexico. And the Herrera government was of a mind to sell, but Santa Anna's political enemies saw a chance to seize power and demogogued the whole thing. Our insistence that the Rio Grande, not the Nueces, was the southern border of Texas (set by Santa Anna at San Jacinto) was the real sticking point. We occupied the disputed area in 1845 and the war was on.
What kills me about our usual suspects is that they're either ignorant of the history and just go with the propaganda, or they feel they can make it up as they go along. Well, the Demos feel the same way about the law, so...
Baloney. The GOP consistently gets about 35% of the Hispanic vote, give or take 5% or so depending on whether it is a good or bad year "for the GOP generally, The Bush/Rove/McCain Hispandering strategy was, predictably, a total failure. The fact is that as long as Hispanics have an illegitimacy rate of 50%, they are going to continue voting for the party of the welfare state- i.e. the Dems- regardless of what position the GOP takes on immigration."
I rather have 35 percent than like 5 to 9 percent of the black community. A big difference and in fact a crucial difference at times. A failure? I think it showed great results in 2004. Yet if people think if they can't right now get 50.1 so what the hell I guess that is a viewpoint. But needless to say if the GOP was getting 35 percent of the Black vote there would be hardly no dems in Congress
BY the way I know Rush calls this all "pandering" I never knew why people thought that was a good term to use since it has a negative vibe to it.
I have the following people "pandering" to me
The Pro-life movement
The Pro Israel Movement
The Free Trade Movement
The Americn Chamber of COmmerce movement
The Oil and Gas movement
The National Defence concerns movement
WHile some people call that pandering I think more of it as people that listen to my concerns and life experiences and want my vote and participation
In other words I think the use of the word "hispandering" is not only counterproductive but silly
There is no growing split in Arizona about this law, it is supported 70% to 27%. That is a landslide. Now there are plenty of people who do not want Arizona to be able to protect their state, because the people who leave Arizona will move to their state!
There is a word for politicians who oppose 70% of their voters in an important issue: it it "loser."
Trey
re: "real split"
the article did a poor job of describing the split but there is a split. The leader of the illegal immigrant push is Russel Pearce. Mr. Pearce is to AZ immigration politics as Tom Tancreado is to national immigration politics. On the other side of the split are politicians like Gov. Jan Brewer. I doubt she really wanted to deal with this (and unfortunately she is now the name attached to the bill in the nation's eye.) She's had enough fights with her party about how to fix the budget and just recently was able to finally get a ballot initiative for a three year sales tax increase to mitigate draconian cuts in education and other state services. And of course, Sen. McCain stands astride that split.
Now what doesn't get reported is the subtle split within the Democratic party. Time and time again polls in AZ show widespread support for more laws against illegal immigration. (Janet Napolitano learned this the hard way.) Unless you're in a safe democratic district that can hurt you in the election.
Final comment. Re: long-term political effects. While there is unreported support for tighter restrictions on immigration in the Hispanic community, I believe laws such as this upset hispanics on a more visceral level. Most of the US-born hispanics that have worked with have living relatives who were not born in the US. I believe many see bills such as this as an "attack on their family". Sadly, while Mexican immigrants have a natural bent toward Republican/conservative values (i.e. hard work, family , church, less need for governmental services) these bills have the effect of pushing hispanics towards the democratic party.
"There has been no "abdicating""
The entire tradition of "Liberation" theology disputes this.
Of course the Catholic Church, for 500 years and more, has been complicit.
Otherwise, how can there be such brutal conditions in supposedly "Christian" lands? If the Catholic Church has been increasingly alienated it is because, overall, it was part of the problem.
Why are there such conditions in places that have had the Church for so long? Why such inequalities?
The burden is on the church taking care of its own neighborhood, not on telling other Christians that they should do their duty.
Note, I this isn't an anti-Catholic position on my part. It's precisely because I think the Catholic church can and does do good work among so many in need that we should not offer excuses when it is part of the problem.
The situation in Ireland was very different, by the way. There, it was a religious war in which Catholics were abused and mistreated because of their religion while Protestants were in power. In the Latin American Countries, the Church is found among both the powerful and the abused. And far too often the powerful dismiss the abused, and then dare to offer moral outrage against the US.
"And, yes, the Demos are slobbering at the thought of another 10 million or so registered Demos."
Are they? As I try to tell my Democratic friend on the other sside in 2007 and 2006 they needed to be real careful of reading this as meme between the GOP and Democrats.
I saw a powerful member of the balck Cacucus get all Tancredo like in the Mississipi Delta. Yet that was never reported. There are real divides among rank and file democrats on this. PLEASE NOTE AGAIN it was Democrats that really killed immigration reform in 2007. Why if they are so anxious to get all these new voters?
Likewise on the GOP side the recent GOP Presidential exit polls state by state showed a much more divided party over the issue. It was not just deport them all big and small.
This dynamic is largtely missed and many of us bloggers feed that misconception into too easily putting people in categories
What is frustrating is the extremes in this on one side "There is not such things as being illegal" and stop the deportations" and on the other side "NO AMNESTY NPO PATHWAY NO MATTER WHAT" have combined to give to give us the status quo. Their responsibility in this matter is for some reason overlooked.
I really don't understand this issue well enough. It seems obvious that there is great resistance to securing the border. Does anyone know why that is?
It seems to me that if the border were truly secured or much more secure - people would not be so opposed to dealing compassionately with those that are already here.
What does, "no one is illegal" mean? What does - "send them all back" mean?
Predictably Democrats see ILLEGAL ALIENS as a constituency. Up is Down.
"The entire tradition of "Liberation" theology disputes this."
Actually Liberation Theology (as misguided as it was in some quarters) seems to side with the fact that the Church or members in it were very concerned about the poor"
"Of course the Catholic Church, for 500 years and more, has been complicit.
Complicit in what?
"Otherwise, how can there be such brutal conditions in supposedly "Christian" lands? If the Catholic Church has been increasingly alienated it is because, overall, it was part of the problem."
We had brutal condition here in the USA in a very Protestant land. See American Blacks until about 1969 .
"Note, I this isn't an anti-Catholic position on my part. It's precisely because I think the Catholic church can and does do good work among so many in need that we should not offer excuses when it is part of the problem."
On the whole the Catholic Church is not "offering excuses" However it does give guidance on what is a sane and moral immigration program. I think what gets people upset is that it is not one sided and sees obligations on all sides
The Catholic Bishops backed a 2007 proposal that would have had the net effect of deporting millions of illegals that would not have qualified for Pathway for Citzenship
What is often missed here in the USA is this is a GLOBAL ISSUE. The migration from North to South is occuring world wide.
"I seem to recall that the Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, not out. Slight difference there, wouldn't you say?"
There is no difference though in how it owuld have to be implemented to be effective. That is MASSIVE FUNDING AND AMSSAIVE RESOURCES and perhaps some dracoian mesaures.
James said: I am afraid a WALL that many people envison will not be built. Further If World War II Americans can tunnel out of Prison camps I suspect a Berlin Wall is not going to be useful unless we REALLY want to go to the extremes the East Germans did. There is not the political will to do that(Thank God)."
A simple multi-layer patrolled fence has worked everywhere it has been tried. Of course, even if expanded to cover the entire border, it won't stop everyone, but it will stop the vast majority. We know the Dems believe that the fence will work, because they oppose it.
BTW Althouse it took me something like 20 tries to post this. It kept telling me that my word verification didn't match, although it did. I rarely post here because this problem happens so frequently, I wonder how many other people have it as well.
"Why would you target the Asian and Irish illegal immigration problem? Latin American illegal immigration, including from Mexico, is almost 80% of the problem -- no other population group even comes close. True, not all of this is just people traipsing over the border illegally. But an awful lot of it is, and that's the part that is most insulting and demeaning to the United States."
The reason I mention them is to show that a good bit of the problem cannot be cured by just securing the border. These fols did not cross over the shallow Rio Grande River. Neither did the other illegals from Africa and other places.
As to fingerprinting that does not seem to help the problem a lot as to these groups
That is KEY. That is the internal enforcement , workplace sanctions , and the ability to get a program up and running that emplyers can trust
The problem is done of this will pass or get funded untill there are compromises on the other issues and here we are again
If one thing this year has shown us that RAW poltical power in numbers is limited to a great degree. Health Care is still unpopular and while it got passed it is not clear what will remain in a few years
Card Check is dead
Cap and Tade is pretty much dead
I bring this up because I am baffled why after years and years of watching this why either side thinks they can obtain a electoral victory that will enable their own limited solution and nothing else to become the law of the land
That is not happening and will not happen.
You got to get Latinos and Hispanics on board, you got to get Fiath bassed groups on board, you got to get farmers and the construction lobby on board, you got to get social Justice groups on board, you got to get law enforcement on board, law and order folks on board, unions on board etc etc etc
What we are seeing here is not so much a failure of some faraway bad Govt in D.C. being the problem.
No the problem is that in each of our factions we yell Our Way or the Highway. We are not seeing so much a failure of D.C govt here but a failure of Citizens to come together for a solution. A tragic epic fail
There is no difference though in how it owuld have to be implemented to be effective. That is MASSIVE FUNDING AND AMSSAIVE RESOURCES and perhaps some dracoian mesaures.
We don't need 100% success, though, with the guard towers, mine-fields, and machine-guns that would entail. 75% success would still make a huge dent in the problem, after all, and you could get that with some concrete and some fencing. No need to make the perfect the enemy of the good here.
BTW can we remove the Catholic Church's tax exempt status for interfering in American politics?
The reason I mention them is to show that a good bit of the problem cannot be cured by just securing the border. These fols did not cross over the shallow Rio Grande River. Neither did the other illegals from Africa and other places.
No. The reason you mention Irish and others is to obfuscate and distract from the REAL issue.
The issue is that we are being invaded by illegal aliesn from a country on our southern border. The invasion of our southern states by Mexicans is the issue.
Other issues are:
The lack of enforcement of existing laws regarding immigration by the Federal Government. In fact...they BLOCK any attempt to enforce the laws.
You keep citing that we should have internal workplace sanctions...blah blah blah. The exist, but there is no enforcement.
The other issue is that the Government refuses to institute rational immigration policies such as ending "chain immigration" where by when one person successfully becomes a citizen every last cousin and relation has the green light to come into the country.
They refuse to institute a point system where the immigrants are those who have skills that we need instead of yet another hundred thousand people who have no job skills and who stress our welfare systems.
The reason that California is going broke? (besides all the hare brained liberal feel good spend other peoples money bills) Take a good look at our lack of immigration enforcement. There is a direct correlation.
We are not seeing so much a failure of D.C govt here but a failure of Citizens to come together for a solution. A tragic epic fail
No. What we are seeing here is a complete failure of the Government to LISTEN to the people and to enforce the laws that we have already on the books.
Situation normal. FUBAR
Gotta love the people who spend all their time declaring that "YES WE CAN" do all sorts of global and fanciful things like provide healthcare for free, achieve world peace with diplomatic gestures, maintain growing industries while banning the use of natural resources, etc. But somehow maintaining a simple border is absolutely beyond our capabilities. And putting up a fence? Well, that's just sheer madness!
KV: Funny isn't it that we are once again trying to keep out the very folks we stole the entire southwest from in the 19th century!
Oh, hilarious. But not nearly as thigh-slappingly funny as people who think they're making a killing point as they trip over the ol' "historical howler" banana peel. The land that a European political construct based in Washington, D.C. "stole" from a European political construct based in Mexico City was an undeveloped backwater populated by a few thousands of Mexicans (many of whom were as European as the Anglos), who had in turn "stolen" the land from the native tribes. Some left after the Anglo conquest, but most stayed and they and their descendants have been American citizens ever since. The claim that all the recent incomers are returning to land that was stolen from their ancestors is based on the fiction that the "Mexico" of the 1840s was a political and cultural unity pre-dating the European conquest. Somebody from Oaxaca claiming that Washington "stole" Phoenix (or these days, Portland or Seattle or Anchorage) from his ancestors makes about as much sense as a Navajo claiming the Spaniards stole Caracas from his.
James H said:
"For the problem to be fixed we will need
Workable border enforcement
internal enforcement
employer sanction
pathway to citizenship with needed conditions
and a sane workable guest worker program"
A good proposal except for the pathway to citizenship. Why should illegal entry be rewarded or leglized after the fact, even when the immigrant has settled into an orderly and law-abiding life? It's true that illegals who have married Americans and had children present a problem, but why is it necessary for citizenship to be part of the solution?
Mark O said...
There is, I suppose, the option of deputizing and arming the citizens like a good western movie. It is an invasion. It is dangerous, but only to those rubes in Arizona, not to NYC."
If memory serves, I'm not sure that the sarcasm against NYers (or did you mean Jews?) is warranted as I just can't remember airliners crashing into desert hillsides.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
"What we are seeing here is a complete failure of the Government to LISTEN to the people and to enforce the laws that we have already on the books. Situation normal. FUBAR"
Aside from some disdain for our native language, it is certainly true as the Queen points out, that there is NO ENFORCEMENT. There hasn't been for a decade or more. Don't just pass this on the "liberals" as the conservatives had the issue to deal with for 8 years and did absolutely less than nothing.
it is certainly true as the Queen points out, that there is NO ENFORCEMENT. There hasn't been for a decade or more. Don't just pass this on the "liberals" as the conservatives had the issue to deal with for 8 years and did absolutely less than nothing.
1. You still can't seem to understand that conservative /= republican.
2. You haven't read my posts evidently, wherein I specifically heap scorn and disdain on Bush, McCain, Graham. In fact the push for amnesty and immigration reform was the tipping point for conservatives against Bush.
Just go ahead and make things up as you go along. Why stop now.
Paddy O said:
"If the Catholic Church had any moral standing, they would not put up with societies who send their own poor off to other lands, under threat of starvation and destitution. Yes, there are some in the Catholic church who argue for the poor in these countries. But the Catholic church has don its best to silence these people."
With all respect (and I really mean that), I think you're being a bit simplistic, Paddy. The time when the Latin American Church supported the land owners against the peasants is long gone. The problem is not that the Church does not care about the poor; it is that the problems with the political, economic, and social institutions in Latin America is intractable.
As for your reference to liberation theology ("the Catholic church has done its best to silence these people"), the Church's objection wasn't that "these people" were helping the poor, but that they were trying to introduce Marxist ideas into Catholic social theory.
SteveR: I live in southern New Mexico, fifty miles from the most dangerous city in the world. I've been around illegal aliens my whole life and this is not really about the guy coming here to work construction and send money home to his family.
But it is about that guy. Perhaps not so much in your neck of the woods, in traditional border communities, where I assume there has always been some low-level and manageable labor flow. But there has been an influx of millions of illegal workers in recent years into all parts of the country - Midwest, Northwest, South - driving down wages, locking native-born workers out whole fields of employment (like construction), eroding working conditions, and putting tremendous strains on schools, hospitals, and other social services. Furthermore, those remittances sent back to his family by the hard-working illegal represent money removed from the local economies, communities which at the same time are compelled to provide necessities and services for growing numbers of people who aren't being paid anywhwere near enough to meet the local cost of living. And the heavy dependence of the Mexican economy itself on those remittances is a pretty shaky national "business plan", too.
Though I can understand why the other aspects of this border issue are making more immediate demands on your attention.
Funny isn't it that we are once again trying to keep out the very folks we stole the entire southwest from in the 19th century!
Right on, man, let's give Arizona back to...Spain!
Right on, man, let's give Arizona back to...Spain
And Northern California.....to Russia!
According to what I read, the Arizona law is almost word-for-word the same as the federal law except it makes infractions a state crime as well as a federal crime. I think this puts the law in the same category as other concurrent jurisdiction infractions like drug crimes and gun crimes. Prosecutors have the choice, in many states, to bring charges in federal court or state court. In Virginia, prosecutors have been bringing charges in federal court for gun crimes because the penalties are greater there, even though the infractions are state crimes as well. In Arizona, under the new law, state court would be the best choice to get action taken because the federal authorities have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to do anything.
The State cannot deport anybody, so the strategy will be to arrest them, convict them, and turn them in to the Feds and insist that the Feds comply with the Federal law. This will make highly embarrassing news and keep the issue front and center until the Washington dipsticks will feel compelled to do something (we hope).
Note already the hysterical appeals to Obama to order the Feds not to comply with the Federal law. Are these people even listening to themselves?
Yup, illegal immigration is bad. Ask any American Indian... or native of South/Central America/Mexico for that matter. I guess it's all about timing.
Yup, illegal immigration is bad. Ask any American Indian... or native of South/Central America/Mexico for that matter. I guess it's all about timing.
Indeed. The government isn't here to serve the interests of karmic or cosmic justice. It's here to serve the interests of its people. It is true that historic examples of illegal immigration -- of British and other European merchants into India in the early 17th century, or of British merchants into China in the 18th and 19th centuries -- have often inured to the benefit of Whites against non-White peoples. Hindustani princes and potentates may have scoffed at poor, dirty British traders trying to flog winter woolens in a tropical climate, but a mere century and a half later came Plassey, and the start of the two hundred year reign of the British Raj. The Chinese tried to keep European immigrants and their goods (principally illegal drugs) out of their territory, but what started as gentle diplomatic pressure from the European powers ended in war, and the Chinese were forced to sign the unequal treaties, a humiliation they will not soon forget. We might well add to these, the hordes of Germanic barbarians who gathered on the periphery of the Roman Empire, in the twilight of the Western Empire, who were eventually invited in and resettled, and who repaid the Roman people by destroying the Empire.
Seeing these unhappy examples, should we not, from the very start, seek to assert and defend, vehemently, our power and authority to control our own borders? 尊皇攘夷!
Ben:
We had an amnesty in 1986 -- it was part of a comprehensive immigration reform plan that involved employer sanctions.
It was a good idea to try it out at the time.
It didn't work. We should learn from our failures.
Some of us have learned. The failure was in refusing to secure the borders and enforce those 1986 laws.
The Feds have flatly refused to enforce Federal immigration law. So now AZ has made it state law as well, to shame the Feds into doing their damned jobs.
I feel offended that I am profiled as a bigot if I wish tighter controls on immigration and as a racist if I am opposed to national health care. This facile profiling of white people has to stop if we are ever going to attain true democracy.
sforme,
How to you think the indigenous people of North America would have fared if Mohammed had discovered it?
This facile profiling of white people has to stop if we are ever going to attain true democracy.
Well, there is your mistake.
You assume that attaining democracy is the goal of Obama and the "progressives".
Silly boy.
"Mark O said...
There is, I suppose, the option of deputizing and arming the citizens like a good western movie. It is an invasion. It is dangerous, but only to those rubes in Arizona, not to NYC."
If memory serves, I'm not sure that the sarcasm against NYers (or did you mean Jews?) is warranted as I just can't remember airliners crashing into desert hillsides."
Hey dumbass. Look at a map. Find Arizona. Now find New York. See a bit of distance there? Seems like maybe the problems that Arizona faces with illegal immigration might not effect New York. And why in the world would he mean Jews? Where is your head at that you would even ask such a question. And what does 911 have to do with Arizona and its attempt to control illegal immigration and the crime that comes with it?
"This facile profiling of white people has to stop if we are ever going to attain true democracy."
Lord help us if we ever attain true democracy. I prefer we keep a representative Republic. Or better yet, go back to it.
What do you think would have happened if the Aztecs had discovered Europe before Columbus sailed? Ask Orson Scot Card.
I think it's a mistake to talk about the problem in terms of it being some sort of technical failure on the part of our government. The policy for years has been specifically to increase illegal immigration to satisfy both parties' constituencies and to reap, each party hopes, a bloc of voters they can buy with welfare.
The problem has nothing to do with ability, it's about will.
"Some of us have learned. The failure was in refusing to secure the borders and enforce those 1986 laws."
The amnesty was doomed to fail because there was no workabble internal controls and worker ID. Ask Alan Simpson
"The Feds have flatly refused to enforce Federal immigration law. So now AZ has made it state law as well, to shame the Feds into doing their damned jobs."
Acutally deportations are all very high right now. TO say the Feds are not trying to enforce the LAW is nonsense. I know people think if they say it enough they think it might be true but it is not
4/26/10 3:26 PM
"The State cannot deport anybody, so the strategy will be to arrest them, convict them, and turn them in to the Feds and insist that the Feds comply with the Federal law."
I acutally have a feeling that the Law will be stayed and there will be no arrests at all
" This will make highly embarrassing news and keep the issue front and center until the Washington dipsticks will feel compelled to do something (we hope).
Note already the hysterical appeals to Obama to order the Feds not to comply with the Federal law. Are these people even listening to themselves?"
Who are the dipshits? In the end we the Peoiple are going to have to come up with a solution.
Needless to say this LAW is about to be out on ice and into the Courts
"2. You haven't read my posts evidently, wherein I specifically heap scorn and disdain on Bush, McCain, Graham. In fact the push for amnesty and immigration reform was the tipping point for conservatives against Bush."
There are many conservative for immiagration reform. I know certain Republicans or conservatives hate to hear that but it s true. There is a healthy disagreement in the party and a discussion that cannot be wished away by calling people RINOS.
The term should be "ethnic profiling", not "racial profiling". "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race; racially, most Hispanics are either white, native American, or a mix of the two.
It took my husband two and a half years to get his green card to immigrate legally to the United States. Most of the problem was down to lazy federal immigration workers; for example, it took them no less than seven months to bestir themselves to even acknowledge receipt of his application. It simply sat in a basement in Vermont.
In these heated immigration battles, nobody gives a shit about the legal immigrant, who's trying to do the right thing and jump through every stupid hoop the federal government sets up. And there's no help when the incredibly complex system gets gummed up, as it inevitably does. My congresswoman didn't want to know when I asked her to help me. My senators told me to be patient. Patient! You try living without your spouse for years while you wait for some bureaucrat to finish her coffee.
The most helpful person was a staffer for another senator who was kind enough to take some time out of her day to look into my case after CIS stopped returning my calls. It turned out they needed a document they neglected to ask us for.
DBQ, I so respect where you're coming from about the havoc that unchecked immigration can wreak on neighborhoods, towns, and states. But I have to give credit to Bush and McCain for at least trying to reform the legal immigration pathway. I have no such illusion that the Democrats will try to do the same thing, because a) those same federal workers that just couldn't be bothered to check that my husband's application had arrived are all Democrats and b) my husband isn't guaranteed Democratic vote, so who cares? Without some kind of immigration reform, though, the pathway to legal immigration will remain in its current fetid swamp-like state.
You know, people can sit and be snarky and say, "Huh huh huh, we stole the land and now the Mexicans want it back, huh huh" or whatever, but people forget it's people's lives at stake here. I wanted the simple right to live with my spouse. So I had to leave the United States, leave my family, and give up my career to do it because the federal government made legal immigration so damn difficult.
By the way, how long did it take to get my entry clearance to the UK? Four weeks to the day.
WV: angstr. You betcha.
James H, tell me.. How do you think about Mexico and immigration law?
There are anti-Hispanic attitudes here in North Carolina. A lot of people seem to have switched from hating blacks to hating Mexicans. Blacks are good old neighbors now, with good old southern manners; it's Mexicans who are alien invaders who are not only brown but foreign and don't speak English. Never mind that they are mostly religious and family-oriented.
Revenant: don't forget, lots of Hispanics are black, too.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा