EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Arizona's New Immigration Law Is an Act of Vengeance
Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?
And what is the deal with Sen. John McCain? The self-proclaimed practitioner of "straight talk" was once a passionate advocate of sensible, moderate immigration reform. Now, facing a primary challenge from the right, he has praised the new law, which is as far from sensible and moderate as it could possibly be. Are six more years in the Senate really worth abandoning what seemed like bedrock principles? Or were those principles always situational?
Let me interrupt this tirade to point out that while Arizona has unquestionably done the wrong thing, it is understandable that exasperated officials believed they had to do something. Immigration policy and border security are federal responsibilities, and Washington has failed miserably to address what Arizonans legitimately see as a crisis.
Arizona has become the preferred point of entry for undocumented workers, and an estimated 460,000 are in the state -- settling down, or just passing through -- at any given time. I have driven down to the border and watched as authorities tried to pick out trucks and vans that might be transporting people without papers. I've spent a morning at the Mexican consulate in Phoenix, which is usually crowded with recent immigrants; only the most naive observer would think that all or even most of them were in the country legally. The influx imposes an unfair burden on the state, and for years Arizonans have implored federal officials to do something about immigration reform and border control -- to no avail.
But this law won't work. On the contrary, it will make the problems worse. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon -- who wrote an op-ed in The Post calling proponents of the law "bitter, small-minded and full of hate" -- hopes to file a lawsuit against the state arguing that local police are now being forced to fulfill a federal responsibility.
One of the concrete problems with the law treating undocumented immigrants as criminals is that it gives those without papers a powerful incentive to stay as far away from police as possible. This will only make it more difficult for local police to investigate crimes and track down fugitive offenders, because no potential witness who is undocumented will come forward.
And how are police supposed to decide whom they "reasonably suspect" of being in the country illegally? Since the great majority of undocumented immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico, aggressive enforcement of the law would seem to require demanding identification from anybody who looks kind of Mexican. Or maybe just hassling those who look kind of Mexican and also kind of poor. Or maybe anyone who dares to visit the Mexican consulate.
Arizona is dealing with a real problem and is right to demand that Washington provide a solution. But the new immigration law isn't a solution at all. It's more like an act of vengeance. The law makes Latino citizens and legal residents vulnerable to arbitrary harassment -- relegating them to second-class status -- and it is an utter disgrace.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
65 Comments so far
Show AllWashington provide the problem with NAFTA. Dumping cheap food drove the farmers off their farms. They moved to border factories to make cheap goods for the US but American corporations moved their jobs to Asia for pennys a day labor. The US corporations and their government did this and now the poor Mexicans are looking for any job to provide food for themselves and their families. Who is the guilty party? Try the US Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party but not the Mexicans.
"Try the US Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party but not the Mexicans."
The Democrats and Bill Clinton are responsible, too. I don't see how people can possibly let Democrats off the hook when it comes to trade deals. Obama loves 'em, he's still pushing for them, and the Democrats line up behind him. Let's face reality on this.
lefttown
Thank you. While Humbaba got the main points right I was going to point that out myself. Lets not forget who signed NAFTA and Obama quickly forgot his pledge to fix it, of course he hasn't lived up to any of his promises.
Lets not let any of the Transnationals off the hook either. Many foreign owned here also pay to keep the cheap labor they love flowing.
Greg Palast, as usual, sees through the smoke and identifies the real intent of the "show-me-your-papers law".
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25320.htm
The Greg Palast piece brings up an explosive element to this whole thing: demographics. WASP's are on a slow slide to minority status in Arizona in a redux of what occurred in California during the 80's & 90's. Similarly, the WASP's had a petulant last legal gasp, Proposition 187, which did not turn out exactly as they had envisioned (but it did make a boatload of money for the CA. political consultant class). Many of said CA. conservative WASP's moved to Arizona, but demography has irresistible force all its' own. What is pathetic to see is that the same fearful WASP's have yet to learn from their prior Pyrrhic victory, as it is quite likely that the Hispanic population of Arizona (many of whom are quite conservative socially) have just become Democrats for the next two to three generations just like in California. But then, is not the definition of insanity is repeating behavior and expecting a different outcome? The insane are in office in Arizona.
NateW
You are correct that many Hispanic Americans that are citizens of Arizona are quite conservative, but I'd say more economically than socially and most do not favor illegal immigration.
I'm curious if you know the skill and educational level of most illegal immigrants? (a real question)
Also, would you want your state to emulate California over the last 30 years?
(again an honest question) I can't see for the life of me why you would want to be in their position going forward, but I may be misunderstanding your post in this area.
"I'm curious if you know the skill and educational level of most illegal immigrants? (a real question)"
In my experience it is low. Everyone I know here illegally is pretty nice and hard working, but not educated well. I think that goes back to the fact that In Mexico there is about 1 high school to every 4000 students that need one. Very hard to get higher ed in Mexico. Not stupid people by any means, but forced to work early to feed family and lack of ed opportunities.
JohnShade
I wanted to make sure you noted this from my post to NateW.
"By the way, many of the kids the illegals are bringing with them to Texas are testing better in Math than our kids do at the same grade level."
You are correct of course, but someone is doing something right in the Mexican school system, especially in rural areas.
I've worked beside, with and occasionally in my youth for illegal immigrants, I met very few that were stupid. The good people that come here to make a buck usually are the better folks. Takes guts for an honest person to take the risks, especially these days.
Vertitas,
I disagree with your assertion that Hispanics are conservative economically, especially when said population are either Catholic or Evangelical Christian -- that rings socially conservative.
As for the median educational level, it depends upon what language you're talking about & the class of the person. On the whole, Latino immigrants educational level is not that good (but then the USA median educational level is nothing to write home about either, especially compared to the rest of the First World).
As for California (where I am writing from), life after the flight of said WASP's has not come to an end. In fact, being a white person residing in urban Southern California (where whites are a minority) is not the end of the world, as money trumps skin color. Los Angeles has since become a much more of a World city since, as their WASP white bread "values" no longer clog up the arteries here. What is good is that the population who used to vote in douche bags like Sam Yorty & Dan Lundgren into office are no longer there...and good riddance to them!
While much has not gone well in California in the last thirty years, the flight of WASP's has been quite a positive. Their regressive attitudes are not missed at all.
NateW
"On the whole, Latino immigrants educational level is not that good (but then the USA median educational level is nothing to write home about either, especially compared to the rest of the First World)"
Yopu obviously misunderstood my question. I am not speaking of immigrants, but the average illegal immigrant that is present in Arizona (or California for that matter). I am speaking of illegal immigrants only.
Latino illegals educational level is on average almost very low, in fact many don't write or speak Spanish that well. But you are certainly right about our system. By the way, many of the kids the illegals are bringing with them to Texas are testing better in Math than our kids do at the same grade level.
Didn't know you were in California. How does replacing businessmen, educated workers, skilled people with essentially illegal day laborers advantage California? California has always had a large Hispanic population and heritage just as we have in Texas, so why would they have left because of that? We have seen no flight like yours here and we have at least 2 million illegals.
I don't see that race has that much to do with it. Economics and perhaps class maybe. How do you fix Californias economic problems without stopping illegal immigration. I don't know the exact cost of an illegal to California, but it has to be higher than our cost. Absolutely must be based on benefit levels. And you guys have a larger problem than we do. What do you see as the answer.
The cost here is staggering and increasing, its causing budget problems galore for local governments andd hospitals. Each illegal cost Texans about $1179 per year, per illegal. Based on figures from a few years ago for local government cost.
As for the "businessmen, educated workers, & skilled people" are still here, but are no longer almost entirely WASP. In fact, once the defacto apartheid that the old CA. WASP's (a lot of whom had come from the old South) was undone, the folks and their jobs whom you insinuate left & / or were replaced by illegals, were in fact replaced by the myriad of peoples whom now call California home. Said people, by and large, are in the state legally and as California has become a hub of high tech and entertainment (among other things), and they do quite well.
As for WASP flight, they were quite happy to be here when Hispanics (native-born & illegal) were second class citizens. It was when the political order was opened to more than just White Anglo Saxon Protestants that they up and left. Texas' WASP's have done a better job of holding on to power, or co-opting certain Latinos (a la Alberto Gonzalez).
As for the illegal's drain on the economy, it pales in comparison to corporations and the wealthy not paying their fare share, especially when they gets the lion's share of the benefits.
NateW
Interesting. The figures I had seen from California pretty much said that most of the folks leaving were business, skilled, etc while at the same time almost an equal number of illegals entered. The illegal numbers are pretty much confirmed by State statistics of benefit usage and criminal convictions. No way to have the same confirmation on those leaving so someone there should have a better grasp of that than I do.
Though the numbers leaving and the illegal arriving are almost equal and California looks to not get extra Congressional seats this tiome because the population has not increased that much. Not that it matters a lot anyway.
We have plenty of Hispasnics and Latino's coming into our government system here but I would hope we have the best people in place, I don't care what color they are.
"Alberto Gonzalez" PLEASE! He's not a Texan, he's not even Hispanic, I have plenty of Hispanic friends on both sides of the border and rthey all are honest, honorable people. Gonzalez is nothing but dirt.
"As for the illegal's drain on the economy, it pales in comparison to corporations and the wealthy not paying their fare share, especially when they gets the lion's share of the benefits"
While I certainly won't argue with you about corporations and the wealthy not paying their fair share, I doubt your buzzards pay any more than ours, I believe you will find that the illegal cost impact on the cities and local governments are far worse because they are a direct and immediate cost.
Thanks for the info on the outflow.
Thanks for the link. More Palast and more light!
It is worth noting here part of what the Palast piece again makes evident: this law is directed against Hispanics and workers far more than against foreigners per se. But the people who will be stopped over and over again, harassed, insulted, and detained repeatedly are people who have papers but look or sound like people who do not.
Those are the people who are targeted: the undocumented people do not vote.
Stopping people on the street is no solution. The real problem is demand and supply, as in employers hiring without proper identification or medical facilities treating if an emergency and then deporting or not treating if not an emergency. Our illegal immigration problem is like inviting someone to a party and then when they show up at the door, telling them they are no longer invited, unless of course they are willing to do the dishes afterward.
I do not live in Arizona, but I can understand wanting to get control of the border with Mexico. The current situation appears no longer tenable to the residents who live along that border. While the law itself maybe vague and some think unconstitutional, I wonder how most of the rest of us would feel seeing this wave of illegals come across the border. They bring with them their hopes, but also a disrespect for our laws, our language and our way of life, not to mention crime; a lot of recent crime that is drug-related violence. How many Americans and how many illegals from Mexico have to get hurt or die before the political sides get a cease-fire and talk respectfully to one another?
Mexico is not helping the situation by refusing to stop the illegals from coming here. Maybe if Mexico would clean up its act politically and economically, their citizens would not feel the need to go elsewhere to earn a living. But coming here illegally does nothing but fuel the fear and anger that is coming from many American citizens. If our laws and our soverienty will not be respected by the Mexicans and indeed other countries south of our border, then we will eventually cease to be a nation.
Being angery with Arizona for trying to deal with a problem that is obviously out-of-control, is short-sighted and dangerous. Now, maybe the Congress will actually begin the effort to reform our immigration laws and practices.
Rockerbabe1
Your posting describes a lot of the problem reasonably unlike the racist rants. But I would like to point out we don't need a "reform". We already had this discussion once before and passed a "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" to solve the problem. If you go back to the 1986 Bill and its discussion before passage, you will find a mirror image of the reasoning, propaganda and false rhetoric being used now.
The only action needed by Congress or the government is to enforce the provisions of that bill. Our immigration laws are not broken except in the fact they are not enforced.
The only reform needed is to make our legal immigration system easier to use and remove the need to spend thousands of dollars and hiring immigration attorney's to help you through the complexities they have lobbied to put in.
The real fault in this belongs to Business and to the dishonest politicians they buy.
Veritas:
You may very well be right; but it seems to me, that a lot has changed since the 1986 bill that you reference. I do agree that we do not enforce the law as it stands and that it becauce business has not wanted the government politicans to do so and that has gotten us to the point we are today. We have a lot of illegals here in Georgia, who work the chicken farms and we regularly see INS raids on local TV.
I think, what we need is a guest worker program. That would solve a lot of problems. We can sign up the folks who are here illegally as well as legal [since lots of folks come here for vacation and school and then just stay without permission to do so]. We don't have to offer them anything in the way of citizenship. They must abide by our laws, learn to speak English and employer who want to hire the foreign born must sign an agreement that they will abide by the fair labor lawsand hire only those legally entitled to be here. They will have to pay their taxes and file with the IRS. NO voting in our elections and they cannot buy real estate [that is the law in Mexico; foreigner cannot buy real estate, only lease it for up to 99 years]. We could make the penalties the same as Mexico's, when it comes to guess workers violating our laws.
The trouble with a guest worker program is the problem with immigration, writ large: it creates a subclass of workers without the rights of citizenship, who can thus be exploited and used to undercut the wages of local workers.
An interesting point with regards to the IRS. A very large number of immigrants would actually receive money at the end of the year were they required to file and subject to the same laws and treatment as citizens--a couple big if's, but it might be instructive.
Unless it has changed recently, the 99-year lease law in Mexico only applies to land within a certain distance of the ocean, BTW.
In general, any pretense of symmetry between US and Mexican immigration law or landowning makes little sense on either side, though --- probably you are not trying to present one, Rockerbabe, but I find it worth broadcasting this. I am obviously and visibly foreign in Mexico, but I can pass south without problems, except for occasional federales in serach of bribes, and I would not deny that this is a problem.
I only have problems with officials acting in official capacities on returning to the United States. At times these have been considerable.
Of course, the motives of the two governments are different as well.
bardamu
"The trouble with a guest worker program is the problem with immigration, writ large: it creates a subclass of workers without the rights of citizenship, who can thus be exploited and used to undercut the wages of local workers"
Thats not true. Yes they don't have citizenship rights nor should they, but they do have all the legal rights of workers in our country. The old Bracero type oprograms are dead.
And the guest workers in the legal programs do not lose any monies as illegal workers do because they can't get with held monies back.
Rockerbabe1
"I think, what we need is a guest worker program"
Wec have guest worker programs now. Quite a few of them. The problem is that if a farmer say brings in a seasonal worker under the program applying to farm workers, he is responsible for the, he must pay them a decent wage, he must provide medical coverage and if one is injured severely they are responsible. The legal worker has legal status and can access our laws to redress a wrong such as non payment or rape or physical abuse.
Thats why business's want illegal workers. They are not responsible for them and the illegal has no way to get protection. They have even been murdered and nothing comes of it because other illegals can't be involved is the usual reason.
There will be no Amnesty again and no one is going to get legal status or citizenship again ahead of legal immigrawnts. Never again.
"but it seems to me, that a lot has changed since the 1986 bill"
I don't see any difference except the number of illegals present. Its an identical situation. What differences are you referring to?
I live about 24 road miles from Sasabe, a border town with a border crossing. I live about 54 road miles from Nogales. There is no problem with hoards of Mexicans not respecting our laws. Actually, I don't see many Mexicans. They know better than to show their faces, legal or otherwise. Arivaca, my town, has a large population of hispanics relative to the size of the town's population, but you rarely seem them. They stay at home and mind their business and stay out of the way of the waves of Border Patrol that are swarming around down here. Say, you don't suppose they are the ones you are talking about? And violence? In June of last year, in his home, Mr Gonzales and his 10 year old daughter were murdered by three Minutemen. That is the news that has upset people around here. There has been no drug violence, no drug war, no sensational hollywood type scenario--Just quiet people trying to live quiet lives away from the hysteria of large cities and governments.
We ARE ceasing to be a nation, at least the kind that most of us would like to have. We ARE becoming a nation like some of the totalitarian ones we say we abhor. But you are right, we need a comprehensive, federal law and policy that is fair and just and that takes into account some of the wrongs done to our neighbor to the south. We will never get one, but we do need one. And if we want to stop the drug violence there are two major things we could do right now: stop selling guns to Drug Lords and their minions, and stop the War on Drugs. We need a sane approach to drugs even more than we need immigration reform.
Rockerbabe;As a person,74, of Mexican parentage;my father from Arizona,mother on a train from Mexico this whole thing is a big dust up that may have been cooked up by the Mexican politicians and American ones.The US has been up to their eyeballs in Mexican politics for as long as I can remember just as in many other places around the world. They "helped" in many ways to assure that this last president got in office.Why would the US want a compiant neighbor to the south?I can think of drugs and am sure there are other things.The Mexican political establishment is acting just as one would expect;they are playing copy cat to the DC scum here.Steal from the have-nots to feed the ever greedy haves on both sides of the border.The law is a piece of shit and hypocritical to boot because I cannot be the only one that knows that the US practically put the Mexican President in.It is good to come out in the open but for all the wrong reasons and the only reason that counts and which will not be brought up is the greed on both sides.Will Americans have to do like the Mexicans and be illegal in some other country and find out what it is like not to have even a chance to anything,not even hope,Nada,zip,zilth? Tony
Proponents of this law and the State of Arizona, along with all those Americans who are so vehemently against Illegal Immigrants are hypocrites.
Guadelope Hildago is an ACTIVE treaty and the law of the land. Under that treaty the US not only has to honor land titles granted to persons of Mexican ancestry to lands in the territories now claimed part of the United States, but they can NOT BAR MEXICANS from entry who can claim title to that land.
I find it so very odd that people can pick and choose the laws that have to be honored. Many of these "White Americans" are in ownership or occuptation of land ILLEGALY under the law.
GwNorth
Nice try! But don't hold your breath about the Treaty of Guadelope Hildago or your interpretation of it. We just went through that. Not happening as you well know.
Don't think there are 20 million plus coming to make that claim anyway.
I absolutely, categorically oppose illegal immigration and I am no hypocrite and neither are most of the people that oppose it as I do.
This article is a joke. A whine of democratic talking points. Time to start talking about the problem, not peoples prejudices like Mr. Media.
We already know that while YOU rail about the need to follow the law you yourself stated that such should only apply when it practical.
You are saying "These illegal immigrants should follow the LAW" yet absolutely ignore the law when it conveneient to YOU.
The treaty has never been rescinded. Treaty law is supreme under the US Constituion. In order to extinguish treaty law you need to amend the constitution and remove the supremacy clause.
You are a hyprocrite because you allow a pass on "breaking the law" when you think it does your cause good. If it not "realistic" to follow the law in the case of treaties, then if your Governmnet stated "it not realistic to keep out illegal immigrants" then by your own philosophy you would agree with them.
"but they can NOT BAR MEXICANS from entry who can claim title to that land."
Ok. So which of the 12 million illegal aliens here can clam title to the land? It is not a collective title you know, it is the individual that owns that land and holds legal title that can be traced back to the treaty signing. Someone would have to be the descendant of that land holder AND hold the current legal title, then they have a right to enter under treaty law. Just making the claim that the land is held in common to all citizens of Mexico is a non-starter.
>> It is not a collective title you know, it is the individual that owns that land and holds legal title that can be traced back to the treaty signing
Actually you would be wrong. UInder the treaty the US GOvernmnet agreed to recognize all property rights INCLUDING Communal proeprty rights. California in particular had Mexican settlements and lands that were owned communaly.
What the Government would do is say to group of 1000 people in a Village is "If you move to and colonize this new land we will give your community title to the land".
This same theory of land ownership applies to native American Indian tribes. They do not have to PROVE an individual owned a parcle of land. They need only show COMMON ownership.
This is a well known precedent in the law.
Exactly right.
But the treaty is even more widely pertinent than that.
"Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional."
It would be nice if the author or anyone else could state where in the actual law it states these claims. I'm hoping someone on CD can back up their position by quoting me from the actual law itself (not just it's a racist law) what they do/don't agree with.
THOSE WHO READ MY LONG POST TO A SIMILAR THREAD PLEASE SCROLL BY, with my apologies for the repetition, but I cannot in conscience pass this by.
The law is racist and absymal. Since we want specifics, let me start by stating what I do NOT mean by that:
1. I do not mean that the law explicitly makes racist statements, which would be a rather silly for a crop of racists to do if they want to pass a law.
2. I do not mean that every person who supports the law does so out of racism.
3. I do not mean that the only motives for supporting the law are racist.
The law is racist because it allows and even forces officers to engage in racial discrimination, as follows:
1. The law does make law enforcement officers liable if they do not confront people who may be suspected of being foreign and without papers.
Who can one reasonably suspect of being undocumented? Anyone who appears foreign or engages in manual labor, housekeeping or the like, right?
Who appears foreign in Arizona? Well, unless you're between the Grand Canyon or the Colorado River and the liquor store, we're not talking about Europeans, but about people who are of what is called "hispanic descent."
In the American southwest, this either means a foreign accent, a Spanish name, or Native American features.
In Arizona, are Native American features indicative of foreign descent? As contradictory as it sounds and despite the presence of several tribes of Native Americans, yes, they are. It certainly does not constitute proof, but the statistical correlation is high, quite high enough for suspicion. And the officers are to stop people not for proof, but for suspicion.
As the law is written, if an officer allows a person who looks Hispanic and is not personally known to the officer to pass without question, that officer has broken the law, just like an officer who does not make an arrest in cases of apparent domestic violence breaks a law in many places.
Now, I suspect you would not argue to me that no racism exists in Arizona. Why would those who are racist, do want to profile people by race and respond aggressively to that profiling not put themselves in a position in which they are not only allowed but required to do so?
Further, why would an officer in Arizona who is not racist be at least tempted to leave, given that the law requires him to engage in racist activities regardless of his impressions of a given situation?
The law drives non-racists away from law enforcement by criminalizing not just foreign nationals, but officers who do not harass foreign nationals.
Further, is anyone arguing that this law requires all residents of Arizona to carry proof of residency or citizenship all the time? Am I--a blue-eyed, white citizen with a native US accent--required to carry papers at all times and susceptible to arrest if I do not have them? If so, I object for other reasons. But this does not appear to be the case at all. On the other hand, does my wife, a US citizen with brown eyes, Native American cheekbones, and a Spanish-language accent, have to carry those papers?
You bet. Why?
Because of her race.
I'll tell you something else. It is also an elitist, classist law. If my wife drove a Mercedez, an officer would be a lot more entitled to not imagine her to be undocumented, no?
Without pretending to read your mind, one major problem in the general discussion is that people do not like to call the measures they do support racist, regardless of the specific, straightforward, and ample reasons to do so.
In the 1960's, my teachers said that they were not racist, but that King's supporters were beaten because they "made trouble." My father claims that he is not racist but that Jews and Middle-Easterners are argumentative and irrational. Some of my foreign contacts tell me that white people are naturally hot-blooded and licentious, incapable of sexual fidelity and little prone to feelings of piety---but not that they themselves are racist.
Maybe you yourself are not racist, but I am glad to not be required to stop you for suspicion.
"The law is racist because it allows and even forces officers to engage in racial discrimination, as follows:
1. The law does make law enforcement officers liable if they do not confront people who may be suspected of being foreign and without papers."
from the actual law as it is written,
"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION"
I'm happy to debate the merits of this law but I have yet to see a poster state where in the actual law it is written to the claims being made. Please lets have an honest debate not just recycled opinions that you have read.
bardamu
Let me say to you that expressing your opinions or posting what you see as problems ever need an apology for repeating anything. Just wanted to make clear what most of us think.
1. The law does make law enforcement officers liable if they do not confront people who may be suspected of being foreign and without papers.
As to this, the way I read it, it is limited to the police departments, not the individual policemen.
For the rest you make some very good arguments. Though I would point out thast we all need to carry identification for obvious reasons and if you don't have a drivers license while driving the police officer might be right in considering you are breaking the law.
Then we come to your argument as to the likelihood of abuse because of race. Seems a no brainer to me, the fact is that most of the million illegals in Arizona are Latino, in fact mostly Hispanic so it would follow they would bear the brunt of this law.
Frankly I doubt the law will stand. I don't know that its such a good idea to put such responsibility on out police officers. The majority will act correctly, but the cowboy's always present in every department will abuse it.
I don't believe for one minute the people of Arizona are motivated by racism and part of the reason that I believe that is the fact that most Hispanics do not favor illegal immigration for obvious reasons. And for the same reasons that the rest of Americans of other ethnic backgrounds oppose it.
But here you make another very good point...
"I'll tell you something else. It is also an elitist, classist law. If my wife drove a Mercedez, an officer would be a lot more entitled to not imagine her to be undocumented, no?"
The answer to that is yes, of course, as you well know.
Thats why I've decided as I wrote this reply that the law as it stands is not that good an idea because it does not address the rerasl problem, the employers and organizations that exploit cheap labor.
This law puts the enforcement at exactly the wrong place, on the individuals. It should be focused on the exploiters, the abusers, the scum that enslave, violate and cheat large portions of the illegal community.
But I will make one point clear, opposing illegal immigration is not racist, though some who oppose it of course are, but they are such a small per centage they are not worth considering.
Any American should oppose it based on legal, moral and compassionate concerns to say the least.
I would also say that this law is unfair to police officers and I believe some would consider leaving because of it, just as I believe most will ignore it unless they really need it. In the end, I don't think it will stand.
And thanks for your post.
I'm glad to see the comments here so reasonable. Unlike the article itself.
Like robots the dems are saying, oh terrible, terrible, racist, but of course we need real immigration reform, of course we understand the Arizonians.
And just what is this immigration reform going to look like? About that we hear nothing. How are you going to do immigration reform without asking people for their papers?
Both the corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans are too gutless to demand actual enforcement of present federal laws against corporations hiring aliens without proper work permits. If corporations stopped hiring illegal aliens, then the aliens would finally just go home. Problem solved.
Republicans and teabaggers love to crow about "less government," but they happily are supporting a Gestapo Police State in Arizona aimed at Latinos.
The thing is that a lot of the rich businesses in AZ LIKE the influx from Mexico because they pay minimum wage! I lived in Phoenix for 2 years and almost became homeless working full time. A friend of mine got married to a guy who worked as a cook at the Hilton --- making $7 an hour and she made $7 working in an office. When they had A baby, they had to accept food stamps just to feed the baby even though both parents worked hard full time. I went through hospital training to do EKGs and draw blood -- at $6.80 an hour!!! I tried to tell the people from Mexico NOT to take such low wages and to demand more but they were scared understandably. So the rich like it because then they have someone to exploit. And, with typical hypocrisy, they want them all thrown back over the border saying they want their stupid country back. They make me sick.
The Arizona White Racist Know-nothings have just signed their death warrant.
Eugene Costa
How so, not that they are "Arizona White Racist Know-nothings" ? Thats the second time you've suggested that.
Maybe you could rephrase that,
Sure:
"The Anglo Know-nothing White Racist Arizonans have just signed their death warrant."
Happy now?
You had better look up "Know-nothing". You may be surprised. It's a political term.
Why the flag? This is a mild racist comment compared to many posted here and doesn't deserve a flagging in my opinion. Agreement isn't required to post on CD is it?
Complicated dreams.
Sleep sleep sleep - snore snore snore - while quietly the US Army Corps of Engineers levitates Mexico, transports it across the Pacific Ocean, and connects it gently to Australia. What a great joke to play on the Strines, eh?
They wake up to find a bazillion people running off a land mass they seem to regard as a prison from which it is their genetic duty to escape. While half begin having sex sans birth control, the other half begin rooting around for jobs that Aussies "don't want to take", registering kids for school, waiting doe-eyed in Emerge, seeking the Vote, and adding eucalyptus leaves to their food.
The stunned population of Australia demands their government do something. The Strine government unanimously passes an Act of Parliament that consists of two racist words: "Go away."
But this does no good as the Parliamentary Act is not in their language which, they presume, should soon be made the second language of Australia; hey, it happened before. So the Aussie Army Corp of Engineers begins trying to figure out how the Yanks did it. Just in case they do, US Navy carriers are patrolling the seas against a return of Mexico to this hemisphere. Soon all other nations with an ocean coast are doing the same thing, for fear Mexico will be butted up against them. It is an international conundrum - a country without a home.
Round the clock meetings and negotiations at the United Nations result in every nation but one agreeing that Mexico should become the largest of the Philippine Islands. Guess which nation objected.
"Phew! What a crazy dream that was," I tell my neighbor.
"Mine was different," she says. "In mine there was a plebiscite, and we voted to move the entire United States over near Australia. This solution meant Mexico could stay exactly where it was. How could it complain?
You have just described in microcosm the history of Ities in Oz.
Mostly Sicilians and Calabrians and such actually--but in "English" that usually translates "Itie."
Are all Arizona cops Anglos? If I was a non-Anglo cop in Arizona, I would reasonably suspect that Anglos walking down the street had illegally entered the country from Canada or Europe, and demand to see their "papers." If they didn't have them in their possession, off to jail they go. The Anglo population won't mind, because they want the law administered fairly.
There are plenty of hispanic cops in Arizona. There are thousands of hispanics who have lived here for generations, who speak English like any anglo, who are in every way "Americans". Furthermore, some of their ancestors have been here since the 18th century. Many of them come from families who were cheated out of their land by unscrupulous anglos. The same goes for Amerinds. This whole "immigration problem" is a crock of gringo shit. It is about as legit as our 'War on Drugs". If it weren't for the financial disaster that the Bush administration the the neo-conservatives brought upon us, if it weren't for people being out of work and loosing their houses, if it weren't for the need to have a scapegoat, we would not be having this ridiculous situation. I live right in the middle of it, near Nogales in Arizona, and THERE IS NO PROBLEM except for the hysteria of the right wingers and for the flood of money being pumped into unnecessary programs such as fence building and Border Patrol helicopters and Inspection Stations.
Lot farther back than the 18th Century, ace.
Please see comment section at http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/27-9#comment-1490188
for excerpts from prominent education historian Joel Spring as he explains and well-documents, with other historians, the "invention" of the shifting “now you see it, now you don’t” social constructs of “whiteness” and “race,” whom and what they served – and how and why.
What might these histories "laws," and ever-changing "definitions" of "whiteness" and “legality” illuminated by Spring have to do what’s happening in Arizona TODAY regarding the kind of immigration reform unfolding there?
How may these histories complicate the claim made by the bill’s sponsor, GOP State Senator Russell Pearce, that: “This law is not about race,” he said. “It's about what is illegal”?
(Excerpts in the posts are from Joel Spring’s The American School: 1642-2004, Sixth Edition, New York: McGraw Hill, 2005 - with an excerpt from historian Tim Tyson’s Blood Done Sign My Name: A True Story, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.)
Everyone knows the real problem and no one wants to talk about it, or do anything about it:
Human beings come to the Greatest Nation In The History Of History for one main reason: to work for whatever crumbs we exceptional, God-fearing Americans are will to throw at them, as long as the keep their f**king mouths shut and work like dogs.
If there weren't plenty of slaughterhouse jobs and crop-picking jobs and fast-food jobs and Walmart jobs and janitor jobs and nanny jobs and landscaping jobs us 'real' Americans either won't, or can't afford to, do, there would be very little 'illegal' immigration.
Is Arizona cracking down on white people who employ 'illegal' immigrants? No. Are police allowed to stop and question any white person who sparks 'reasonable suspicion' he might be employing 'illegal' immigrants? No. Is Arizona raiding businesses and arresting the employers/abusers of 'illegal' immigrants? No.
Why not? Because they all bribed the Governor and Legislature. Period.
We're Number One... in going backwards fast...
If you think this law is bad, what will you think of the response when the desert and semi-desert climate zones relentlessly advance northward, pushing tens of millions of people ahead of them? In his book "Climate Wars", Gwynne Dyer describes a possible future in which the U.S. government stops pussyfooting with fences and Minutemen and lays on the razor wire, landmines, and automated machine guns. And then has to deal with the backlash from the tens of millions of Hispanic-Americans incensed at the resulting death toll.
Dafoe
That new law is another step in the direction of apartheid, with the "ne blanc"(Afrikaans for non white) being issued passbooks, the next step is to herd them into ghetto's with another name, then seperate schools etc etc. The white folk will then be much safer from the non existent threats from the "ne blanc", legal or illegal.
As for the tea party, like the Repugnants, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt? I sure as hell wouldn't want to go to sea with the Guvner or McCain, the only good place for them would be as jeep drivers on the jettison bill.