A man that didn’t break the law the moment he set foot in this country. Or as Khan from King of Hill once said, “It so easy to get in, I can’t believe I had to learn the Bill of Rights.”
Well, in my case I could say that the Reagan and Bush senior administrations broke American and international laws to support the murderous right wing military dictatorships in Central America and that lead to people like me to set foot in this country.
The result was that indeed I broke the law then but later even the Republicans realized the jerks that they were for denying political asylum to many then.
So, amnesty and the NACARA law allowed me later to get residency first and then citizenship. So yeah, I had to learn the bill of rights after I broke the law, but when even the Republicans back then understood that there were humanitarian reasons to change the law to allow many to become good American citizens. Sadly, inhumanity reigns among the current crops of Republicans and Teabaggers.
That’s why I’m not against having extra help from the states to help the Feds identify illegal immigrants. In effect as it is now we are telling legal immigrants and law-abiding Americans “screw you, we’d rather employ lawbreakers.”
Should officers be required to ask for proof of citizenship if they have reasonable suspicion? No way. Many officers would perform loads of racial profiling just in case, for fear of negative consequences if they didn’t (i.e. if the person they stopped turns out to be a dangerous criminal and you had no suspicion they were other than a “suspicion” about their immigration status, or if your boss thinks that all brown people are illegals and you don’t stop enough of them.)
Should they be allowed to? I’d be more ambivalent about that, but that’s not what this law says AFAIK which is why I’m against it.
What tools should we use to curb this? Better border enforcement and workplace enforcement would both be better than pretty much randomly checking within a state, and both are less intrusive. I’m not against a fence except in terms of cost (“Oh noes, we have barbed wire, we’re teh Nazis!!!111”)
The southern border is 1956 miles long. Border Patrol may have 700 miles covered. Over 500 ,000 people illegally cross the border every year. I guess they won’t come to Arizona anymore. Problem solved.
Those who claim the US does very little about it are wrong. But what do they suggest, a great wall be built along the border?
Arizona police already get immigration information from those they pull over for a transgression. This law actually forces them to question others who they have reason to suspect are illegals. I would not wear a sombrero or grow a mustache in Arizona. This will result in the harassment of dark skinned people. Some of the police resent getting pushed into doing it. It is an ugly thing to do: stop a person for being the wrong color. It is not supposed to be the American way. But, people have little trouble giving up their freedoms when they think it will only be applied to others. It does not usually work that way. Many legal aliens will be harassed as they go along minding their own business.
The single biggest problem with reagan granting amnesty is that it encouraged more illegals to come here. There were, ostensibly, under 3 million illegals here then. That has grown to anywhere from 12 - 20 million. His amnesty told illegals: just get there and wait, and you, too, will be granted amnesty. And that thinking has proven to be logical. First, Bush tried his Amnesty Light. And now Obama wants to similarly shirk his duty and do the same thing.
Any immigration policy should serve the needs of the host country. If they need more people, they can allow in more people. If they don’t, they can close the spigot some. The laws simply are the framework to allow that immigration to happen. A tightly controlled border allows them to know WHO they are letting in, and IF they should be let in. Even during the great waves of immigrants coming through Ellis Island, we knew who was coming in. We also were able to check them for diseases. And if we viewed them as a risk to the populace we sent them back This was done routinely. And this was during a period when we wanted increased immigration numbers.
The Arizona law seeks to address what the federal government has failed to do. Additionally, as a border state, they are entrenched in the most unsavory parts of illegal activity: human and drug trafficking. And the violence they can bring. Also, given the increased violence across the border (not to mention that we know there are groups that would love to sneak a dirty bomb into the U.S.) makes it imperative that SOMEONE talk a hard stance. The Feds have shown no inclination to act, so the people are left to fend themselves. I think it’s great that people are acting to protect and improve their communities. We need more of this kind of activity, not less. They should make Arpaio the Chief Immigration Law Enforcement official in the U.S.
Problems? How about the strain they put on hospital via emergency room visits. Hospitals in the south west have closed due, in part, to this added stress. And that leaves out the treatment citizens—who pay for it—wind up receiving.
How about schools? Since we allow the children of illegals to attend our schools, the percentage of speakers other than English is increased. This adds to the cost of education, makes for more crowded classrooms, and slows up the class because a larger percent of them can’t keep up. Yes, they can be removed to their own classes, but then you simply have increase and increased cost that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for.
I’d love for the marketplace to set the wages and the need for more workers. (Which, by the way, can be solved by increasing immigration or having a guest-worker program, like Canada.) First, there’s the nonsense that “illegals are just doing work Americans don’t want to do”. And that is simply bullshit. What is true is that Americans don’t want to do those jobs for the same wages that illegals are willing to do them. Illegals might be willing to Job A for $X, but Americans won’t. But an American might be willing to do it for 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0 X. THAT would be letting the market set the need. And who do you think gets hurt the most when you allow in a workforce willing to work below market wages? For the jobs we’re talking about it’s those on the bottom rungs of the economic scale. One group that has traditionally done well in times of low worker supply in America is Blacks. Subsequently, they have been harmed the most while illegals come in a take jobs.
Think about it, why do employers hire illegals? Because it’s more profitable to do so. That means that an American worker loses out on a job every time an illegal is employed. And given the Unemployment Rate we now have, do you really think its a good idea to have more non-citizens taking jobs form Americans who need them so desperately?
For anyone interested, here’s an article pointing to a real world employment tensions between illegals and Blacks:
Wow, what a racist article.
Purely out of curiosity, does anyone else find the term “illegal” (as a noun) tasteless? I mean, these are people, and they are not illegal — they are merely here illegally. Normally, if you do something illegal, the proper term is “criminal” — but of course, that would be too obvious a slur, and too obviously ridiculous, so it’s easier to just shorten “illegal alien”
“Illegal alien” is at least a technical term. “Illegal immigrant” makes sense too. Dropping the second word removes the context and makes it just another offensive slur. It’s poisoning the well, but very subtly, so nobody can object.
Seriously, am I just weird?
We could call them criminals. Does that make it better?
Well, like I said, you couldn’t really get away with it, since it’s more obvious. But at least it’s more honest.
(And actually, I think one or another of these immigration threads had a hijack about whether or not they were criminals — the claim being no, since most of the ways of being in the US illegally are misdemeanours. Still, beats “illegal”.)
No, you’re right. The intent is to dehumanize, and to do so based on race.
Oh, and, to respond seriously, you could call them “illegal aliens”, or “illegal immigrants”. Anything wrong with that? For that matter, “aliens” is technically incorrect, but might still work.
ETA: Dio, I don’t know whether it’s based on race or not, though it certainly doesn’t use race. There might be shades of “Jap” and “Paki” and all that fun stuff in there, but I’m not sure enough to assert it definitively. (Come to think of it, “aliens” would be just as bad that way, wouldn’t it…)
What crimes have the committed (being undocumented is not a crime. Just FYI)?
Misdemeanors are not crimes?
A word to the left if I may. People who are in the country without a valid visa are breaking the law. Aliens who work with a valid work visa are breaking the law. We are a country of laws. If you don’t like our immigration policies work to change them. If you decide that some laws can just be ignored, then other people will decide they can ignore other laws. Maybe they’ll ignore the law that it’s OK to beat up homosexuals, or that you need to pay overtime for working more than 40 hours a week, or ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling that teachers may not lead students in prayer.
The US not only has the right, it has the obligation, to set immigration policies and enforce them. Aliens who work without proper permission drive down the wages and working conditions for people who work legally. Denying this is like denying gravity. You can see the effects in the building trades and other professions which the lower and middle class have relied on to provide a living.
If you want to practice civil disobedience, go ahead; but acknowledge that you are breaking a law and be willing to accept the consequences.
I support some sort of amnesty, a guest worker program, and a serious look at our immigration quotas. None of that will work, however, if we don’t crack down on the border.
The AZ law is stupid, because it will end up harassing citizens who don’t look white enough. It was inevitable, however, because of the lack of substantive changes to immigration policy. If you want to know who to blame look in the mirror. Playing stupid games about what you call people who are here without proper visas, or denying that we have a problem does not help anyone. It makes you and your cause look ridiculous.
Is it really not? Certainly there’s some law, code, statute or ordnance that’s being broken…?
-Joe
Not a criminal statute. They can be deported, but they can’t be charged with a crime.
Employing an undocumented worker is breaking the law. How do you think such criminals should be punished?
By lowering their taxes: DUH!
For crying out loud, what do you think? They should be prosecuted within an inch of their life. The companies should be fined and they should forfeit any government contracts. I’m not sure if there are criminal penalties for hiring illegal workers, but I’d support it.
I’m not sure why cracking down on illegal immigrants doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also punish firms hiring them. It is even more important to go after the employers. You are making a false dichotomy.
Is this a civil code issue? I can’t really tell:
Emphasis added.