Dyer on Arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants

May 3rd, 2010 at 8:31 am by David Farrar

writes:

But suppose I went to Mexico as a tourist and then stayed there illegally, taking work that might otherwise have gone to some deserving Mexican citizen. I would not be treated more gently by the Mexican authorities.

Why does Mexico believe that its own citizens who are illegally in the deserve better treatment?

Generally speaking an illegal immigrant has few rights – they are in a country in defiance of that country’s law. It annoys me that many stories do not distinguish between immigrants and illegal immigrants. There is a world of difference.

Each year the number of permanently resident illegal immigrants grows. Even in Arizona, where there is not a huge demand for agricultural labour, there are now an estimated 460,000 illegal Mexican immigrants, about 7 per cent of Arizona’s total population.

Some argue that they are doing jobs nobody else wants, but that is only a possible reason for letting them stay. It certainly does not give them the right to stay.

There is certainly no right to say.

Having said that don’t think trying to evict every illegal immigrant in the US is productive or practical. I would support an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have work to come forward and become legal immigrants. This should be a one off opportunity. The reality is many immigrants are providing valuable labour and goods and services.

Following the amnesty, then there should be a serious effort at minimising future illegal , and detecting and deporting quickly illegal immigrants

Arizona is calling time on that system, and intends to seek out and send home people who are in the state illegally.

In most parts of the world, that would not be regarded as unreasonable. What is different in Arizona’s case?

The implicit charge is racism. The assumption is that American citizens of Mexican origin, and legitimate Mexican visitors, will also be stopped and asked to prove they are legally in the United States – and that they will be chosen for questioning on the grounds they simply look “Mexican”.

That is a legitimate concern.

Simply enforce the same rules that apply in airport security queues to ensure that nobody feels they are being “profiled” because of their ethnicity.

In the airports, they make sure that heavily bearded young men who look “Middle Eastern” face no greater risk of being selected for special examination than paraplegic grandmothers.

I’ve never been convinced this is a particularly sensible policy. And yes I know that is contradictory a bit to the above, but I regard your right to board a plane without facing a couple of questions as far less a right than walking down your local street without harassment.

The Arizona police should be instructed to stop 13 white, black and Asian people and check that they are legally in the state for every person they stop who looks “Mexican”.

Then nobody will have anything to complain about.

That might well be what they do. Of course I suspect it will be fairly ineffective and we will just see a lot of illegal immigrants shift to other states.

Tags: , ,

57 Responses to “Dyer on Arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants”

  1. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ‘Probably the most effective way to address the immigration portion of the border problem would include rigidly enforcing the following:

    1) All undocumented foreigners within the borders to be declared felons
    2) Foreign residents must prove they are not a burden on society
    3) Immigration authorities must have a record of each foreign visitor
    4) Visitors must not violate their visa status
    5) A ban on interfering with internal politics i.e. public protests and marches
    6) Imprisonment or deportation of those entering under false pretenses
    7) Those aiding illegal immigration shall be imprisoned
    8.) Public transport companies that import undocumented foreigners will be fined
    9) Marrying a foreigner for the sole purpose of legalizing residence is prohibited

    Thats the law in Mexico-

    Hat tip Crusader Rabbit

    http://crusader-rabbit.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-to-fix-border-problem.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    When did they become “illegal immigrants”? This is a contridictory term, they are illegal aliens with empahsis on the illegal.

    they have no “right” to be there at all. Rick Giles got his dumass thrown in jail trying to leave the US because his visa was a few days over its limit. If his name had been Miguel he wiould have suddenly been called an “immigrant” and been given rights?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. BlairM (2,288 comments) says:

    I honestly can’t believe the fuss about what Arizona is doing. There’s more than one leftwing site out there complaining the new law makes it “illegal to be an illegal immigrant”. Ummmm… yes. That’s what “illegal” means. It means “illegal”. What did you think illegal meant?!

    The only real issue is the racial profiling one – Americans are insanely sensitive about race. But a lot of these towns near the border, such as my own, are majority Hispanic anyway. Profiling only becomes an issue if you are picking on an embattled minority, but ’round here, whitey is the minority, and hell, they can ask to see my green card if they want. I won’t think the Hispanic cops are racially profiling me ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Why doesn’t Dyer address the concerns driving the citizens of Arizona???? The concerns that are at the heart of this issue- High crime rates among illegal immigrants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    whatever they do the first thing is to stem or stop the flow.
    so that means a fence which they did budget for but Obama has deliberately (and bush before him) obstructed in a hands off way.

    the they can deal to the other issues.
    as long as the illegals can work and school their kids, get medical care then they have no incentive to leave.
    that’s probably the second item on the list.

    Arizona is doing what all the states should have done years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    Mike, I think the fence may be similar to a stable door, many horses ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Mark Steyn:-

    “President Obama, shooting from his lip, attacked the new law as an offense against “fairness.” Where’s the fairness for this woman’s family? Because her home is in Arizona rather than Hyde Park, Chicago, she’s just supposed to get used to living under siege? Like Gillian Duffy in northern England, this lady has to live there, while the political class that created this situation climbs back into the limo and gets driven far away.”

    “That’s Arizona. To the coastal commentariat, “undocumented immigrants” are the people who mow your lawn while you’re at work and clean your office while you’re at home. (That, for the benefit of Linda Greenhouse, is the real apartheid: the acceptance of a permanent “undocumented” servant class by far too many “documented” Americans who assuage their guilt by pathetic sentimentalization of immigration.) But in border states illegal immigration is life and death.”

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/arizona-246688-brown-immigration.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Theres also an issue with the Mexian army making armed incursions into the US and shooting at border patrols. that wont get much air play though because it doesn’t make the US look bad for trying to secure its borders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    The implicit charge is racism. The assumption is that American citizens of Mexican origin, and legitimate Mexican visitors, will also be stopped and asked to prove they are legally in the United States – and that they will be chosen for questioning on the grounds they simply look “Mexican”.

    That is a legitimate concern.

    I believe that is the main concern, That police have the right to stop anyone, anytime and ask for identification without any kind of justification. In reality it means anyone who looks Mexican or foreign is by default suspicious.

    I am surprised that you right wing defenders of personal freedom and liberty have absolutely no problem with what is essentially the first big step towards a police state.

    Red, all the things that you listed are also law in the US today and have been for the longest time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Gwynne Dyer is a long time member of the corrupt and lying mainstream media. (He willingly promoted the lie that George Bush has a below 100 IQ). The corrupt media that are behind so much of what is ill with the world today.

    Here’s a report on anti-Arizona law protestors rioting and carrying out acts of destruction. But its not of course from the mainstream media. Its from the blogosphere.

    http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/violent-leftists-wielding-torches-riot-smash-windows-burn-a-coffee-house-after-immigration-protest-media-silent/

    Meanwhile, the MM strives to portray Tea Party protestors as violent, and while Barak Obama sends SWAT teams to intimidate protesting grandmothers, cops take one hour to show up to the above scene of destruction.

    http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/04/28/team-obama-calls-out-swat-team-on-tea-party-patriots/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20BigGovernment%20%28Big%20Government%29

    Our whole political paradigm is utterly corrupt, and at the heart of that corruption is the mainstream media. The immigration debate, or any political debate, cannot proceed while these politically partisan liars and charlatans posing as objective commentators control and distort and twist so much of the information that is channeled to the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. BlairM (2,288 comments) says:

    I am surprised that you right wing defenders of personal freedom and liberty have absolutely no problem with what is essentially the first big step towards a police state.

    A police state is one which harasses its own citizens unnecessarily. We’re talking about someone else’s citizens, and even then, only ones without a green card. The cops can harass those folk all they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Jcw (98 comments) says:

    The reality is that these are economic migrants, they are there becaues there is demand for their labour. Perhapds a realistic numner of migrants should be allowed into America, one mirroring the scale of the demand for them. Its impossible to secure a land border, of this scale, against migrants when there are jobs to be had. Who gains from the economic migrants? Employers, and the migrants themselves. The economy as a whole benefits from cheap labourers too. Who loses? Lazy, pathetic people who can’t compete and are unable to harness opportunity, despite living in a land of relative plenty, people who demand they be paid more than they are worth, by virtue of birth, at the expense of their fellow countrymen-bussiness owners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Eszett, the assumption that sane people should waste time dealing with your narcissistic fantasy based trolling is an idea only an utter dumbarse like you could come up with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    your narcissistic fantasy based trolling

    I didn’t think it was Eszett that keeps repeating a fantasy that somehow the whole MSM could be reformed to fit one person’s ideal and that would fix the world.

    There is a lot more to the US immigration problems than how it is reported in the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. tom hunter (4,430 comments) says:

    I am surprised that you right wing defenders of personal freedom and liberty have absolutely no problem with what is essentially the first big step towards a police state.

    You mean a police state that threatens to arrest a man for an election poster in his bedroom window, and charges silly old pastors with hooliganism for what they say.

    Britain under Labour I believe – enforcing a mode of thinking long pushed by the eszett’s of the world

    The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe,”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    In my experience living in the US, there’s a lot of duplicity on the illegal immigration issue. The public and politicians make much mileage out of the problem, but seem happy to consume the cheap services provided by these people. Look in any restaurant kitchen, construction site, or see who’s mowing the lawns and doing the gardens of the condominium complex.

    To solve the problem you have to make it harder for these people to work. But at the moment it’s very easy. Why is that? I believe it’s because many are happy with this unofficial second-class citizen arrangement. Keep it easy for these people to find work, but at the same time make no steps to legalise their status so they can be employed cheaply and without any costly benefits. There’s a fundamental dishonesty at the heart of this and you can’t have it both ways. Well you can actually.

    G.W Bush to his credit tried to do something about this problem with a proposed amnesty and guest-worker scheme. But I think this idea failed to recognise that the illegality of these workers is one of their attractions. It means they don’t complain, they have none of the normal rights and they’re cheap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    So right Mr. Hunter. What kind of hopeless moron could ever be so utterly out of it to write that this is “the first step”. The first step occurred years ago when European Fascism projected as liberalism was first injected into the minds of a generation of half educated well indoctrinated knuckle dragging thugs like Eszett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “a fantasy that somehow the whole MSM could be reformed to fit one person’s ideal and that would fix the world.”

    You’re so hopelessly troglodytian. Its largely accepted among the sane and aware people of the world that the Progressives have captured the mainstream media. The evidence is indisputable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    The evidence is so indisputable, it’s not necessary to discuss it. :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Qick question, what proportion of people entering the United States from Mexico are NOT Hispanic?

    The elft of course would like Andrew Wilson, 5’11′, blonde ahir and blue eyes who was not running from the cop car to be taken in a grilled because that would be politically correct.

    A complete waste of fucking time and money, but politically correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    MT_Tinman (769) Says:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 10:06 am

    The implicit charge is racism. The assumption is that American citizens of Mexican origin, and legitimate Mexican visitors, will also be stopped and asked to prove they are legally in the United States – and that they will be chosen for questioning on the grounds they simply look “Mexican”.

    That is a legitimate concern.

    No it’s fucking not!

    It’s PC fuckwittery at it’s worst.

    The problem is with Mexicans illegally in the country.

    Stopping Mexicans and asking to prove their legality is not just sensible and a damned sight more efficient but less racist than stopping white/black people just because they are black/white and the police need to make up the numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Amnesty, favoured by craven left wing Republicans like Bush and McCain, was stopped a couple of years ago BY AN UPRISING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Stop shouting. Adults are talking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. big bruv (13,316 comments) says:

    If you have ever wondered why the left hate racial profiling with a passion it is this……

    BECAUSE IT WORKS!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. BlairM (2,288 comments) says:

    Stopping Mexicans and asking to prove their legality is not just sensible and a damned sight more efficient but less racist than stopping white/black people just because they are black/white and the police need to make up the numbers.

    It’s really not that simple. The majority of the people here in Corpus, for example, look Mexican, but are in fact American citizens who have lived here legally for generations. Some are even descended from people who lived here when Texas was a Mexican province.

    It’s possible maybe 10% of these are actual illegal Mexicans, but with those odds it’s a little silly to go around asking everybody. And in fact, contrary to what the hysterical left would have you believe, that’s not what the Arizona law does. All it does is ask cops to check the legal status of people in the course of their usual business. It’s not calling for dawn raids. It’s giving local police the power to do what the Feds ought to be doing, but aren’t.

    The racial profiling issue is of small concern, but largely a red herring in this debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “And in fact, contrary to what the hysterical left would have you believe, that’s not what the Arizona law does. ”

    That too is exactly right, but the public do not know this because they are deliberately misled by the lying partisan mainstream media.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/01/coulter-ive-never-seen-any-issue-lied-about-much-ariz-immigration-law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***Having said that don’t think trying to evict every illegal immigrant in the US is productive or practical. I would support an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have work to come forward and become legal immigrants. This should be a one off opportunity.***

    David,

    This is a bad idea. They tried this in 1986 as a ‘one off’ and illegal immigration only increased. The long term effects have been devastating for states like California, which is now nearly bankrupt. One of the major problems being that subsequent generations academically lag and require affirmative action.

    “In short, we are witnessing a highly advanced and prosperous state, long endowed with superior human capital, turning into the exact opposite in just one generation. What can be done to stop this race to the bottom? The answer is simple: California and Washington need to enforce existing immigration law. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince the public that this is necessary, so deeply entrenched are myths about illegal immigration.

    One myth is that because America is a country of immigrants and has successfully absorbed waves of immigration in the past, it can absorb this wave. But the argument neglects two key differences between past waves and the current influx. First, the immigrant population is more than double today what it was following the most massive previous immigration wave (that of the late 19th century). Second, and much more important, as scholars from the Manhattan Institute have shown, earlier immigrants were much more likely to bring with them useful skills. Some Hispanic immigrants certainly do integrate, but most do not. Research has shown that even after 20 years in the country, most illegal aliens (the overwhelming majority of whom are Hispanic) and their children remain poor, unskilled, and culturally isolated they constitute a new permanent underclass.

    Perhaps the most disingenuous myth about illegal immigrants is that they do not impose any cost on society. The reality is that even those who work and half do not, according to the Pew Hispanic Center cannot subsist on the wages they receive and depend on public assistance to a large degree. Research on Los Angeles immigrants by Harvard University scholar George J. Borjas shows that 40.1 percent of immigrant families with non-citizen heads of household receive welfare, compared with 12.7 percent of households with native-born heads. Illegal immigrants also increase public expenditures on health care, education, and prisons. In California today, illegal immigrants’ cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be $13 billion half the state’s budget deficit.

    The state should stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens as existing statutes demand and severely punish employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants. This would immediately remove powerful economic incentives for illegal immigration, and millions of illegal aliens would return to their countries. Instead, with President Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress, an amnesty for the country’s 13 million illegal immigrants may be soon to come.

    Milton Friedman once said that unrestrained immigration and the welfare state do not mix. Must we wait until California catches up with Mexico to realize how right he was?”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112167023

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    # BlairM (750) Says:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 9:38 am

    I am surprised that you right wing defenders of personal freedom and liberty have absolutely no problem with what is essentially the first big step towards a police state.

    A police state is one which harasses its own citizens unnecessarily. We’re talking about someone else’s citizens, and even then, only ones without a green card. The cops can harass those folk all they want.

    It’s exactly what the law in in Arizona allows. The police to harass anyone (it’s own citizen as well as anyone else) without any kind of suspicion other than that they don’t like their look.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    Jason Richwine has also written in National Review about the growing underclass created by the large scale low skill immigration from Mexico:

    “They’re not just like the Irish — or the Italians or the Poles, for that matter. The large influx of Hispanic immigrants after 1965 represents a unique assimilation challenge for the United States. Many optimistic observers have assumed — incorrectly, it turns out — that Hispanic immigrants will follow the same economic trajectory European immigrants did in the early part of the last century. Many of those Europeans came to America with no money and few skills, but their status steadily improved. Their children outperformed them, and their children’s children were often indistinguishable from the “founding stock.” The speed of economic assimilation varied somewhat by ethnic group, but three generations were typically enough to turn “ethnics” into plain old Americans.

    This would be the preferred outcome for the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans, who are significantly poorer and less educated on average than native whites. When immigration skeptics question the wisdom of importing so many unskilled people into our nation at one time, the most common response cites the remarkable progress of Europeans a century ago. “People used to say the Irish or the Poles would always be poor, but look at them today!” For Hispanics, we are led to believe, the same thing will happen.

    But that claim isn’t true. Though about three-quarters of Hispanics living in the U.S. today are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, a significant number have roots here going back many generations. We have several ways to measure their intergenerational progress, and the results leave little room for optimism about their prospects for assimilation.

    Before detailing some of those analyses, we should recognize the importance of this question. If we were to discover that, say, Slovenian immigrants did not assimilate over several generations, there would be little cause for alarm. There are simply too few Slovenian Americans to change our society in a meaningful way. Hispanics, on the other hand, have risen from 4 percent to 15 percent of the American population since 1970. The Census Bureau projects that, if there is no change in immigration policy, 30 percent of the nation will be Hispanic by 2050. To avoid developing a large economic underclass, we need to confront the question of whether they will assimilate….

    Even if economics were not a concern, the lack of Hispanic assimilation is likely to create ethnic tensions that threaten our cultural core. Human beings are a tribal species, and this makes ethnicity a natural fault line in any society. Intra-European ethnic divisions have been largely overcome through economic assimilation — Irish and Italian immigrants may have looked a bit different from natives, but by the third generation their socioeconomic profiles were similar. Hispanic Americans do not have that benefit.

    Persistent ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status add to a sense of “otherness” felt by minorities outside the economic mainstream. Though it is encouraging that Hispanics often profess a belief in the American creed, an undercurrent of this “otherness” is still apparent. For example, a Pew Hispanic Center Survey in 2002 asked American-born Hispanics “which terms they would use first to describe themselves.” Less than half (46 percent) said “American,” while the majority said they primarily identified either with their ancestral country or as simply Hispanic or Latino. This feeling of otherness probably helps spur explicit ethnic organizing and lobbying. Already there is a long list of Hispanic interest groups — the National Council of La Raza, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Hispanic Lobbyists Association, to name just a handful. If Hispanics fail to assimilate, these groups will remain powerful, and they will continue to encourage Hispanics and other Americans to view our society in terms of inter-ethnic competition. It is difficult to see how a unifying national culture can be preserved and extended in that environment.”

    http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    # Redbaiter (9524) Says:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 9:56 am

    So right Mr. Hunter. What kind of hopeless moron could ever be so utterly out of it to write that this is “the first step”. The first step occurred years ago when European Fascism projected as liberalism was first injected into the minds of a generation of half educated well indoctrinated knuckle dragging thugs like Eszett.

    It’s ironic, Red, since you are the one who has the facsist fantasies and paranoia dressed up as ultra liberalism.
    You of all people should be up in arms about the law in Arizona. Since you are not, it only exposes your own utter despicable hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***Of course I suspect it will be fairly ineffective and we will just see a lot of illegal immigrants shift to other states.***

    Those states will then quickly encounter the same fiscal problems noted above. Consider the education costs or look up the number of Hospitals that have gone bankrupt in California over the past 15 years.

    In terms of education, Ed Rubenstein has calcutated this for Arizona. There are apparently 500,000 illegals in Arizona according to Pew.

    Multiplying this percentage times the national illegal alien enrollment figure (3.3 million), Rubenstein gets 138,600 as a reasonable estimate of public school enrollment attributable to illegal immigration in Arizona.

    Using the average expenditure reported by the U.S. Department of Education for Arizona public schools—$7,610 per pupil—the illegal alien education tab is about $1.1 billion for Arizona.

    The most reliable estimate of the fiscal impacts of immigration was done by the prestigious National Research Council, NAC (the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, NAS).

    Low skilled immigrants earn less than the average, pay less in taxes and receive more in public services such as health care, public housing, income aid etc. The NAC estimate is that the total net cost of each low-skilled immigrant for the US. State is $120,000 in 2009 dollars. (High skilled immigrants in contrast are a net fiscal benefit for the U.S).

    For two reasons these figures may underestimate the costs. Since this study was made the costs of welfare services to lower income people has further expanded, especially Medicaid and S-CHIP. Also the study assumes full integration to American level within three generations, which is empirically not true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ed Snack (1,738 comments) says:

    Eszett, I think you should read and try to understand the Arizona law before trotting out the leftist talking points and making you (and them) look ignorant. The law simply does not give Arizona police the sort powers you claim. The amount of dishonesty over what is actually contained in the laws is breathtaking. Hypocrisy indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. A1kmm (91 comments) says:

    It is interesting that people who put so much faith in free trade and the Doha round are also often the same people who want much stronger government enforced constraints on the mobility of the labour market.

    Measures to ensure that people don’t pay taxes in one country, and get government services from another are in the interest of fairness – but this requires only mild immigration or back-taxation measures. They can also make sense to stop a certain country from being overpopulated – allowing its government to protect the environment from the effects of that.

    Anti-immigration measures are essentially a form of protectionalism. Some forms of protectionalism are good, because they protect the sovereignty of a country to make environmental and labour laws, and ensure it can provide a certain level of service to the people without being undercut by companies producing in a country with lax laws and selling it in another. However, other forms of protectionalism, including much of the anti-immigration rhethoric, seem to have, at their core, racist undertones that people in one country are superior and more deserving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. tom hunter (4,430 comments) says:

    …..without any kind of suspicion other than that they don’t like their look…………….
    …..it only exposes your own utter despicable hypocrisy.

    Cops are always selecting people based on their ‘look’, whether that is committed to the filed report, let alone admitted in court (suspect was behaving in a suspicious manner…….).

    After all, Obama’s recent speech in Quincy, Illinois was accompanied by an utterly heavy-handed police approach (the full riot gear getup in fact) to a bunch of old tea-party grand parents. Apparently they had a security concern ‘look’ to them. Perhaps there are some prominent lefty bloggers around somewhere who raised their voices about that.

    But of course that’s not a problem for the modern Left – the concern is about look (“racist,……… racccciiiisssst” – see, there’s A1kmm with the ever-present, dreaded “undertones”) – while crushing people for what they say is met with mere tut-tutting.

    Perhaps if these unseen checks are included in the average, random, drink-driving blitz, eszett and Dwyer will be okay with it. After all, when it comes to that particular infringment of people’s civil liberties to ensure a societal good the Left have long had few concerns.

    I’m not unaware of the hypocrisy of businesses (often large argi-businesses) effectively supporting illegal immigration because it’s cheap – but as is pointed out above, there’s more than a few lovely Californian liberals pulling the same stunt, and covering it with comfortable moral outrage.

    But please – continue to lecture the Right about it’s hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    Has anyone asked any LEGAL immigrants, or Mexicans who have become American citizens what they think about all this?

    There seems to be an assumption they would be offended if they were stopped at random and asked about their right to be in the USA. But wouldn’t those who have jumped through all the hoops and got there legally be pleased to see an effort to weed out illegal immigrants, and be only too happy to help?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Anti-immigration measures are essentially a form of protectionalism.”

    Brainless libertarian crap promoted by indoctrinated missionaries. To suggest the mass invasion of American sovereign territories by a people that have no allegiance to the principles that allowed the US to once exist as one of the most free nations on earth, is somehow akin to the culturally homogeneous influx of European migrants in the previous centuries, is to claim utter nonsense.

    Americans swear allegiance to their constitution and are taught its values and principles. The American Constitution stands as one of the most liberty orientated constitutions ever written. People in one country (America) are “superior” (to use your imperfect word) and that is because there are cultural differences along liberty based lines. (Chinese communists for example would think entirely differently) To deny this is either ignorance or deliberate politically motivated blindness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    There was an amazing episode of 30 Days where a minuteman lived with a family of illegal immigrants for a month.

    Such a good show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The Democrats but more so the extreme left (Pelosi Reid Obama etc) want to destroy the American Constitution. Illegal immigration and (subsequent) amnesty is part of the left’s plan to attack the constitution and they will succeed in this when there are enough votes from immigrants who know nothing of the historical significance of the Constitution and do not value it. The current illegal immigration that is occurring in the US is in the end, an orchestrated attack on liberty by the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    BlairM it is that simple although I suggest you read what I typed before reconsidering.

    I suspect that in comparatively free countries 80 – 90% of those stopped and questioned by police are stopped are stopped because the policemen suspect they are not obeying the law (i.e. the policeman doesn’t like the look of them).

    When we swear in policemen that is one of the main rights we give them.

    I’m buggered if I can see a problem here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    # Redbaiter (9527) Says:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 am

    The Democrats but more so the extreme left (Pelosi Reid Obama etc) want to destroy the American Constitution. Illegal immigration and (subsequent) amnesty is part of the left’s plan to attack the constitution and they will succeed in this when there are enough votes from immigrants who know nothing of the historical significance of the Constitution and do not value it. The current illegal immigration that is occurring in the US is in the end, an orchestrated attack on liberty by the left.

    But, of course it is!
    It has nothing to do with a high demand for cheap labour on one hand and a high supply of cheap labour on the other. The Mexicans don’t really want to go to the states, but they are bribed by the left to do so. And all that to to destroy the American Constitution.

    I am sure there is not one single republican voter that ever employed an illegal immigrant! It’s all done by the left.

    Yeah, it now all makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***A1kmm (45) wrote

    However, other forms of protectionalism, including much of the anti-immigration rhethoric, seem to have, at their core, r@cist undertones that people in one country are superior and more deserving.***

    I suppose you consider the Dalai Lama falls into that camp. After all, he notes that the Tibetan’s are racially distinct from the Han Chinese and wants to preserve their identity. And the Japanese, the Koreans & even Mexico itself (take a look at how they treat illegal migrants).

    And, I suppose the Israelis also? After all, they wish to preserve their demographic makeup by building walls to secure their border?

    Essentially, what you are saying is that it is immoral for countries and communities to have borders? That they have no right to exist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Yep, Americans want cheap labour. That is why Bush suffered the most severe criticism of his presidency from the man in the street- when he proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***people in one country are superior and more deserving.***

    Also, populations do differ on average – after all they bred in diverse cultural and geographic conditions. If you’re familiar with recent genetic studies then this shouldn’t come as a shock.

    http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_4.html#haidt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    A nice libertarian critique of this proposal: http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/28/arizona-immigration-law-health-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

    “Even the claim that the bill doesn’t apply to citizens is disingenuous. Regardless of what the law says, dark-skinned, naturalized citizens with an accent (like me) will inevitably feel the pressure to carry their papers around at all times. That’s because if you can’t produce them on demand, under Arizona law, you would have to be detained while the local police verify your status with immigration authorities–which will put you on the road to Kafkaland, where your freedom could be held hostage by a typographical error. The upshot will be a dual class of citizens on American soil: Paper-carrying and non-paper-carrying.

    This is very similar to the situation in Italy, where the law does not require citizens to carry their identification papers–but if they don’t have them, they have to face the prospect of being detained and hassled while authorities conduct a background check.

    The only way of making the Arizona law less discriminatory will be by making it more draconian by implementing a full-blown National Identification system that covers all Americans, as in France and Belgium. In France random ID checks by police, especially in poorer neighborhoods, are quite common. And in Belgium, on the threat of fines, everyone over the age of 15 is required by law to carry an identity card complete with an electronic chip full of personal information.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Rex Widerstrom (5,274 comments) says:

    AG suggests:

    …if you can’t produce them on demand, under Arizona law, you would have to be detained while the local police verify your status with immigration authorities–which will put you on the road to Kafkaland, where your freedom could be held hostage by a typographical error.

    Funny you should say that. Because I visit prisons regularly my details are electronically stored in the Corrections Department database. Naturally I had to provide name (and evidence of name, with a photo ID), then they took a digital photograph for face recognition and last year they introduced biometrics (iris scanning). Over the years most of the staff have got to know me on a first name basis.

    Yet one day I turned up and somehow, the system was insisting my name was Winstoop. The face, the eyes and their own common sense all told staff I was still Rex Widerstrom, but the system was saying “not to be admitted till identity verified” because, to it, I was the mysterious Mr Winstoop.

    No one could tell why this had happened (a check of the entire database even revealed there was no Winstoop on the list, so I hadn’t been coinfused with someone else) and staff tried three times to delete the incorrect entry and/or to replace it with the correct one but no luck. I was still in the database, but the vists for at least the next two weeks had to be undertaken by Mr Winstoop, who hadn’t been properly verified.

    All sorts of suggestions were proffered (someone even half-jokingly suggested I sign a statutory declaration that I’d changed my name, but then I wouldn’t have had the photo ID to prove it). Eventually, because the staff knew me, they just let in Mr Widerstrom – who theoretically wasn’t meant to be there, and in an evacuation would probably have been left behind to die ;-)

    Meanwhile the mysterious Mr Winstoop never arrived. It took them about a month to settle it down and geti things right (at one stage both Winstoop and Widerstrom were visting simultaneously).

    Kafkaesque indeed. So it’s entirely possible for the most sophisticated of security systems to not only get it wrong but to insist that it is right and refuse to change. I’m just glad I was on the other side of the razor wire… I wouldn’t like to be a legal citizen of the US, detained for looking too brown, trying to prove the system had it wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. BlairM (2,288 comments) says:

    It is interesting that people who put so much faith in free trade and the Doha round are also often the same people who want much stronger government enforced constraints on the mobility of the labour market.

    This isn’t a debate about how conservative or liberal American immigration laws are or should be. Personally I think they should let anyone in who can support themselves, and isn’t a criminal. This is about enforcing existing laws. Gee, should we enforce the law? Should we just give crims and gangsters (for many of them are) swimming across the Rio Grande a free pass? How about “No”?

    You can’t debate immigration laws unless you enforce the ones that already exist. That’s why, despite my belief in relatively open borders, I support what Arizona is doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. kiwi in america (2,437 comments) says:

    SB 1070 in AZ was sponsored by an aquaintance of mine State Sen Russell Pearce of Mesa, AZ. He also sponsored the highly successful employer sanctions law that has seen a reduction in the number of illegals in AZ by almost 30%.

    The State of AZ are adept at writing immigration laws that withstand the angry onslaught of the left and the inevitable law suits brought by left leaning groups and politicians. So far they are 3-3 in all Federal courts when challenged on their laws. Despite all the invective and hyperbole from the left, this new law will also withstand legal scrutiny largely because it mirrors word for word identical Federal laws. All AZ is doing is ensuring that laws barely enforced by the Feds will stand a better chance of being enforced at the State level where there is much higher motivation to have the laws enforced due to the rising illegal immigrant related crime (drug gang land shootings and kidnappings are common in parts of Phoenix and Tucson) and the health and education budget blowouts coping with the influx of illegals.

    As is often the case with the left, the rhetoric about the law is at odds with the ACTUAL words IN the law. So many commentators have invoked extreme examples of Nazi Germany and racial profiling that are so far from the reality. The law states that police can only check on someone’s immigration status if they have stopped someone lawfully for some other reason. The most common of these would be some routine traffic violation such as speeding, unroadworthy vehicle or on a tip off from citizens regarding a robbery or assault. In the past, if the police stopped someone they suspected of commiting a crime, they were not allowed to question their immigration status. If they arrested a suspected illegal for some other crime then that person MAY have been turned over to immigration officers but not always especially in the so-called sanctuary cities (Phoenix was a sanctuary city). Sanctuary cities Police chiefs are exlicitly ordered to NOT hand over any suspected illegals to ICE. Part of the reason for passing this law was to circumvent the sanctuary city situation.

    If a police officer stops someone for no other reason than the colour of their skin, the case would be thrown out on its ear under SB 1070 not to mention all the negative publicity that would ensue. The stopping officer has to show probable cause and cannot manufacture one.

    The other bogey is that of people having to carry their ‘papers’. The law states that any State authorised ID document will suffice for proof of residency such as a Driver’s License – in AZ you have to be a legal resident to be ever issued one. If you are stopped for probable cause (speeding) and the officer asks for proof of residency, a DL will suffice. The reality is even white Americans are asked to do the same: when checking into hotels, when paying for any item with a debit (EFTPOS) card, when being admitted to hospital, when visiting security sensitive buildings or when hiring a car or DVD. FEDERAL US law has required non US citizen residents to carry some proof of residency on them at all times. All this new law in AZ does is re-iterate that requirement and give cause to suspect your residency status if you have no proof.

    Legal residents of Hispanic or Latino origin have little to fear from this law. If they cannot drive a car the State issue an authorised State ID that looks like a DL for proof of identity purposes. The only people to fear this law (apart from the chattering classes on the East and West coasts who cant abide the prospect of illegal immigrants being held to account for their being in the country illegally) are the illegals themselves.

    There are millions of migrants to the US (the largest group of which come from Mexico) who obtain residence status in the US LEGALLY. All nations have the right to enforce their borders – heck Mexico ruthlessly polices its southern border from even poorer central American migration to Mexico. Just because successive US Federal Governments have chosen for usually political reasons to not enforce existing immigration law, no one should be suprised when a border state fed up with the huge downside of illegal immigration chooses to do nothing more than enforce the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Yep, Americans want cheap labour. That is why Bush suffered the most severe criticism of his presidency from the man in the street- when he proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    So who are employing the estimated 5% of the US workforce who are illegal immigrants?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mjcco (1 comment) says:

    Those Misguided Arizonans

    I don’t know why Arizonans would want to protect their citizens from Mexican drug cartel violence, safeguard the public treasury, or prevent the strain on their already choked social services. I mean, not doing that has done wonders for LA! That movie, American Me, I want to recreate that in my city. Yes!

    I have no idea why they’d want to enforce the laws that have been on the books since the USA formed or why they’d be mad at the Feds for not doing their jobs of securing our borders. Arizonans are racists, red-neck, bigoted, right-wing conspiracists for wanting to protect the quality of life of LEGAL immigrants already living here. What’s up with that? They should enjoy picking up the 2 million tons of trash the illegals leave strewn across our lands as they make their way north because they always have beautiful, sunny skies.

    Did you know that asking for someone’s citzenship papers is the equivalent of slaughtering 7 million Jews in Nazi Germany. If you didn’t, then you’re not reading the main-stream, unbiased, good-intentioned media. Get with the program, Comrades! Read the NY Times, the LA Times or the Washington Post, or any newspaper that feeds off of them. It will really educate you and keep you from losing your public education indoctrination.

    Why not let the entire world into this country, starting with Haiti, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Yemen — oh, and don’t forget a few “mainstream” Castro-loving Cubans. I’m sure the freedom-loving Cubans already living in Miami who hate Castro won’t mind. Let’s blow taxpayers’ money overseas by sending travel vouchers to the Middle East so they can fly to Mexico and come across the border. Can’t we all just get along? If we just sat down and negotiated with them, all war, poverty and disease would end and Obama could save us all.

    After their amnesty, they’ll vote Democrat in order to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing freely and keep Democrats in power. What’s so wrong about that? That stuff going on in Greece — riots, protest. Yeah, I like that. Let’s get some of that. After all, we’re no longer a Republic. We’re a dictatorship. Just ask the folks who passed healthcare with the Slaughter House Rules, instead of abiding by the will of the people. If you can’t afford health insurance, you should be jailed or fined by IRS agents, so there will be no room for locking up illegal aliens. Obama is going to help this country like Chairman Mao helped China take the Great Leap Forward, or how Stalin helped unite the Russians. CHANGE, TRANSFORM. I really love it.

    All I ask is that you don’t complain as your paychecks get smaller and smaller. After all, someone has to pay for all those bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, etc. Well, you get the idea. It might as well be you. We know from history that the rich ALWAYS get soaked, so none of it will effect your pocketbook. Right? I mean, look how many millionaires are now living in boxes by the river. Plus, the more money you rob from rich people and give to poor people, the more jobs that are created. Right, Nancy Pelosi? It looks like rain today — maybe too much. I hope the government is doing something about that. Maybe a rain tax is needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    KIA: “The State of AZ are adept at writing immigration laws that withstand the angry onslaught of the left and the inevitable law suits brought by left leaning groups and politicians. So far they are 3-3 in all Federal courts when challenged on their laws.”

    Gee … AZ legislators get it right half the time! I’d hate to see their record if they weren’t so “adept” at doing their jobs!!

    “The reality is even white Americans are asked to do the same: when checking into hotels, when paying for any item with a debit (EFTPOS) card, when being admitted to hospital, when visiting security sensitive buildings or when hiring a car or DVD. FEDERAL US law has required non US citizen residents to carry some proof of residency on them at all times. All this new law in AZ does is re-iterate that requirement and give cause to suspect your residency status if you have no proof.”

    Of course PRIVATE persons can ask for ID for any purpose they want. That’s irrelevant to this argument. The question is whether the State (in terms of public power with the monopoly on coercion) can do likewise. Now, remember … there’s no law saying US citizens have to carry any ID at all. So, a US citizen of Hispanic origins who the police think might be illegally in the US will have to prove that he/she isn’t, even though federal law says they don’t have to carry the documents to do so. Nice.

    “Legal residents of Hispanic or Latino origin have little to fear from this law. If they cannot drive a car the State issue an authorised State ID that looks like a DL for proof of identity purposes.”

    See, legal Hispanics and Latinos? No problem – all you have to do is always carry the authorised ID with you, in case a policeman suspects you are illegal. What are you bitching about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***See, legal Hispanics and Latinos? No problem – all you have to do is always carry the authorised ID with you, in case a policeman suspects you are illegal.***

    So what? If the country had bothered to enforce E-Verify and imposed greater penalties on employers who employ illegals the problem would not have reached this point. As it is, it is a disaster (see the NPR article on California above).

    In Israel any resident sixteen years of age or older must at all times carry an Identity card, and present it upon demand to a senior police officer, head of Municipal or Regional Authority, or a policeman or member of the Armed forces on duty. The vast majority of their effort is spent profiling, questioning and strip-searching a single target group: Palestinians.

    It’s a system that works well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. BlairM (2,288 comments) says:

    Yes, as others have said, in America – everybody asks for your ID. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but it happens all the time and it’s no big deal, because most people have it. Ironic that in the land of the free and the home of the brave you can’t do anything without a Social Security card, but it’s true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. kiwi in america (2,437 comments) says:

    AG
    3 – 3 means 3 OUT OF 3. In plain English it means they won 100% of the time!

    Um actually whites in AZ HAVE to carry their DLs when driving on AZ roads – the state pays for the roads and says you have to be able to control your vehicle on the road and so must be licensed. Such an oppressive regime we have here. You will find that is the law in pretty much every state regardless of your race.

    So everyone who drives on the road in AZ has to carry a DL. An AZ DL is also evidence of your status as a LEGAL resident. I got stopped without my license and got into a truckload of trouble and was fortunate to call my neighbour to bring me my license. Everyone knows this is the case white or brown. Under the current law, if the police stop a driver of any ethnic origin for suspicion of any crime even a minor traffic violation, the very first thing they will do is ask for is your DL, proof of insurance and proof of registration. If the driver looks Latino but is a legal resident and produces the DL when asked then the issue of proving legal residency is moot – it has already been established in the NORMAL course of what has been done by the police legally for years.

    If the person has been stopped for running a red light and is illegal but cannot produce some form of state approved ID the office can THEN ask for proof of citizenship. Almost all illegals have papers here – they are just fake like a fake DL or fake Social Security card. The fake DLs are easily spotted because the real ones have an embedded hologram that lights up under a special ultra violet torch that cops and the airport security (TSA) use. The cop has that torch on his belt. Checking the fake SS cards involves nothing more than the cop using the on-board laptop to check the Social Security Administration’s 24 hour online eVerify database. Presto – an illegal that under the pre-SB 1070 regime would’ve not been subject to any further scrutiny now must be verified. If they are in the country legally, the DL will be valid and if no DL then the SS card will come up as a valid (and not stolen) SS number. If they are illegal then they’ll now be turned over to ICE for likely deportation.

    I know these facts pour cold water on the pro-illegal immigration lobby’s little tantrum AG but that’s what you get when the first line of defence of the borders (the Federal Gov’t) FAIL TO IMPLIMENT THE LAW.

    This law will add to the previously effective employer sanctions law and cause illegalsin AZ to self deport – either back to their country of origin or to California – a state that will never pass a law like this.

    It is any wonder that 70% of AZ voters support this law INCLUDING 60% of Hispanic AZ voters. Gov Brewer’s popularity went up 16 points in 2 weeks!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. tom hunter (4,430 comments) says:

    It is any wonder that 70% of AZ voters support this law INCLUDING 60% of Hispanic AZ voters. Gov Brewer’s popularity went up 16 points in 2 weeks!

    Interesting. Radio NZ had a piece on this the other day – focusing on the proposed boycotts that are flowing across the Internet social networking sites – naturally. I’ve come to expect nothing else from RNZ with regard to the US.

    And of course they did not mention that Obama himself is taking immigration off the agenda for this year. Hardly a surprise after Lyndsey Graham’s comments a couple of weeks ago, but Gutierrez must be seriously pissed after his big healthcare vote for Obama.

    I guess Radio NZ will get around to reporting that eventually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. kiwi in america (2,437 comments) says:

    Tom
    Same threats were made with the employer sanctions law. A few conventions were cancelled and the media of course breathlessly reported them. All the usual suspects sued – and duly lost. The same arguments (encroachment on Federal law, discrimination by racial profiling etc) will be raised – and will again fail.

    Meanwhile illegals will get the message and leave AZ. The largely Hispanic areas of Mesa where I live have shops closing up, apartment blocks near vacant and the churches with large drops in attendance. The favourite ‘day labourer’ pick up spots are sparcely populated whereas before they were crowded with eager Mexicans.

    The liberals and lefties who are bleating the loudest don’t live here. They dont see the desert strewn with rubbish, the violence that those on the border must suffer (a border rancher was killed last month by a coyote- the name given to the human traffickers who are paid by illegals to come across the border), the kidnappings, the drug violence between the cartels that spills over the border, the crowded hospitals and teachers overstretched by classrooms full of non-English speaking kids. The cops here tell you that most of the violent crime is Hispanic on Hispanic.

    The 2 short weeks since the introduction of this law has killed the Democrats attempt at another amnesty law dead in its tracks. Lindsay Graham’s withdrawal of support was but another nail in the coffin because other moderate Republicans probably would’ve gone along with some regularisation law.

    All Americans want is the border to be secured. In 2007 when Bush tried to pass an amnesty bill, Americans rose up and opposed the reform saying build a fence first. The Bush Admin heard the message and began to build the fence but Obama quietly stopped the fence building. His Sec of Homeland Security is former AZ Gov Janet Napolitano a Democrat who constantly vetoed anti-illegal immigration bills when Gov here. Fortunately with binding Citizens Initiated Referenda in AZ, the people were able to circumvent her veto by placing all defeated immigration issues on the ballot which all passed with at least 2/3rds majorities. This new law publicly shows up the Obama Admins total lack of action on the border. If any law gets into the current Congress on this matter, it will be a border security first bill. Most moderate conservatives agree with Democrats about some pathway to citizenship for illegals already here who aren’t criminals but only AFTER the border is secure so that the country can control the flow of immigrants from the south.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    Good article here:

    “Deconstructing the Outrage [Victor Davis Hanson]

    I have been trying to collate all the furor over the Arizona law, much of it written by those who do not live in locales that have been transformed by illegal immigration. These writers are more likely to show solidarity from a distance than to visit or live in the areas that have been so radically changed by the phenomenon.

    On the unfortunate matter of “presenting papers”: I have done that numerous times this year–boarding airplanes, purchasing things on a credit card, checking into a hotel, showing a doorman an I.D. when locked out, going to the DMV, and, in one case, pulling off a rural road to use my cell phone in a way that alarmed a chance highway patrolman. An I.D. check to allay “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” is very American.

    On the matter of racial profiling: No one wishes to harass citizens by race or gender, but, again unfortunately, we already profile constantly. When I had top classics students, I quite bluntly explained to graduating seniors that those who were Mexican American and African American had very good chances of entering Ivy League or other top graduate schools from Fresno, those who were women and Asians so-so chances, and those who were white males with CSUF BAs very little chance, despite straight A’s and top GRE scores. The students themselves knew all that better than I–and, except the latter category, had packaged and self-profiled themselves for years in applying for grants, admissions, fellowships, and awards. I can remember being told by a dean in 1989 exactly the gender and racial profile of the person I was to hire before the search had even started, and not even to “waste my time” by interviewing a white male candidate. Again, the modern university works on the principle that faculty, staff, and students are constantly identified by racial and gender status. These were not minor matters, but questions that affected hundreds of lives for many decades to come…

    Mexico saves on social services; remittances come back as the second largest source of foreign exchange; and a growing expatriate, lobbying community becomes nostalgic and fonder of Mexico the longer it is absent from it. To hide all this, the Mexican government usually plays the racial prejudice card, although most arrivals from Oaxaca will tell you that racism is more perncious in Mexican society than north of the border.”

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016360.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Thanks whoever posted the Mexican rules earlier.
    That says it all.
    Go for it Arizona.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.