CSpec

AZ Wrong on immigration

256 posts in this topic

Why do you have the assumption that only people not born here are going to be pulled over? I'm also white and speak very well good english.

The assumption for this law is; if you are brown and speak spanglish, you are assumed to be here illegally. That is where the racist element comes in. I'm sure there are a great many people who fit that description who are natural born or naturalized citizens.

To give you an example of how this law is unfair. My boss is Canadian, but lives in Texas. Has a Texas driver's license. He is not a U.S. citizen. He speaks perfect American English except for a couple words. He is as white as the freshly fallen snow. He is required under that law to carry his papers. Do you really think, if he were caught speeding in AZ while missing his papers, that he would be hauled into jail while his immigration status gets checked out?

As long as my boss doesn't say the words "about", "project", or "process", the cop would be none the wiser, give him his ticket, and send him on his way.

....but if he's brown and speaks spanglish, he goes direct to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, even if he was born in Corpus Christi.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"The assumption for this law is; if you are brown and speak spanglish, you are assumed to be here illegally. "<<

This is your assumption, correct? It's certainly not mine. There is nothing in the law that addresses race, EXCEPT to state that race cannot be the sole factor in pulling a motorist over.

OK, since we've established the law itself is not racist; as soon as you dismiss the language of the law and assume the future actions of the police, you are assigning behavior to people you have no knowledge of, people who have been trained to follow publicaly-available protocol... and you are assuming racial motivation on their part.

There are FAR more criteria and details involved in assessing a person than just skin color, and police are specifically & exhaustively trained in these ways.

>>"Do you really think, if he were caught speeding in AZ while missing his papers, that he would be hauled into jail while his immigration status gets checked out?"<<

I'm not willing to project any personal assumptions or impressions on police officers I have zero knowledge of. But technically speaking, if it came up that your boss was a Canadian citizen and was without papers, yes; the law allows him to be detained until his immigration status is verified. If he was without required papers, he is subject to a penalty. That's the law and therefore that's what should be done (if we are nationally who we claim we are). Do you advocate him being let go in said hypothetical without being verified & fined ??

There are 6.5M residents of AZ and 31% are Hispanic (LEGAL citizens). That's 2,015,000, plus an estimated 750,000 illegals. So REAL CLOSE to HALF of the state's people are hispanic/latino.

Do you believe police are suddenly going to pull over HALF the states' population and demand papers because they are simply 'brown' ? The sheer volume of 'browns' in AZ forces the police to rely on far more than just skin color. But to assume the cops enforcing this are judgementally simplistic & outright racist is ridiculously unfair.

Remember, just as is the case with the federal law, the touchstone is at the point of enforcement. The Fed does NOTHING, tho they have these same laws on their books.

SB1070 has been completely neutered at this point, but what will happen at the point of contact still remains to be seen... not assumed.

Since there is no evidence as to what will happen & the law has yet to be enacted in full, the reaction here is directed at the law itself... which is a restatement of federal law.

It is still within the realm of possibilities that the State will effectively do what the Fed does: NOTHING.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, just as is the case with the federal law, the touchstone is at the point of enforcement. The Fed does NOTHING, tho they have these same laws on their books.

SB1070 has been completely neutered at this point, but what will happen at the point of contact still remains to be seen... not assumed.

Since there is no evidence as to what will happen & the law has yet to be enacted in full, the reaction here is directed at the law itself... which is a restatement of federal law.

It is still within the realm of possibilities that the State will effectively do what the Fed does: NOTHING.

This is exactly why we need legal reform in this country...our legal code is a joke, and largely unenforceable.

simplify the legal code, as well as the tax code, and get everyone on board, and we are in bidness....

Edited by 66Stang
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That ^ I would completely agree with. I don't think there's a single micro-entity in Gov that could not use a thorough going-over & streamlining.

Also, a great quantity of Gov entities just need to be flushed.

There was an analysis done a few years ago, and the result was that 22% (<-this I remember explicitly) of all federal programs either no longer have a reason to exist, or have no measurable effect either way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Economist

Suppose your parents moved to America from Mexico without legal permission when you were five years old. You grow up in America. You graduate from high school in America. You're an American in every sense except the legal one. You want to go to college, but because your parents came into the country illicitly, you don't qualify for government financial aid, and you can't get legal work. If caught by immigration authorities, you face the possibility of detention or deportation, even though this is, in every sense, your home. That doesn't seem fair. Every year, over 60,000 kids like you graduate high school in the United States. And unless something like the DREAM Act becomes law, you and they will become part of a growing class of marginalised and unprotected Americans without papers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? No way in hell a rational person would choose to sneak through the desert? Uh, last time I checked, we are flooded with millions of illegal aliens in just California alone, and hundreds of thousands make the trek every year, many of which get through.

The Economist

One of the things that's so attractive to you about America is it's sound institutions, including its sturdy rule of law. You would very much like to migrate to the United States legally. So what are your options? Zip. Zilch. Zero.
You have no options! There is no way to "get in line" and "wait your turn" because there is no line for you to stand in that leads to the legal right to live and work in the United States.
So you pack up one day, take a hair-raising hike through the desert with your young daughter, meet up with your friends in Tucson, and get to work on the American dream. What were you supposed to do? Consign yourself and your daughter to a life on the edge of poverty out of respect for the American rule of law? Please.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Economist - :lol:

So who's going to be the judge of "good moral character" requirement that's in this proposed 'Dream Act' - Harry Reid ???

What about the circumstances of their upbringing- should they really be held responsible for the effects of the atmosphere they were raised in?

That's frequently a mitigating circumstance WRT Americans accused of crimes- it should be extended to foreign lawbreakers, too.

And what's with the 'certain' illegals being eligible- for EX: why are those who crept under barbed wire @ age 16 'discriminated' against ??? Aren't they just as much 'American' as those who crept in @ 15 ???

I think that even if you are a newborn rolled under the fence you should be included.

In fact, just let EVERYBODY in, and make it so the moment they touch toe to U.S. soil they're handed a SS check so it's "fair".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, just let EVERYBODY in, and make it so the moment they touch toe to U.S. soil they're handed a SS check so it's "fair".

That's how it worked for many years in this country. If it hadn't been for that, we would be Australia. Nice country, no people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"That's how it worked for many years in this country."<<

See post #116.

You refer to specific xenophobic acts of Congress in the 20s. You need to look before that--the proportion of foreign born residents in the US was much higher in the 1890s than it is today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You refer to specific xenophobic acts of Congress in the 20s. You need to look before that--the proportion of foreign born residents in the US was much higher in the 1890s than it is today.

I agree with you here...

I would let a lot MORE people into this country, actually....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"You need to look before that--the proportion of foreign born residents in the US was much higher in the 1890s than it is today."<<

It was; 14.7% in '90, with a total population of 62 million. So what of it? Crunch the numbers: if 14.7% of 350 million moved in, that'd be 51 million people.

But to what end ?? For what purpose or goal ?? And how to provide for them ???

What dictates maintaining a immigrant percentage figure from 120 years ago to today ????

Makes no sense on any level.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Economist

One of the things that's so attractive to you about America is it's sound institutions, including its sturdy rule of law. You would very much like to migrate to the United States legally. So what are your options? Zip. Zilch. Zero.
You have no options! There is no way to "get in line" and "wait your turn" because there is no line for you to stand in that leads to the legal right to live and work in the United States.
So you pack up one day, take a hair-raising hike through the desert with your young daughter, meet up with your friends in Tucson, and get to work on the American dream. What were you supposed to do? Consign yourself and your daughter to a life on the edge of poverty out of respect for the American rule of law? Please.

:lol:

I really liked your little story.

You refer to specific xenophobic acts of Congress in the 20s. You need to look before that--the proportion of foreign born residents in the US was much higher in the 1890s than it is today.

Uh...pardon my French, but...no $h!? That's a completely asinine comment which means absolutely nothing in regards what you are trying to argue. (Also, I love how everything that doesn't support your agenda is considered xenophobic.)

The country (at that time a much younger and far less populated country) was going through an influx of immigration. Significant growth could easily be supported. This country was founded on immigration, but a constant stream cannot be sustained...not unless there are just as many people leaving as there are coming. We can't even provide enough opportunities to our current population. Another massive influx of immigrants would turn America into a 3rd world country, but it sounds like that is what you want.

Edited by Nick
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another massive influx of immigrants would turn America into a 3rd world country, but it sounds like that is what you want.

:rolleyes: This is just completely incorrect. Besides, we're mainly talking about immigrants who are already here and working away, making your life better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: This is just completely incorrect. Besides, we're mainly talking about immigrants who are already here and working away, making your life better.

Sorry to both Nick and Balthazar...who i greatly respect...but I'm with CSPEC on this one!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMNESTY

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMNESTY

Why? Do you really want to send working families back to Mexico or elsewhere to live in gang violence and poverty?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not our fault Mexico is a horrible country to live in. Mexico needs to clean up their act and build their country on the rule of law. They need to create opportunities for their citizens to live in prosperity and peace. They need to crush the drug cartels that are ruling their country. We need to stop being a crutch for Mexico to lean on. They are draining money and other resources from us and we need to stop letting them. We are not infinitely rich. At some point we need to take care of our own.

Edited by ocnblu
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can really, really agree on taking care of our own. Seriously...

There is a lot of foreign aid that needs to stop. But I',m still not seeing most immigrants as being that much of a problem once they are here.

And I am also not so sure that Mexico is going to clean up it's own drug war mess....I'm wondering if we've just brought the troops home from Iraq to send them south of the border...and that's if this crap with Korea doesn't heat up....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to crush the drug cartels that are ruling their country.

You know those drug cartels only exist because they supply the American drug market, right? It's American policy that creates them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico is a hot mess, but it's NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY. It is NOT our country and it's people are NOT our citizens.

Our country is swirling in the bowl- we MUST take care of our citizens first. Resources are strained and the economy is also swirling in the bowl.

And those illegal immigrants (you really MUST learn that there is a difference) aren't "making my life better", they're competing with me for work.

You are advocating anarchy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those illegal immigrants (you really MUST learn that there is a difference) aren't "making my life better", they're competing with me for work.

You are advocating anarchy.

If they aren't illegal for any particular reason, it doesn't make sense to freak out that they're entering the country illegally to work. Just change the law. And I don't think you're a migrant worker picking berries in Florida--you go to the store and pay low prices for those berries.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico is a hot mess, but it's NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY. It is NOT our country and it's people are NOT our citizens.

I agree... and I'd never advocate getting directly involved with Mexico, but as CSpec noted, a LOT of Mexico's lawlessness is created by the huge amounts of money the drug cartels are getting because of our ineffective drug war.

This all creates a perfect storm between the two countries and the overall effect would certainly be considered hostile if not for our official "friendly" status.

Thinking about the two problems together... I suppose the eventual solution will be that our drug war will continue to fund Mexico's warlords... and eventually they will amass a military big enough to simply annex Arizona. Then the AZ immigration problem is moot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because ALL illegal immigrants do is pick berries. :rolleyes:

No way they're involved in nearly every blue-collar industry out there; no way.

This dovetails perfectly with your rosy sunshiny view of the issue.

>>"If they aren't illegal for any particular reason, it doesn't make sense to freak out that they're entering the country illegally to work."<<

Spock would slap you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now