My local newspaper, with a far-right editorial slant, this morning came out with a piece on Arizona's new law that requires police to determine the immigration status of detainees before they are released. My first thoughts on this is to grant that the writer makes a good point in asserting that Arizona is only doing what the federal government has indicated it won't do--enforce the immigration laws already on the books. That is all, according to the editorial, that Arizona's law seeks to do. The column mentions that Arizona has 500,000 illegal aliens within the state.

I most often identify with the liberal side, but the common liberal stance in the immigration debate puzzles me. That the U.S. should care about controlling who comes into the country is viewed as intolerant, oppressive, and racist. Yet would these critics of immigration controls ever think of questioning the right and prudence of other countries, say France or Germany, to have strict contols on immigration? As far as I know, they haven't, because this is so clearly a normal federal obligation.

It's not relevant to say indignantly that immigrants have made our nation what it is. Of course they have, but this is in no way a good defense for not enforcing laws that exist for a clear reason. Or am I missing something? Please let me know.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237019

There's an article discussing some of the issues surrounding the bill.

I see no problem with checking the history of someone who has been arrested. That should definitely include citizenship. The important thing is not to start pulling over brown people because you suspect they are illegals. If someone breaks a law, bust them for that. Then check to see if they are illegal. That includes blond haired blue eyed smoking hot women, as well as mexicans.

The problem is that racism is still very present in the US. This law could very easily lead to harassment of american citizens from non-anglo backgrounds if it is used as the impetus for police questioning, in and of itself.

Checking legal status ought to be a part of regular background checks conducted by the police in the course of a normal arrest, not the reason for stopping someone in the first place. I think, as long as this is applied across the board, and only after a person is questioned for an obvious crime, then it is fine.

We don't want anyone being pulled over on suspicion of being mexican.

What about Texan?

An indication of the kind of mentality still at work in many parts of the country.




http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... on-illegal

Well I would only support micro chipping them if we are talking about micro chipping EVERYONE, but then again I don't support micro chipping everyone, and since we can't really microchip some of the people in a fair way, I would say that we can't really start insisting on micro chips in anyone. I can microchip my dog, or perhaps my kid, because I have ownership of the dog, and responsibilities toward the child. I can't go around micro chipping other people's dogs or children, no matter how much I want to, just my own, and I am thinking that the child can choose to be un-chipped once he or she reaches the age of majority in that state.

I think that this really is a sticky problem DWill, in many places, as well as in Arizona. I was aware that there is a lot of illegal immigration going on, but the 500,000 figure surprised me- that’s a lot. I can see why some would have a sense of loosing control.

I think it brings up the larger question of how much immigration is acceptable, and under what circumstances. I feel empathy for the immigrant or refugee that is not responsible for messing things up in their place of origin, and just wants a decent life. Many worry about jobs being taken by immigrants, but I think a closer look shows that immigrants also become consumers, boosting demand in the economy, and thereby creating more work as well. Canada and the US are both immigrant nations, but the question must be asked, is there a point where the numbers are too much. We have changed a lot from being the descendants of a handful of English colonists. But change that is too rapid can cause friction.

I think it is only human nature to congregate together, when a minority embedded in a larger group. Most cities have their Chinatowns, for example. If I were a member of a small, English speaking minority in China, I wouldn’t doubt that I would participate in things like, say, an English newspaper, social club, or networking with fellow anglophiles on business issues. Maybe this is not so bad. But I think that intent means a lot. If the feeling of immigrants is that the place they find themselves is out of keeping with their values and interests, but they will hold their nose and bear it because they need to make money, and hopefully will be able to send it home for the benefit of their country of origin, and then bug out as soon as possible, then this to me is ethically problematic.

Europe now also has a fairly large immigrant community, although it is already well populated, and of course it also has a terrible problem with thousands attempting the dangerous sea crossings from Africa in order to find a better life. Many drown after rickety boats sink during the passage. I find the numbers quite surprising; France now has about a 10% Muslim population. There has been considerable turmoil there around the issue of integration of new immigrants, with clashes between the secular liberal values of modern Europe, and the religious dogma of Islam. A prime example is the burka, the head to toe covering women are required to wear by some of the more extreme adherents of Islam. It can be seen as insulting and demeaning to women in the western view, and has recently been outlawed in France. This brings up the issue again of how much change should be required of immigrants, and how much difference of opinion is ok.

I think there is a rational area between the extremes of political correctness and xenophobia, but it is an area that can be ill defined at times. Here in BC we have a huge immigrant population. The two biggest groups are South Asian and Chinese. There was a big surge of the latter just before Hong Kong was returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, by those fearful of the move. Overall, I think things have gone reasonably well; we currently have a Lieutenant-Governor of Chinese extract, and many of South Asian descent in government. The second generation tends to rapidly take on the local culture, in many circumstances I think. But I also remember hearing, during a conference, that the South Asian community in Vancouver was now producing its own “yellow pages” directory, containing only listings from that particular ethnic group. The idea being, keep the business within “our” community. I remember thinking to myself: this is not such a good idea. It will only serve to circle the wagons, increase a sense of alienation between the communities, and subvert a strong sense of commonality and nationality. We haven’t found Nirvana yet.

I don’t think that history can be ignored either when considering the mass movement of people around the world. When it is, then animosities can simmer on. The Middle East is a good example of this; both Israel and Palestine try to downplay the historical significance of each other. Look at where they are today. Britain has said essentially that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should have autonomy, and enliven as much as possible local language and culture. Force of arms isn’t everything; historical fact must be considered. Battles shouldn’t be the deciding factor in how societies are organized. If you had to pick, which of those two regions would you want to live in?

In the case of Mexican immigration into the US, of course there is a big historical fact. The southwest quarter of the country, where immigration issues are the most pressing, was originally part of Mexico. It was seized during a time when this sort of expansion by military means was considered ok; indeed more than ok, it was seen as admirable. Today, of course, this would not be the case. The relevance for this today is probably somewhat of an abstraction, although a certain irony here is unmistakable. But one could do this thought experiment to gain some perspective: What if Mexico, in the nineteenth century, had seized a huge chunk of the western US? And if as things panned out, the US was not doing so well 150 years later, mostly because of endemic corruption and the drug trade, rather than the quality of individual virtue, and many individuals were compelled to try their luck in the Mexican west, were there were more resources, more land, and more jobs. How would you feel then about the various issues of mass immigration, both legal and illegal? Just a thought.

I was looking at an article in the NY Times about this, and actually the law didn’t seem so bad to me. A lot of it consists of things we already have in BC, like having to have a driver’s license and other related documentation in your car or with you at all times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opini ... lobal-home


These are awkward questions. What do other BT’ers think? If you were President Obama sitting in the oval office, with a few lawyers wandering here and there, some law enforcement types at your desk, and some historians sipping coffee by the side board, what sort of legislation would you write? What would you do about immigration?

The point you make toward the end--the "what goes around comes around" argument--is one I've heard but had forgotten. And it's true that to now make such a big deal about border severeignty when 160 years ago we had no regard whatever for it, brings in the question of hypocrisy.

The 500,000 figure I checked out and found to be apparently an accurate estimate. I agree that at these numbers it's no wonder that a state needs to take some action. I heard John McCain's conservative primary opponent on the radio, defending the bill against some Republicans who question its being the right approach. He said that Arizona recieves large numbers of Asian immigrants across the border, and (ominously, of course) Middle Eastern immigrants, too. I don't know if the numbers are as significant as this politician says.

You seem to still support a kind of melting-pot view regarding immigration. I do, too. It just isn't a good thing to have a lot of ethnic separatism within a country. I'm in favor of having important information published in different languages, but only for the purpose of helping groups become assimilated in the early stages. Assimilation is a dirty word to some multi-culturists.

I agree about ethnic devides. No good can come of it. Everyone should take pleasure in the uniquness of their own culture, but not at the cost of xenophobia.

I think that we can't just let everyone wander in who wants to be here, we have only so many resources, and after that then it hurts everyone here. So there needs to be a limit on how many people can come here at a time. So then there needs to be enforcement of that limit. And then everyone who is in violation of that limit is a criminal. And all criminals need to be treated as such and dealt with immediately. Either you get deported, if your crime is being an illegal alien, or you pay a fine or go to jail if your crime is something else.

I get that it is a shame that everyone can't live as I do, and it sucks that some places are so horrible to live that people are willing to try anything to be here. But unless we get policing powers in those horrible places to make them better places to live, we really can't fix it by letting everyone with a shitty life move here. It really seems cruel but it works MUCH better if those people unite and make their own place better to live in, protest, band together, whatever it takes. It has been done before and it can be done again. Letting some of them come here is like letting a little steam out of the pressure cooker. I know I am not saying it well, but it makes sense to me that opening the doors to everyone is like giving a man a fish...

**edit: It's not that I live so well, by our standards either, but I have a sink full of dirty dishes in a house that is fully plumbed and wired, I only go hungry by schedule default, I have not suffered from true hunger since my teens, I am warm and comfortable and I never want for shoes. I go to college, drive a car and eat at drive ups occasionally, own a tv and a game platform and too many computers.... my life is REALLY REALLY good by world standards...

I don't see any problem with this new law. Normally you would want the police to check if someone has any outstanding warrants before they are released from jail, and this law just sounds like an extension of that policy. Let's face it if an immigrant is in this country illegally they're breaking the law and if that doesn't make them a criminal then I don't know what does. Since it only applies to people already in custody, it will only apply to immigrants who have committed a crime serious enough to warrant being locked up in the first place; not the kind of people we would normally want in our country anyways. I don't see the police using this law as an excuse to abduct people of the street either. They don't have the manpower for one thing and frankly the police already have enough leeway they can trump a charge without relying on immigration laws.

Another slant on the immigration issue:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opini ... ef=general

I'm not at the point where I'm ready to support Arizona's law. It seemed to me reasonable in view of the situation, so I'm not going to close down on it. What Rich makes is a political argument. He doesn't say a thing about the bill itself, just that being in favor of it will put one on the side of rabidly anti-Obama activists, who are the most vocal suporters of the bill in Arizona. No doubt he's right about this, but his piece also shows why politics has so little real principle in it. Even if an idea has merit, political types will insist that guilt by association is the most important consideration. If they want it, it can't be any good and you must oppose it. Rich is a good political writer, though, and he focusses effectively on the foot-in-the-door aspect of Arizona's bill. Lots of other states, many of which don't have nearly Arizona's level of illegal immigration, want to pass a similar law. That only raises the question, though, of whether it matters essentially that a state has relatively few illegal immigrants. If it's against the law to reside illegally, whether there are 1,000 doing that or 500,000 doesn't make much difference.

The independent power of the 50 states is held to be an advantage of the U. S. system. I wonder sometimes if it is. On a matter of large national concern, the federal government is ceding responsibility for action to the states by not acting. Do Canadian provinces have as much independence? I suppose Quebec has demonstrated a good deal of it over the years.

I'm leaning in favor of the Arizona law. Illegal residents are, well, illegal. What Arizona is doing is simply trying to enforce existing laws.

George Will makes some good points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02741.html

I'm now leaning against Arizona's law, not that I have any say-so. I listened to some of the opponents, who don't seem to speak very directly to what they fear will happen if the law takes effect in 90 days. But reading between their words, it seems that they fear immediate deportation for anyone found to be residing illegally. This is why they say it's a mistake to have such a law before immigration reform happens, because immigration reform for them means a way to allow illegal immigrants to "go to the back of the line" while remaining in the country. Many illegals have children who are citizens.

What is the point of knowing a person's immigration status except to be able to deport? If the immigrant has committed a serious crime, then, yes, deport. But I'm not in favor of sending millions of illegals back. Aside from being impossible practically, the situation that caused the flood of immigrants over the southern borders was something we were, and are, complicit in. The jobs they came for were jobs that U.S. employers were willing to give them and not ask questions. There was a demand on our side that the immigrants filled.