Liberals cry racism over AZ immigration bill; ignore overwhelming crime
posted at 11:53 am on April 23, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
[ Immigration ]
Arizona is on the brink of passing a tough new immigration law that some are calling racial profiling. The bill would give police the right to arrest anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant if they are unable to produce a driver’s license or identity papers.
Naturally, this has the liberals and Latino lobbyists in an uproar. Cries of RAAAAACISM!!! are already begininng. Total ignorance of the ongoing, overwhelming crime due to illegal immigrant is, as usual, being ignored.
Over at the Huffington Post Miguel Guadalupe (who identifies himself as a Latino progressive American) calls this a “Gestapo law”.
“Show me your papers, are your papers in order?” This phrase was made famous, or rather infamous, by the Gestapo, and will soon be heard throughout the state of Arizona, should their Governor sign into law SB1070, a vague and broad law giving law enforcement the unprecedented power to stop and check the documentation of any individual where “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S..”
There are no guidelines as to what “reasonable suspicion” is, but knowing the reality on the ground, it is obvious to all that “reasonable suspicion” means those looking like, sounding like, or acting like general stereotypes of undocumented immigrants coming from Latin America. In short — this is a bill that allows police to suspect all Latinos of being undocumented, and gives them the right to question their status at any time, for any reason.
He bleats on with some more Nazi rhetoric and right-wing bashing, but never once admits to the obvious. Illegal immigration is a crime. And even legal immigrants — non-US citizens — are here only at our pleasure. It’s a harsh truth, but no immigrant has a right to be here. Coming here through legal channels means you won’t be arrested, but if you come here illegally then you can and should be arrested if you are discovered. Liberals may not like it that Latinos will have to prove they are not here illegally, but I think that what really makes them so angry is the thought of our immigration laws actually being, you know, enforced.
As for the Nazi rhetoric, let’s bring Mr. Guadalupe back to reality. In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo was looking for Jews so that they could be shipped to concentration camps and murdered. There’s kind of a big difference between the murders of innocent people and the arrest of a criminal, but apparently, Mr. Guadalupe can’t comprehend the difference.
At Shakesville, they’re hyperventilating that this is going to be a repeat of the Geary Act:
As a historian, I don’t like to hear people say “If we don’t learn history, we’re doomed to repeat it.” We learn history all the time, and still do much of the same, hateful stuff that’s always been done.
In reading the provisons of the bill, I wondered, how different was it from the Geary Act of 1892:
The law required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit, a sort of internal passport. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year at hard labor.
How different is it? Well, for one, we don’t force people to serve hard labor anymore. The only place where there is anything even remotely similar is in Maricopa County, where they still have chain gangs. Thing is, the chain gangs are on a volunteer basis. People caught in Arizona who are suspected of being illegal immigrants will be arrested and, if they are in fact illegal immigrants, deported. Again, considering that illegal immigrants are in fact criminals, what is the big deal?
Markos Moulitsas whines that no one will be checking for Canadian or Irish immigrants (really), and points out that Latinos are on the fast track to becoming a majority in Arizona.
The GOP-dominated Arizona legislature last week passed a bill making it a misdemeanor to lack immigration paperwork and requiring police to question people if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal immigrant. But undocumented white Canadians or Irish need not fear, because “reasonable suspicion” is not-so-veiled code for “brown skin.”
God forbid you are darker-skinned and leave your wallet at home. In modern-day Arizona, that is grounds for jail.
… But while conservatives might pat themselves on the back for passage of this law, the long-term effects shouldn’t be so comforting. Latinos make up 29 percent of Arizona’s population. If current population trends continue, Arizona will become a majority-minority state by 2015. In 2003, more Latino babies were born than non-Hispanic white babies. And by 2007, Latino babies were 45 percent of the total, compared to 41 percent for non-Hispanic whites, and 14 percent for non-Hispanic Asians, Native Americans and African-Americans.
The Irish-Canadian argument is perhaps my favorite. I’m sure police should be worrying about all immigrants in Arizona. Because we all know that there are just tons of Canadians and Europeans flying into Mexico City so that they can cross the border illegally into Arizona!
The reality is, Latinos will be targeted because Latinos make up the majority of illegal immigrants. Again, this is a criminal offense. Authorities talk about enforcing the law, and liberals completely lose their minds. If we aren’t even allowed to ask someone about their immigration status, then how the hell are we supposed to get a handle on illegal immigration? The answer is we can’t, and I suspect that this is the exact thing that liberals are trying to accomplish.
As for the growing number of Latino babies being born, there’s a name for them: anchor babies.
At Firedoglake, the bill is being called xenophobic, and strangely… being attacked on the grounds that poor, innocent, little brown-skinned people will be the ones investigated while all the evil white-skinned criminals will be able to keep on breaking the law!
In fact, multiple police chiefs have come out strongly against the bill, despite state legislators trying to minimize that opposition. Law enforcement doesn’t want to spend all their time enforcing an untargeted police state against brown-skinned people while real people engaging in real crimes don’t get the same kind of speculation.
It’s a shame that none of these people get it. Being an illegal immigrant is in and of itself a crime. And Arizona residents have seen firsthand the effects of letting illegal immigration run rampant — but more on that shortly.
The best angry post was from Feministing. Apparently, illegal immigration somehow relates to equality for women now. I don’t see it, but then again, I don’t consider modern feminists to be true feminists, anyways. Their outrage comes courtesy of John McCain.
According to McCain, “illegals,” are intentionally cause traffic accidents, uh, not to mention cause property damage, theft and other types of crime, well, you know, all while tending to your garden. Watch below.
… You have to love how he essentially says that he is sorry if there is any racial profiling to come out of this law, but that it is basically worth it to “protect” people.
McCain’s attitude to me reeks of the small minded racism that came out of the last election and reminds me of something Alice Walker said when I went to see her speak last week (i know I am so lucky, she was amazing). She mentioned that she really loved Obama, but she often felt frustrated with the way that he was negotiating with some Republicans, not because it was bad politics, but because he isn’t old enough to have seen how stubborn whites that were against desegregation and black advancement used to act in Congress. She said that the behavior of many Republicans in Congress was the same attitude that they had many years ago when they didn’t want blacks to have equal access and that they were acting like “spoiled children.” To which naturally, we all applauded.
So we not only have Nazi rhetoric against this bill, but we have racism/civil rights rhetoric as well. Most interesting to point out, of course, is that Republicans are being blamed for fighting against the civil rights and desegregation movement. As most people with any knowledge of American history know, it was Democrats who fought against repealing slavery, Democrats who fought against desegregation, Democrats who fought against civil rights, and Democrats who kept a former leader of the KKK in their party for decades. Republicans were the ones for desegregation, the repeal of slavery, and the civil rights movement. But, as per usual from liberals, that’s gotten neatly turned onto its head in order to paint conservatives and Republicans yet again as racists.
And a big thanks to John McCain, by the way, for boiling this all down to illegal immigrants intentionally causing traffic accidents. While framed disastrously, this is the kind of thing he was actually referring to:
In that story, Babeu said that there had been “numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona” and that “in just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits — failure to yield for an officer — in one month.”
The line didn’t fully mesh with McCain’s inference that illegal aliens were causing disasters on the roads “intentionally.” But Buchanan pointed out that in a subsequent interview on MSNBC (this Wednesday), Babeu did, in fact, make that point.
“[J]ust last month alone we have had 64 pursuits. That’s where these illegals are failing to yield to lights and sirens, as every good citizen would pull to the side of the road, they are intentionally causing serious traffic hazards. They have caused wrecks, running red lights. It puts our deputies and officers in harm’s way. One thing new in their tactics, nearly every one of them is armed. So this created, even with one of our deputies crashing into an actual ditch and into water, he was face down unconscious. And a Casa Grande officer literally saved his life.”
McCain was making a good point, but he did it in the most awful way. He effectively diminished the rampant crime taking place in Arizona due to illegal immigration to nothing more than traffic accidents. And the reality, unfortunately, is much more grim.
Consider the murder of Arizona rancher Rob Krentz. Arizona ranchers had been afraid that something like this would happen for a long time now, because of the increasing amount of border crime going on, and it eventually did. Michelle Malkin has been very outspoken about his death, and received multiple testimonies from other ranchers attesting to the increasing crime in the area. They have seen firsthand the drug smuggling and human trafficking going on across the border. They’ve seen the violence from the drug cartels. See this example:
For many years, we farmed along side those on the other side of the border. Most people who crossed our properties were not a threat, but that has long since changed. We now find ourselves faced with a government that feels the issue is not significant, as well as our neighbors in the city who are more concerned about “immigrants rights” than our safety. While Bush’s fence project had a lot of problems, the section that crosses our property created a significant deterrent. Traffic decreased from over a hundred per day to a handful per week. The cartels don’t care how they get access to your property. If they can’t buy you out, they will kill you and your family.
Families who live along both sides of the border have been threatened and attacked for some time now by cartels. On the same weekend that the consulate worker was murdered, a young man from Fabens, Texas and his father in law were kidnapped and taken into Mexico. He had turned in a group who had moved onto his property and set up a meth lab to law enforcement. Both men were tortured for several hours before they were finally murdered and dumped.
This problem is not just one on the borders anymore, either. Illegal immigration crime has spread its tentacles throughout the entire country, and nowhere is that more evident than in the frightening growth of the brutal Central American gang, MS-13. They engage in a whole host of illegal activities — drug trafficking, murder, prostitution, human trafficking, home invasions, money laundering, extortion, carjackings, bank robberies, contract killing, rape, kidnapping, arms trafficking, and more. This isn’t your average gang. They are notoriously brutal and bloodthirsty, and they’ve become the fastest growing gang in America.
The signs of a new threat in northern Virginia emerged ominously in blood-spattered urban streets and rural scrub. Two summers ago the body of a young woman who had informed against her former gang associates was found on the banks of the Shenandoah River, repeatedly stabbed and her head nearly severed. Last May in Alexandria, gang members armed with machetes hacked away at a member of the South Side Locos, slicing off some of his fingers and leaving others dangling by a shred of skin. Only a week later in Herndon, a member of the 18th Street gang was pumped full of .38-caliber bullets, while his female companion, who tried to flee, was shot in the back. The assailant, according to a witness, had a large tattoo emblazoned on his forehead. It read MS, for Mara Salvatrucha, the gang allegedly responsible for all these attacks.
At the nearby headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, agents–many of whom live in these communities–fielded the reports with mounting alarm. But Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, wasn’t terrifying just northern Virginia. “They were popping up everywhere,” says Chris Swecker, assistant director of the FBI’s criminal investigative division. “It seemed like we were hearing more and more about MS-13.” Then one day last fall, FBI Director Robert Mueller called Swecker into his office. “You have a mandate to go out and address this gang,” Mueller told him. Mueller declared MS-13 the top priority of the bureau’s criminal-enterprise branch–which targets organized crime–and authorized the creation of a new national task force to combat it. The task force, which includes agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), aims to take on MS-13 much as the FBI once tackled the Mafia.
Composed of mostly Salvadorans and other Central Americans–many of them undocumented–the gang has a uniquely international profile, with an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 members in 33 states in the United States (out of more than 700,000 gang members overall), and tens of thousands more in Central America. It’s considered the fastest-growing, most violent and least understood of the nation’s street gangs–in part because U.S. law enforcement has not been watching as closely as it might have. As authorities have focused their attention on the war against terrorism, MS-13 has proliferated. In the FBI’s D.C. field office, the number of agents dedicated to gang investigations declined by 50 percent. “There was a definite shift in resources post-9/11 toward terrorism,” says Michael Mason, assistant director in charge of that office. “As a result, we had fewer resources to focus on gangs,” though he adds that the bureau made up for any shortfall by leveraging resources from other agencies. In recent weeks, authorities have made strides against MS-13: a gang leader accused of orchestrating a December bus bombing in Honduras that killed 28 people was arrested in Texas in February, and a recent seven-city sweep by ICE netted more than 100 reputed MS-13 members. But Robert Clifford, head of the new national task force, says “no single law-enforcement action is really going to deal the type of blow” necessary to dismantle the gang. No one is more interested in busting up MS-13 than leaders of the Latino community, who live with the fear and fallout of the gang’s savage actions.
The violence and crime that have washed over our country due to our open borders and lax immigration policies cannot be dismissed anymore. And if racial profiling is what’s needed to stem the bleeding, so to speak, then that is what needs to be done. Liberals like to pretend that they can hold hands with dictators, terrorists, and illegal immigrants alike and sing Kumbaya to make everything all better. Saying over and over again that they’re just trying to do jobs that Americans won’t do won’t stop the crime. The truth is, the amount of crime that has flooded into Arizona has given lawmakers no choice but to take harsher measures to protect Americans. Liberals and lobbyists want to stand in the way of that, making people like the Arizona ranchers further susceptible to become victims of these criminals. They try to stop the effort to stop the flow of crime by making accusations of racism and by marginalizing the amount of criminal activity that has been happening in Arizona.
Arizona lawmakers are responding to what has become a legitimate crisis in Arizona, yet liberals are siding with criminals, drug dealers, murders, and the like. You tell me who is more un-American.
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
If you could point out which one of the Bill of Rights not having a security clearance covers, I’d appreciate it.
I’m fully aware of the issue with a security clearance: It is, in fact, why I didn’t join the Air Force, as most of the jobs I’d qualify for involved a mop.
But the last time I checked, I (and everyone here, legal or not) does have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and even the worst of criminals can plead the Fifth.
The Bill of Rights is not a buffet table: We can’t pick and choose which rights we support and which ones we don’t, otherwise we tar ourselves with the same brush we use on the ACLU.
ExUrbanKevin on April 23, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Easy Dave, don’t break any blood vessels.
I did not say “If you don’t like a solution to a problem” at all.
It’s obvious I’m not saying what you would like me to say so that your “rebuttals” will apply, so I have an idea: why don’t you have an argument with yourself? It’s much more efficient.
Heralder on April 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Easy Dave, don’t break any blood vessels.
I did not say “If you don’t like a solution to a problem” at all.
It’s obvious I’m not saying what you would like me to say so that your “rebuttals” will apply, so I have an idea: why don’t you have an argument with yourself? It’s much more efficient.
Heralder on April 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM
——–
Again, no.
You wrote “Deliberately obstructing those who would solve a problem because of simple political/ideolgical animus is actually siding with the problem since you are helping it to persist.”
If I disagree with your solution because it’s fu*king stupid and I keep you from implementing your solution, I most certainly am “deliberately obstructing” you.
But I am NOT “siding” with the problem. I want the problem solved, just not with your stupid idea.
Dave Rywall on April 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM
All I can say is wow at some of the above comments. As someone who lived less than an hour from the mexican border of Southern Az for 20 years, it truly amazes me how completely ignorant some of you are to what is going down there.
If you live outside the city, you had better have a well built home, and some heavy fire-power. You don’t leave anything unlocked except a place for the illegals to obtain water. Otherwise they just take whatever they want anyway.
Trash, you should really look up some of the pictures people have posted. Those are nothing from what I’ve seen on my friend’s properties. Not to mention cutting fences, killing dogs, and other family pets as well as live stock.
Unless you have lived there and have lived the problem first hand, don’t judge the people of AZ for trying to protect themselves.
While I agree that this bill maybe a bit to lose in how the police can check anyone. I have no problems with it.
Yes, I do not live there anymore. Moved away to find real work, I have a family now and until the border is secured and the illegal problem is fixed, I will never ever move my family back there.
Charger73 on April 23, 2010 at 3:55 PM
If we are a nation of laws like so many politicians like spewing, let’s enforce them.
If they are on American soil and are here illegally they have already broken the law, deport them and let then get in line with all the law abiding people that are waiting to come here.
I am really tired of all the bleeding hearts, if they want all these illegals here then let them pay for them, not the taxpayer.
I do live in AZ and wonder how many more American citizens have to be murdered on their own land before something is done.
I have no sympathy for lawbreakers.
concernedsenior on April 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM
[quote]But the last time I checked, I (and everyone here, legal or not) does have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and even the worst of criminals can plead the Fifth.[/quote]
I am sorry, but I disagree with this. Can anyone point to the relevant part of the Constitution where non-citizens have rights under it? Certainly legal immigrants have them, but I was not aware that illegal aliens were given protection under the Consitution?
Scott H on April 23, 2010 at 4:06 PM
That’s excellent! You’re not alone my friend. In your defense, you did start out by saying this.
You’ve also stated that you don’t know what the solution is, that’s fair enough too. So, obstructing the solution without offering an alternative is a good example of which of the following? –
A) A partisan not actually interested in a solution.
B) An annoying verbal speedbump.
C) Part of the problem.
D) A Koala Bear.
The funny thing, is we probably wouldn’t even be typing to each other right now if your attitude from the get-go wasn’t so needlessly aggressive. Anyway, it’s been great fun. Enjoy your weekend.
Heralder on April 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM
–I found the law. They still need “reasonable suspicion” to ask the question.
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:24 PM
I might mention that unless you’re a US citizen, residing in Arizona right now. Your opinion means exactly zero.
docjohn52 on April 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM
[quote]But the last time I checked, I (and everyone here, legal or not) does have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and even the worst of criminals can plead the Fifth.[/quote]
Fourth Amendment. Doesn’t look to be limited to citizens at first blush: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:26 PM
I might mention that unless you’re a US citizen, residing in Arizona right now. Your opinion means exactly zero.
docjohn52 on April 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM
——-
How is your petition to only have AZ residents comment on this thread going?
How is your petition to have Cassy Fiano’s post removed (since she does not live in AZ) going?
Dave Rywall on April 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM
Sorry, dumba$$, but in this equation you most certainly *are* siding with the problem by choosing to perpetuate it over the solution just because you don’t fu*king like it.
You’ve looked at a) the problem, and b) a solution, and chosen (a).
Yes, yes you have.
Propose something better and work to implement it instead, or STFU and get the hell outta the way of people who DO live there and have to deal with the situation.
Midas on April 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM
That’s excellent! You’re not alone my friend. In your defense, you did start out by saying this.
You’ve also stated that you don’t know what the solution is, that’s fair enough too. So, obstructing the solution without offering an alternative is a good example of which of the following? –
A) A partisan not actually interested in a solution.
B) An annoying verbal speedbump.
C) Part of the problem.
D) A Koala Bear.
The funny thing, is we probably wouldn’t even be typing to each other right now if your attitude from the get-go wasn’t so needlessly aggressive. Anyway, it’s been great fun. Enjoy your weekend.
Heralder on April 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM
——
Obstructing A solution (that is a stupid solution), not obstructing THE solution. There are many solutions to this situation.
Dave Rywall on April 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Sorry, dumba$$, but in this equation you most certainly *are* siding with the problem by choosing to perpetuate it over the solution just because you don’t fu*king like it.
You’ve looked at a) the problem, and b) a solution, and chosen (a).
Yes, yes you have.
Propose something better and work to implement it instead, or STFU and get the hell outta the way of people who DO live there and have to deal with the situation.
Midas on April 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM
——-
By your amazingly stupid logic, if I oppose the death penalty as a crime solution, I am in favor of citizens murdering each other.
Dave Rywall on April 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Hi Cassy, good post! You’ve pointed out a lot of good information. You also exposed the racism and hatred of people such as Mark Moulistas. He mentions the changing demographics of Arizona. This is exactly what the Left wants, is changing demographics. Most immigrants due to non-assimilation, Vote Democrat. For welfare benefits and a whole host of other benefits that citizens black, asian, hispanic, and WHITE Taxpayers provide them. Ted Kennedy helped to pass the Hart-Cellar Act which changed immigration in 1965, to the crap we have today. Mr. Moulistas is saying we should be afraid of a growing Mexican population, why? Because their Racists like him?
Humphrey007 on April 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM
Thanks and well said also, I completely agree. Just wrapped up with things I need to get done so I’m keeping it brief. Cheers.
thinkagain on April 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Folks, this law as written is just plain unconstitutional.
Leave it to our “representatives” to screw up a perfectly valid cause with an incredibly flawed law. If they had just
enforced arresting lawbreakers of whatever status and had the guilty illegals deported forthwith that would handle alot. (Is there any possiblity of states like Arizona building their own border fences?)
VBMax on April 23, 2010 at 6:29 PM
I want a general crackdown on illegal immigration but using reasonable suspicion as grounds for holding someone frightens me. Even probable cause seems to me to be at the very edge of what should be allowed.
The Rule Law is only upheld when it is upheld in both its prescriptions and its circumscriptions.
njcommuter on April 23, 2010 at 7:00 PM
I’ve got a 3 step process for you:
1) AZ passes a law instituting harsh fines and jail times for employers employing Illegal aliens and it is enforced religiously.2) AZ passes a law to make sure Illegals get no form of Welfare or aid in AZ borders. Once again, enforced religiously.
3) AZ makes certain to raise cain every time it arrests an illegal committing a crime demanding they be deported (or deport them themselves. If not to mexico, drop them off in CA. Ship them to some ‘sanctuary city’. They won’t mind it there.
AZ’s illegal problem is solved and no one gets bugged by the police without probable cause.
Chaz706 on April 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM
All that’s left is to point at you, chuckle, and wonder how you function in society with such a low level of reasoning ability.
Oh wait – you’re a liberal and a Canadian or something, right? I’m sorry – your opinion on US border enforcement is *really* meaningful right now.
Midas on April 23, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Why? Who decided to make immigration illegal? Republicans? Democrats? What was Abraham Lincoln’s take on immigration? Which party passed the Alien Exclusion Acts?
Is Cassy sure she isn’t, perchance, a Democrat?
unclesmrgol on April 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM
What’s your Proposition B then? Let’s hear it.
I gave you my Proposition C: choke off the benefits. They won’t want to come here after that.
Chaz706 on April 23, 2010 at 8:41 PM
As a very pale-skinned, green-eyed legal immigrant I know that I am required to keep my Green Card on me at all times, and I do. It’s not that goddamned hard.
I also know that since moving to the ‘States I have had numerous opportunities to vote illegally, since the voter verification in this country is laughable – I don’t do it of course, but it really is a sick joke. Does democracy mean so little to Americans that they are willing to let any mook just cancel out their vote?
holdfast on April 23, 2010 at 10:02 PM
What’s your Proposition B then? Let’s hear it.
I gave you my Proposition C: choke off the benefits. They won’t want to come here after that.
Chaz706 on April 23, 2010 at 8:41 PM
——
FINALLY SOMEONE WITH A FU*CKING CLUE.
It only took 70+ comments and a day and a half.
Let me add D:
Deducting all costs of deporting illegals back to Mexico from the aid the US gives to Mexico
How about E
Enact a toll to enter the US to help pay for the deportation of illegals
How about F
Huge fines for any business that employs illegals/Huge fines for citizens who hire illegals to do odd jobs
How about G
Require all businesses to submit documentation that all their employees are US citizens or face huge fines
Dave Rywall on April 24, 2010 at 7:35 AM
The whole world knows about anchor babies and are taking advantage of it.
Birth Tourism
PattyJ on April 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM
How about F
Huge fines for any business that employs illegals/Huge fines for citizens who hire illegals to do odd jobs
How about G
Require all businesses to submit documentation that all their employees are US citizens or face huge fines
@Dave Rywall,
Hmmm.. from your viewpoint,how is this any less Draconian than asking some one for their papers on grounds of reasonable suspicion ?
If you asked me randomly stopping people in the middle of the streets is less draconian than asking EVERY Employer in the United States to prove that their employees are legal residents of the country?
Did you even think about the impracticality of such a move? They key is to prevent illegals BEFORE they cross over into America – not, AFTER the fact.. if you dont understand that you end up with states like Arizona with draconian laws..
nagee76 on April 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM
The Arizona law is scary – and i say this as some one who supports enforcement of immigration laws.
I am now back home in India but i lived in the US for the last 9 years – came in as a student on a F1 visa and then continued as a non-immigrant worker on H1-B – now, if i was aksed to carry my F1/H1-B papers and my passport EVERY time i stepped out of my home, I would have risked losing precious documents which were the only pieces of evidence that i was in the US legally.
This law is going to inconvenience people who are in AZ on student/work/business/tourist visas legally – but the response i guess would be that inconvenience is worth it and should not be an obstacle to enforcing law.
Bold Prediction: This is going to have EXACTLY like the TSA agents working at the airports – EVERYONE will have to be viewed as a potential threat and therefore asked for their papers.
What EXACTLY are these “reasonable grounds” ?
nagee76 on April 24, 2010 at 10:43 AM
The Anchor Babies ARE the real problem – people born in the United States to illegal immigrants SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN automatic citizenship – they will how ever be treated humanely, but they are not going to get automatic citizenship.
Pass this law and you would solve a big component of the illegal immigration mess America finds itself in.
nagee76 on April 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Hmmm.. from your viewpoint,how is this any less Draconian than asking some one for their papers on grounds of reasonable suspicion ?
If you asked me randomly stopping people in the middle of the streets is less draconian than asking EVERY Employer in the United States to prove that their employees are legal residents of the country?
Did you even think about the impracticality of such a move? They key is to prevent illegals BEFORE they cross over into America – not, AFTER the fact.. if you dont understand that you end up with states like Arizona with draconian laws..
nagee76 on April 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM
—–
I am fully aware that F and G are after the fact actions.
As someone said – “choke off the benefits. They won’t want to come here after that.”
F and G choke off the income.
And F and G are hardly draconian. Company A says it’s hiring. Its ad says you must be a citizen to apply. Do you think illegal aliens are going to show up and apply? The answer is no. No they won’t.
Dave Rywall on April 24, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Your ideas are great, Dave. There will of course be the little matter of taking money out of politics so that your solutions can be enacted in law. After all, how can a politician be expected to run a campaign without donations from companies? What this all boils down to is, the current law is an imperfect solution to a real problem. If you want to wait for a perfect solution, you will be waiting forever. In the meantime, people will be murdered, more drugs will be sold, and people will be less safe.
gordo on April 24, 2010 at 7:25 PM
I will assume if you are driving a car and do not have a license,bells and whistles will go off,,even if you do have a license,when they run it through their system[that's why they have radios and computers in their cars]and something is hinky,,you will require more questioning,etc. Also, if you are acting “stupid” and get picked up, do not have an id on you and your name gets called in,,same deal. I really do not see this as a problem,,plenty of illegals have been stopped but due to non-enforcing of laws,nothing happens. All this law does is make it “illegal” to be an illegal. It can be done without racial profiling.
retiredeagle on April 24, 2010 at 7:29 PM
And F and G are hardly draconian. Company A says it’s hiring. Its ad says you must be a citizen to apply. Do you think illegal aliens are going to show up and apply? The answer is no. No they won’t.
@Dave Rywall,
Easy for you to say that – asking every employer in the United States to prove that those people who are currently in their employ are either citizens of the country or working legally is draconian – you do all this just because there are a few construction companies/farms etc out there that employ illegal aliens in unskilled labor ?
Asking employers to prove that new hires are legal also seems to be redundant – if you are not a citizen of this country but would like to work, you would have to go through a whole process of background checks/verification, file an application with the DOL proving that your job pays atleast as much as other similar jobs in the local area/State.
I have been through this process three times as an H1-B worker – every time I switched to a new employer. And after doing all this, the employer is expected to AGAIN prove that its workers are here legally ? Why ?? Because some body is here from Mexico picking oranges in Florida for 2$ an hour ??
Your suggestions as well intentioned as they are will compund the problem – not solve it.
nagee76 on April 25, 2010 at 4:52 AM
How about F
Huge fines for any business that employs illegals/Huge fines for citizens who hire illegals to do odd jobs
The “odd jobs” quote reminds me of the time i was consulting for mortgage company in San Diego – ALL the janitors who worked there were of Hispanic origin – I assumed that they were also US citizens, but who knows ?
If the US is serious about enforcing immigration laws it should also be serious about evaluating the kind of response it needs to come up with, once the supply of cheap illegal labor stops.
nagee76 on April 25, 2010 at 4:57 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2