Doesn't the word ILLEGAL mean anything these days?
dude ... you've probably broken just as many laws ... we all have ... everytime you speed even 1 mile over the limit ... not stop fully at a stop sign ... jay walk ... litter ... etc ...
Doesn't the word ILLEGAL mean anything these days?
dude ... you've probably broken just as many laws ... we all have ... everytime you speed even 1 mile over the limit ... not stop fully at a stop sign ... jay walk ... litter ... etc ...
that may be, but the last time I was speeding I didn't bitch and moan about the punishment I paid the god damn fine. I took a risk and got caught. So why would these guys who take the risk, and those who DON'T bitch and moan when people are caught and punished for BREAKING the LAW?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I agree with the emotional content of the original poster's thoughts. There is a lack of compassion in the approach to the problem now. Our own citizens can be mis-treated AND there's a lack of consideration for the reasons that people may be trying to escape into America.
I have another thought about this Mexican/American border problem-->
I think if we look at this issue from a higher perspective than that of people who want to lock down the border, I think it's possible to see that the larger problem is the fact that America's neighbor must be an ill country. Just like if we lived on a street with a cruel or mentally ill family next store!! The kids would all be trying to escape over the fence. (Wouldn't you?) Building an enormous fence wouldn't solve the problem. Shooting the poor kids as they try to flee a bad situation wouldn't solve the problem. Making OUR OWN house a suspicious environment wouldn't solve the problem.
The real solution to the problem would be to help the people next door somehow. Right now we're seeing all the fleeing kids but something needs to be done about the cruel or careless leaders in that neighboring house.
that may be, but the last time I was speeding I didn't bitch and moan about the punishment I paid the god damn fine. I took a risk and got caught. So why would these guys who take the risk, and those who DON'T bitch and moan when people are caught and punished for BREAKING the LAW?
that's like 2 or 3 separate issues there ...
my response to him was related to his black and white statement of legality when in reality legal issues are often grey ...
having said that - if you got a speeding ticket for 1 mile over the limit ... you telling me you wouldn't bitch and moan? ...
in any case - ultimately for me this issue comes down to the spirit of its intentions ... we can discuss hypotheticals and rationalize based on our biases all day ... but to me - the spirit of this legislation is founded on prejudice and hate (although i loathe to use that word) ... but that's just my opinion ..
The real solution to the problem would be to help the people next door somehow. Right now we're seeing all the fleeing kids but something needs to be done about the cruel or careless leaders in that neighboring house.
that may be, but the last time I was speeding I didn't bitch and moan about the punishment I paid the god damn fine. I took a risk and got caught. So why would these guys who take the risk, and those who DON'T bitch and moan when people are caught and punished for BREAKING the LAW?
that's like 2 or 3 separate issues there ...
my response to him was related to his black and white statement of legality when in reality legal issues are often grey ...
having said that - if you got a speeding ticket for 1 mile over the limit ... you telling me you wouldn't bitch and moan? ...
in any case - ultimately for me this issue comes down to the spirit of its intentions ... we can discuss hypotheticals and rationalize based on our biases all day ... but to me - the spirit of this legislation is founded on prejudice and hate (although i loathe to use that word) ... but that's just my opinion ..
you are very welcome to your opinion,
and for your info, I got my last speeding ticket for 73 in a 70. unreal :oops: .
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you are very welcome to your opinion,
and for your info, I got my last speeding ticket for 73 in a 70. unreal :oops: .
i got issued a warning a few days ago ... dude in a mini-van was kinda driving wonky in the rain (think he was trying to read a map) ... so, i passed him ... you can't really pass a guy without speeding ... anyhoo - cop said he would just give me a warning ... no fine, no points ...
Doesn't the word ILLEGAL mean anything these days?
dude ... you've probably broken just as many laws ... we all have ... everytime you speed even 1 mile over the limit ... not stop fully at a stop sign ... jay walk ... litter ... etc ...
ummm, duh, I can get a ticket for those things......dude
so... What's wrong with that ? I just don't get why you and others have such a problem with this. We have to do the same thing in other countries. so why is it a big deal when people from other countries have to abide by our laws. :?
IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL WHEN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE TO ABIDE BY OUR LAWS! Seriously - I don't know how else to say it so you will understand. (Really?? You really don't understand? Because I just find that very hard to believe.)
Yes, people outside of their country of legal residence must carry documents to show that we are legal to be there. We all know we should carry our passports with us when we are traveling abroad. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO CARRY PROOF OF LEGAL RESIDENCY WITH US AT ALL TIMES WHEN WE ARE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY - UNTIL NOW. We are NOT saying that people from other countries should not have to abide by our laws. We are saying that this law tramples of the freedom of AMERICAN CITIZENS. See the difference?
It's one thing to have a difference of opinion, which we have. It's another thing to blatantly misrepresent what is said in the law, which you are doing.
Please tell me how Im misrepresenting it.. and where
I've already shown you where you're misrepresenting it. I don't have time to do show you again right now. Read my posts if you want to know.
I see that you went back and edited your post to add a link, but your link only goes to a web page that says, "The Requested Document Has Not Been Posted To The Web Site Yet," so that still doesn't answer my question about your source. Whatever.
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
so... What's wrong with that ? I just don't get why you and others have such a problem with this. We have to do the same thing in other countries. so why is it a big deal when people from other countries have to abide by our laws. :?
The problem is that I don't want to have to carry my passport with me when I go to Arizona. The even bigger problem is that I probably won't have to worry about it, but my Chicano friends will.
This is not about people from other countries having to abide by our laws; it's about legalizing the harassment of U.S. citizens based primarily on their appearance.
I don't understand why people have so much sympathy towards ILLEGAL aliens.
People have sympathy toward illegal immigrants because they are our fellow human beings. The only difference between them and us, many of us believe, is that they have come here illegally. Should we cease to have any sympathy for all our fellow human being as soon as they have committed ANY crime? Who among us has never committed a crime?
Doesn't the word ILLEGAL mean anything these days?
Don't the words FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS mean anything these days??
I said the difference between us and them is that they are here illegally. You didn't answer my questions though.
SHOULD WE CEASE TO HAVE ANY SYMPATHY FOR ALL OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AS SOON AS THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL???
Have you NEVER committed ANY type of crime? Has NO ONE in your life who you deserve is worthy of respect ever committed any type of crime?
There are different degrees of criminality, as is recognized by the law. Illegal immigration is not a violent crime; it does not demonstrate that people who commit it are deserving of our contempt. It is a failure to complete proper documents, as are many other crimes that we don't revile.
When I was in college I managed movie theaters. People constantly tried to sneak in without buying a ticket. (This is not only crossing a border of the theater without proper documentation, it's also theft.) Should we cease to treat all these people with the respect and sympathy we owe to our fellow human beings? Do they cease to be considered human as soon as they become illegal?
Doesn't the word ILLEGAL mean anything these days?
dude ... you've probably broken just as many laws ... we all have ... everytime you speed even 1 mile over the limit ... not stop fully at a stop sign ... jay walk ... litter ... etc ...
that may be, but the last time I was speeding I didn't bitch and moan about the punishment I paid the god damn fine. I took a risk and got caught. So why would these guys who take the risk, and those who DON'T bitch and moan when people are caught and punished for BREAKING the LAW?
Uh... these posts were in response to mb's suggestion that, because they have done something illegal, we shouldn't have sympathy for undocumented immigrants. I believe polaris's point (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) was that we shouldn't have any less sympathy for these people who have broken the law than we have for other people who have broken the law.
I agree with the emotional content of the original poster's thoughts. There is a lack of compassion in the approach to the problem now. Our own citizens can be mis-treated AND there's a lack of consideration for the reasons that people may be trying to escape into America.
I have another thought about this Mexican/American border problem-->
I think if we look at this issue from a higher perspective than that of people who want to lock down the border, I think it's possible to see that the larger problem is the fact that America's neighbor must be an ill country. Just like if we lived on a street with a cruel or mentally ill family next store!! The kids would all be trying to escape over the fence. (Wouldn't you?) Building an enormous fence wouldn't solve the problem. Shooting the poor kids as they try to flee a bad situation wouldn't solve the problem. Making OUR OWN house a suspicious environment wouldn't solve the problem.
The real solution to the problem would be to help the people next door somehow. Right now we're seeing all the fleeing kids but something needs to be done about the cruel or careless leaders in that neighboring house.
I agree, but would also add that perhaps WE are partially culpable for the neighbor's problem in the first place.
I completely agree that anyone who is not a citizen of this country, should not be living here. Unfortunately, this "wonderful' country brought the immigration problem upon itself. Yes, coming to America is quite appealing to those who live in impoverished countries; however, keep in mind that most countries have laws in place which prohibit non-citizens from overstaying their welcome regardless of the circumstances; the U.S. should strictly enforce the same restrictions. Americans are paying for illegals to live here when our own citizens are in desperate need of help. Illegals need to be sent back to their own countries. Period.
I completely agree that anyone who is not a citizen of this country, should not be living here. Unfortunately, this "wonderful' country brought the immigration problem upon itself. Yes, coming to America is quite appealing to those who live in impoverished countries; however, keep in mind that most countries have laws in place which prohibit non-citizens from overstaying their welcome regardless of the circumstances; the U.S. should strictly enforce the same restrictions. Americans are paying for illegals to live here when our own citizens are in desperate need of help. Illegals need to be sent back to their own countries. Period.
Write or say anything about illegal immigration, and one should expect to be called all of that and more—even if a strong supporter of legal immigration. Illegal alien becomes undocumented worker. Anti-immigrant replaces anti-illegal-immigration. “Comprehensive” is a euphemism for amnesty. Triangulation abounds. A fiery op-ed grandstands and deplores the Arizona law, but offers no guidance about illegal immigration — and blames the employer for doing something that the ethnic lobby in fact welcomes.
Nevertheless, here it goes from a supporter of legal immigration: how are we to make sense of the current Arizona debate? One should show concern about some elements of the law, but only in the context of the desperation of the citizens of Arizona. And one should show some skepticism concerning mounting liberal anguish, so often expressed by those whose daily lives are completely unaffected by the revolutionary demographic, cultural, and legal transformations occurring in the American Southwest.
As I understand the opposition to the recent Arizona law, it boils down to something like the following: the federal government’s past decision not to enforce its own law should always trump the state’s right to honor it. That raises interesting questions: Does the state contravene federal authority by exercising it? If the federal government does not protect the borders of a state, does the state have a right to do it itself? The federal government has seemed in the past to be saying that if one circumvented a federal law, and was known to have circumvented federal law with recognized impunity, then there was no longer a law to be enforced.
A Losing Political Issue
The politics of illegal immigration are a losing proposition for liberals (one can see that in the resort to euphemism), even if they don’t quite see it that way. Here are ten considerations why.
Law?—What Law?
First, there is the simplicity of the argument. One either wishes or does not wish existing law to be enforced. If the answer is no, and citizens can pick and chose which laws they would like to obey, in theory why should we have to pay taxes or respect the speed limit? Note that liberal Democrats do not suggest that we overturn immigration law and de jure open the border — only that we continue to do that de facto. Confusion between legal and illegal immigration is essential for the open borders argument, since a proper distinction between the two makes the present policy indefensible—especially since it discriminates against those waiting in line to come to America legally (e.g., somehow our attention is turned to the illegal alien’s plight and not the burdensome paperwork and government obstacles that the dutiful legal immigrant must face).
Why Wave the Flag of the Country I Don’t Wish to Return To?
Second, often the protests against enforcement of immigration law are strangely couched within a general climate of anger at the U.S. government (and/or the American people) for some such illiberal transgression (review the placards, flags, etc. at May Day immigration rallies). Fairly or not, the anger at the U.S. and the nostalgia for Mexico distill into the absurd, something like either “I am furious at the country I insist on staying in, and fond of the country I most certainly do not wish to return to” or “I am angry at you so you better let angry me stay with you!” Such mixed messages confuse the electorate. As in the case with the Palestinians, there is an effort to graft a foreign policy issue (protecting an international border) onto domestic identity politics, to inject an inflammatory race/class element into the debate by creating oppressors, victims, and grievances along racial divides.
Big Brother Mexico?
Third, Mexico is no help. Now it weighs in with all sorts of moral censure for Arizonians — this from a corrupt government whose very policies are predicated on exporting a million indigenous people a year, while it seeks to lure wealthy “gringos” to invest in second-homes in Baja. The absence of millions from Oaxaca or Chiapas ensures billions in remittances, less expenditures for social services, and fewer dissident citizens. But the construct of Mexico as the concerned parent of its own lost children is by now so implausible that even its sympathizers do not take it seriously. Mexico has lost all credibility on these issues, expressing concern for its own citizens only when they seem to have crossed the border — and left Mexico.
It’s Not a Race Issue
Fourth, there really is a new popular groundswell to close the borders. Most against illegal immigration, especially in the case of minorities and Mexican-American citizens, keep rather mum about their feelings. But that silence should not be interpreted as antagonism to enforcing the law. Many minorities realize that the greatest hindrance to a natural rise in wages for entry level jobs has been the option for an employer to hire illegal aliens, who, at least in their 20s and 30s, will work harder for less pay with fewer complaints (when sick, or disabled, or elderly, the worker is directed by the employer to the social services agencies and replaced by someone younger as a new cycle of exploitation begins). In this context, the old race card is less effective. The general population is beginning to see not that Americans (of all races who oppose illegal immigration) are racist, but that the open borders movement has itself a racially chauvinistic theme to it, albeit articulated honestly only on university campuses and in Chicano-Latino departments, as a sort of “payback” for the Mexican War, where redress for “lost” land is finally to be had through demography.
Bad Times
Fifth, we are in a deep recession, in which the jobs that for so long seemed unappealing to American citizens are now not all that unappealing. The interior of California suffers from 20% Depression-style unemployment; many of the jobless are first and second-generation Mexican-Americans, who would have some leverage with employers if there were not an alternative illegal labor poll.
A Fence—How Quaint!
Sixth, the so-called unworkable fence mostly works; it either keeps border crossers out or diverts them to unfenced areas. (There is a reason why Obama has ordered its completion tabled). It used to be sophisticated wisdom to tsk-tsk something as reductive as walls, usually by adducing the theory that if an occasional alien made it over or under a wall, then it was of no utility, without acknowledging the fence’s effectiveness in deterring most would-be crossers. But where the fence has gone up, crossings have gone down; and where it is not yet completed crossings have increased.
One Big Travel Advisory?
Seventh, Mexico is now more violent than Iraq. The unrest is spilling across the borders. The old shrill argument that criminals, drug smugglers, and violence in general are spreading into the American southwest from Mexico is not longer quite so shrill.
11 Million—Then, Now, Forever?
Eighth, the numbers are cumulative. We talked of “eleven million illegal aliens” in 2001, and still talk of “eleven million illegal aliens” in 2010. In fact, most suspect that there is more likely somewhere between 12 and 20 million. (Do the math of annual arrivals and add them to the existing pool, factoring in voluntary and coerced deportations).
Money for Mexico?
Ninth, we are at last turning to the issue of remittances: How can expatriates send back some $20-30 billion in remittances, if they are impoverished and in need of extensive entitlements and subsidies to cushion the harshness of life in America? Do those lost billions hurt the U.S. economy? Are they a indirect subsidy for Mexico City? Were such funds ever taxed completely or off-the-books cash income? Remittances are Mexico’s second largest source of foreign exchange; that it comes so often off the sweat of minimum-wage workers seems especially ironic, given Mexico’s protestations about human rights.
The California Canary
Tenth, California’s meltdown is instructive. If about half the nation’s illegal aliens reside in the state, and its problems are in at least in some part attributable to soaring costs in educating hundreds of thousands of non-English-speaking students, a growing number of aliens in prison and the criminal justice system, real problems of collecting off-the-books income and payroll taxes, expanding entitlements, and unsustainable social services, do we wish to avoid its model?
The Law’s a Mess?
The enforcement of the law, such as it is, has become Byzantine: illegal aliens in California pay a third of the college tuition as non-resident citizens; police routinely inquire about all sorts of possible criminal behavior — except the violation of federal immigration statutes. Past, once-and-for-all, final, absolutely-no-more amnesties encourage more illegal entries on the expectation of more such no-more amnesties.
Bottom line. I can understand the liberal desire for open borders. For some, it is genuine humanitarianism — that the U.S. is wealthy enough to absorb a quarter of the impoverished population of Mexico. For others, it is policy by anecdote: helping a long-employed nanny with a car payment or a loyal gardener with a legal matter by extension translates into support for de facto open borders. I have met over the years literally hundreds of Bay Area residents who have assured me that because they have developed a close relationship with Juan, their lawn mower, by extension everyone in nearby Redwood City — which they do not frequent and keep their children away from — ipso facto is like Juan and thus should be given amnesty.
On the political side, Democrats clearly welcome new voting constituents. Illegal aliens becoming citizens, at least for a generation or so, translates into more entitlements and a larger government to administer. (Note how there is not a liberal outcry that we do not let in enough computer programers from India, small businessmen from France and Germany, or doctors from Korea). Then there is the gerrymandering of the American Southwest to reflect new demographic realities, and the pipe-dream of a salad bowl of unassimilated peoples in need of a paternalistic liberal technocratic governing class — all that apparently is worth the firestorm of trying to ram through something so unpopular as “comprehensive” reform.
Not Quite So Easy
Do conservatives have the winning argument? For now yes — simply close the border , fine employers of illegal aliens, and allow the pool of aliens to become static. Fining employers both stops illegal immigration and is sometimes cheered on by the Left, as if the worker has no culpability for breaking the law (e.g., a liberal can damn unscrupulous employers and thereby oppose illegal immigration without confronting the La Raza bloc). Some will marry citizens. Some will voluntarily return to Mexico. Some will be picked up through the normal government vigilance we all face — traffic infractions, necessary court appearances, interaction with state agencies. And while we argue over the policy concerning the remaining majority of illegal aliens and such contentious issues as green-cards, guest workers, and so-called earned citizenship, the pool at least in theory shrinks.
Yet if I were a Republican policy-maker I would be very wary of mass deportations. A gradualist approach, clearly delineated, is preferable, in which those who have been here five years (to pick an arbitrary number), are gainfully employed, and are free of a criminal record should have some avenue for applying for citizenship (one can fight it out whether they should pay a fine, stay or return to Mexico in the process, and get/not get preference over new applicants.)
Again, one should avoid immediate, mass deportations (it would resemble something catastrophic like the Pakistani-Indian exchanges of the late 1940s), and yet not reward the breaking of federal law. Good luck with that.
Finally, legal immigration should be reformed and reflect new realities. Millions of highly educated and skilled foreigners from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe are dying to enter the U.S. Rather than base immigration criteria on anchor children, accidental birth in the U.S. without concern for legality, and family ties, we need at least in part to start giving preference to those of all races and nationalities who will come with critical skills, and in turn rely less on the social service entitlement industry. They should come from as many diverse places as possible to prevent the sort of focused ethnic tribalism and chauvinism we have seen in the case of Mexico’s cynicism.
I think there's several underlying issues with this topic.
We do not have a good, comprehensive nor inclusion based immigration policy. Whether it is for security, taxes, costs or similar, our laws and the actual practice of them do not set forth good working relations in this area. Also, we setup a false based system - basically not really enforcing laws and efforts because we actually need their workers due to the market impacts of them not working (jobs most citizens dont want). We also do not really punish companies who employ illegals because we need them working, yet hold grudges against the actual people taking these jobs. For the very same reasons we complain about our blue-collar workers needing to support their families and doing their fair part, we begrudge these other people because of a citizenship system which is failed. Yes it failed because we offer no real incentives for illegals to become citizens other than by name... and perhaps that means something to some who's families did have to adjust when historical climates where different, but in all honesty, can anyone actually say they would go through the hassles of fees, years of paperwork to become a citizen now when you're still looked upon, treated and put yourself at risk at simply calling yourself "citizen"? I find this hard for anyone to legitimately argue. Lastly, as another poster mentioned, a lot of this matter is merely intention based. It's hard to really argue when you look around how many have become misguided, angry or even resentful of foreigners, especially one's working here in this manner. But there's never a mention of NAFTA or the laundry list of companies and corporations that bailed from American soil so they can make a few extra bucks on the work of cheap labor and labor laws elsewhere... or even the fact that our very own government funded many of these transitions for businesses to leave. And yet, instead of taking all of these facts into account before discussing immigration, so many merely point the blame and focus onto illegal immigrants or migrant workers. The reality is they are merely part of the laundry list of issues which is what is broken in our society, policy and government when it comes to business and immigration.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I think there's several underlying issues with this topic.
We do not have a good, comprehensive nor inclusion based immigration policy. Whether it is for security, taxes, costs or similar, our laws and the actual practice of them do not set forth good working relations in this area. Also, we setup a false based system - basically not really enforcing laws and efforts because we actually need their workers due to the market impacts of them not working (jobs most citizens dont want). We also do not really punish companies who employ illegals because we need them working, yet hold grudges against the actual people taking these jobs. For the very same reasons we complain about our blue-collar workers needing to support their families and doing their fair part, we begrudge these other people because of a citizenship system which is failed. Yes it failed because we offer no real incentives for illegals to become citizens other than by name... and perhaps that means something to some who's families did have to adjust when historical climates where different, but in all honesty, can anyone actually say they would go through the hassles of fees, years of paperwork to become a citizen now when you're still looked upon, treated and put yourself at risk at simply calling yourself "citizen"? I find this hard for anyone to legitimately argue. Lastly, as another poster mentioned, a lot of this matter is merely intention based. It's hard to really argue when you look around how many have become misguided, angry or even resentful of foreigners, especially one's working here in this manner. But there's never a mention of NAFTA or the laundry list of companies and corporations that bailed from American soil so they can make a few extra bucks on the work of cheap labor and labor laws elsewhere... or even the fact that our very own government funded many of these transitions for businesses to leave. And yet, instead of taking all of these facts into account before discussing immigration, so many merely point the blame and focus onto illegal immigrants or migrant workers. The reality is they are merely part of the laundry list of issues which is what is broken in our society, policy and government when it comes to business and immigration.
yup
people here want to say it's about the LAW and upholding it to which i believe they are being disingenious ... if the law was so important - why do we support companies that hire these workers ... heck, lots of big corporations break laws everyday polluting the environment and dumping toxic waste everywhere and they barely get their wrists slapped ... and why is it that this stuff comes up when the economy sucks? ... it's because people want a scapegoat ... so, why not target these people making $50 a day? ...
Here's the opinion of Greg Palast, Investigative Journalist, on the AZ law. Very interesting.....
Behind the Arizona Immigration Law:
GOP Game to Swipe the November Election
Our investigation in Arizona discovered the real intent of the show-me-your-papers law.
by Greg Palast for Truthout.org
April 26, 2010
Reporter Palast in guard tower over Joe Arpaio's jail, Maricopa County, Arizona[Phoenix, AZ.] Don't be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.
I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.
What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic "Teabag" uprising.
What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.
In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer.
Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer's command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.
That statistic caught my attention. Voting or registering to vote if you're not a citizen is a felony, a big-time jail-time crime. And arresting such criminal voters is easy: after all, they give their names and addresses.
Captives of Sheriff Joe's prison, Maricopa County, ArizonaSo I asked Brewer's office, had she busted a single one of these thousands of allegedly illegal voters? Did she turn over even one name to the feds for prosecution?
No, not one.
Which raises the question: were these disenfranchised voters the criminal, non-citizens Brewer tagged them, or just not-quite-white voters given the José Crow treatment, entrapped in document-chase trickery?
The answer was provided by a federal prosecutor who was sent on a crazy hunt all over the Western mesas looking for these illegal voters. "We took over 100 complaints, we investigated for almost 2 years, I didn't find one prosecutable voter fraud case."
This prosecutor, David Iglesias, is a prosecutor no more. When he refused to fabricate charges of illegal voting among immigrants, his firing was personally ordered by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, under orders from his boss, Karl Rove.
Iglesias' jurisdiction was next door, in New Mexico, but he told me that Rove and the Republican chieftains were working nationwide to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria with public busts of illegal voters, even though there were none.
"They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments," Iglesias told me. The former prosecutor, himself a Republican, paid the price when he stood up to this vicious attack on citizenship.
But Secretary of State Brewer followed the Rove plan to a T. The weapon she used to slice the Arizona voter rolls was a 2004 law, known as "Prop 200," which required proof of citizenship to register. It is important to see the Republicans' latest legislative horror show, sanctioning cops to stop residents and prove citizenship, as just one more step in the party's desperate plan to impede Mexican-Americans from marching to the ballot box.
[By the way, no one elected Brewer. Weirdly, Barack Obama placed her in office last year when, for reasons known only to the Devil and Rahm Emanuel, the President appointed Arizona's Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano to his cabinet, which automatically moved Republican Brewer into the Governor's office.]
State Senator Russell Pearce, the Republican sponsor of the latest ID law, gave away his real intent, blocking the vote, when he said, "There is a massive effort under way to register illegal aliens in this country."
How many? Pearce's PR flak told me, five million. All Democrats, too. Again, I asked Pearce's office to give me their the names and addresses from their phony registration forms. I'd happily make a citizens arrest of each one, on camera. Pearce didn't have five million names. He didn't have five. He didn't have one.
The horde of five million voters who swam the Rio Grande just to vote for Obama was calculated on a Republican website extrapolating from the number of Mexicans in a border town who refused jury service because they were not citizens. Not one, in fact, had registered to vote: they had registered to drive. They had obtained licenses as required by the law.
The illegal voters, "wetback" welfare moms, and alien job thieves are just GOP website wet-dreams, but their mythic PR power helps the party's electoral hacks chop away at voter rolls and civil rights with little more than a whimper from the Democrats.
Indeed, one reason, I discovered, that some Democrats are silent is that they are in on the game themselves. In New Mexico, Democratic Party bosses tossed away ballots of Pueblo Indians to cut native influence in party primaries.
But what's wrong with requiring folks to prove they're American if the want to vote and live in America? The answer: because the vast majority of perfectly legal voters and residents who lack ID sufficient for Ms. Brewer and Mr. Pearce are citizens of color, citizens of poverty.
According to a study by prof. Matt Barreto, of Washington State University, minority citizens are half as likely as whites to have the government ID. The numbers are dreadfully worse when income is factored in.
Just outside Phoenix, without Brewer's or Pearce's help, I did locate one of these evil un-American voters, that is, someone who could not prove her citizenship: 100-year-old Shirley Preiss. Her US birth certificate was nowhere to be found as it never existed.
In Phoenix, I stopped in at the Maricopa County prison where Sheriff Joe Arpaio houses the captives of his campaign to stop illegal immigration. Arpaio, who under the new Arizona law, will be empowered to choose his targets for citizenship testing, is already facing federal indictment for his racially-charged and legally suspect methods.
I admit, I was a little nervous, passing through the iron doors with a big sign, "NOTICE: ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE PROHIBITED FROM VISITING ANYONE IN THIS JAIL." I mean, Grandma Palast snuck into the USA via Windsor, Canada. We Palasts are illegal as they come, but Arpaio's sophisticated deportee-sniffer didn't stop this white boy from entering his sanctum.
But that's the point, isn't it? Not to stop non-citizens from entering Arizona -- after all, who else would care for the country club lawn? -- but to harass folks of the wrong color: Democratic blue.
***
Greg Palast has investigated the illegal disenfranchisement of voters for BBC Television, Rolling Stone (with Robert Kennedy Jr.), Harper's, The Nation and Truthout.org. Palast co-authored the investigative comic book, "Steal Back Your Vote" with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., available in full color print or for download at www.StealBackYourVote.com for a donation to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund.
Subscribe to Palast's Newsletter and podcasts.
Follow Palast on Facebook and Twitter.
Support Palast's work by making a tax-deductible donation.
If Mr. Pallast was born in the U.S. then his birth certificate would give him citizenship, so that may be why deportee-sniffers didn’t go off. His parents however may be liable for up to a $5,000 fine . . . and maybe since they crossed into the US at Windsor, which actually forces you to travel north from Canada into the US, they might have been subject to a loophole.
I do find it interesting that a republican governor was instilled because Obama cherry-picked Napolitano.
Comments
dude ... you've probably broken just as many laws ... we all have ... everytime you speed even 1 mile over the limit ... not stop fully at a stop sign ... jay walk ... litter ... etc ...
that may be, but the last time I was speeding I didn't bitch and moan about the punishment I paid the god damn fine. I took a risk and got caught. So why would these guys who take the risk, and those who DON'T bitch and moan when people are caught and punished for BREAKING the LAW?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I have another thought about this Mexican/American border problem-->
I think if we look at this issue from a higher perspective than that of people who want to lock down the border, I think it's possible to see that the larger problem is the fact that America's neighbor must be an ill country. Just like if we lived on a street with a cruel or mentally ill family next store!! The kids would all be trying to escape over the fence. (Wouldn't you?) Building an enormous fence wouldn't solve the problem. Shooting the poor kids as they try to flee a bad situation wouldn't solve the problem. Making OUR OWN house a suspicious environment wouldn't solve the problem.
The real solution to the problem would be to help the people next door somehow. Right now we're seeing all the fleeing kids but something needs to be done about the cruel or careless leaders in that neighboring house.
that's like 2 or 3 separate issues there ...
my response to him was related to his black and white statement of legality when in reality legal issues are often grey ...
having said that - if you got a speeding ticket for 1 mile over the limit ... you telling me you wouldn't bitch and moan? ...
in any case - ultimately for me this issue comes down to the spirit of its intentions ... we can discuss hypotheticals and rationalize based on our biases all day ... but to me - the spirit of this legislation is founded on prejudice and hate (although i loathe to use that word) ... but that's just my opinion ..
down with globalization!!!!!!! ...
you are very welcome to your opinion,
and for your info, I got my last speeding ticket for 73 in a 70. unreal :oops: .
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i got issued a warning a few days ago ... dude in a mini-van was kinda driving wonky in the rain (think he was trying to read a map) ... so, i passed him ... you can't really pass a guy without speeding ... anyhoo - cop said he would just give me a warning ... no fine, no points ...
ummm, duh, I can get a ticket for those things......dude
IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL WHEN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE TO ABIDE BY OUR LAWS! Seriously - I don't know how else to say it so you will understand. (Really?? You really don't understand? Because I just find that very hard to believe.)
Yes, people outside of their country of legal residence must carry documents to show that we are legal to be there. We all know we should carry our passports with us when we are traveling abroad. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO CARRY PROOF OF LEGAL RESIDENCY WITH US AT ALL TIMES WHEN WE ARE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY - UNTIL NOW. We are NOT saying that people from other countries should not have to abide by our laws. We are saying that this law tramples of the freedom of AMERICAN CITIZENS. See the difference?
I see that you went back and edited your post to add a link, but your link only goes to a web page that says, "The Requested Document Has Not Been Posted To The Web Site Yet," so that still doesn't answer my question about your source. Whatever.
The problem is that I don't want to have to carry my passport with me when I go to Arizona. The even bigger problem is that I probably won't have to worry about it, but my Chicano friends will.
This is not about people from other countries having to abide by our laws; it's about legalizing the harassment of U.S. citizens based primarily on their appearance.
Don't the words FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS mean anything these days??
I said the difference between us and them is that they are here illegally. You didn't answer my questions though.
SHOULD WE CEASE TO HAVE ANY SYMPATHY FOR ALL OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AS SOON AS THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL???
Have you NEVER committed ANY type of crime? Has NO ONE in your life who you deserve is worthy of respect ever committed any type of crime?
There are different degrees of criminality, as is recognized by the law. Illegal immigration is not a violent crime; it does not demonstrate that people who commit it are deserving of our contempt. It is a failure to complete proper documents, as are many other crimes that we don't revile.
When I was in college I managed movie theaters. People constantly tried to sneak in without buying a ticket. (This is not only crossing a border of the theater without proper documentation, it's also theft.) Should we cease to treat all these people with the respect and sympathy we owe to our fellow human beings? Do they cease to be considered human as soon as they become illegal?
Uh... these posts were in response to mb's suggestion that, because they have done something illegal, we shouldn't have sympathy for undocumented immigrants. I believe polaris's point (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) was that we shouldn't have any less sympathy for these people who have broken the law than we have for other people who have broken the law.
I agree, but would also add that perhaps WE are partially culpable for the neighbor's problem in the first place.
wow ! well said.
Godfather.
We do not have a good, comprehensive nor inclusion based immigration policy. Whether it is for security, taxes, costs or similar, our laws and the actual practice of them do not set forth good working relations in this area. Also, we setup a false based system - basically not really enforcing laws and efforts because we actually need their workers due to the market impacts of them not working (jobs most citizens dont want). We also do not really punish companies who employ illegals because we need them working, yet hold grudges against the actual people taking these jobs. For the very same reasons we complain about our blue-collar workers needing to support their families and doing their fair part, we begrudge these other people because of a citizenship system which is failed. Yes it failed because we offer no real incentives for illegals to become citizens other than by name... and perhaps that means something to some who's families did have to adjust when historical climates where different, but in all honesty, can anyone actually say they would go through the hassles of fees, years of paperwork to become a citizen now when you're still looked upon, treated and put yourself at risk at simply calling yourself "citizen"? I find this hard for anyone to legitimately argue. Lastly, as another poster mentioned, a lot of this matter is merely intention based. It's hard to really argue when you look around how many have become misguided, angry or even resentful of foreigners, especially one's working here in this manner. But there's never a mention of NAFTA or the laundry list of companies and corporations that bailed from American soil so they can make a few extra bucks on the work of cheap labor and labor laws elsewhere... or even the fact that our very own government funded many of these transitions for businesses to leave. And yet, instead of taking all of these facts into account before discussing immigration, so many merely point the blame and focus onto illegal immigrants or migrant workers. The reality is they are merely part of the laundry list of issues which is what is broken in our society, policy and government when it comes to business and immigration.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
yup
people here want to say it's about the LAW and upholding it to which i believe they are being disingenious ... if the law was so important - why do we support companies that hire these workers ... heck, lots of big corporations break laws everyday polluting the environment and dumping toxic waste everywhere and they barely get their wrists slapped ... and why is it that this stuff comes up when the economy sucks? ... it's because people want a scapegoat ... so, why not target these people making $50 a day? ...
Behind the Arizona Immigration Law:
GOP Game to Swipe the November Election
Our investigation in Arizona discovered the real intent of the show-me-your-papers law.
by Greg Palast for Truthout.org
April 26, 2010
Reporter Palast in guard tower over Joe Arpaio's jail, Maricopa County, Arizona[Phoenix, AZ.] Don't be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.
I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.
What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic "Teabag" uprising.
What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.
In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer.
Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer's command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.
That statistic caught my attention. Voting or registering to vote if you're not a citizen is a felony, a big-time jail-time crime. And arresting such criminal voters is easy: after all, they give their names and addresses.
Captives of Sheriff Joe's prison, Maricopa County, ArizonaSo I asked Brewer's office, had she busted a single one of these thousands of allegedly illegal voters? Did she turn over even one name to the feds for prosecution?
No, not one.
Which raises the question: were these disenfranchised voters the criminal, non-citizens Brewer tagged them, or just not-quite-white voters given the José Crow treatment, entrapped in document-chase trickery?
The answer was provided by a federal prosecutor who was sent on a crazy hunt all over the Western mesas looking for these illegal voters. "We took over 100 complaints, we investigated for almost 2 years, I didn't find one prosecutable voter fraud case."
This prosecutor, David Iglesias, is a prosecutor no more. When he refused to fabricate charges of illegal voting among immigrants, his firing was personally ordered by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, under orders from his boss, Karl Rove.
Iglesias' jurisdiction was next door, in New Mexico, but he told me that Rove and the Republican chieftains were working nationwide to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria with public busts of illegal voters, even though there were none.
"They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments," Iglesias told me. The former prosecutor, himself a Republican, paid the price when he stood up to this vicious attack on citizenship.
But Secretary of State Brewer followed the Rove plan to a T. The weapon she used to slice the Arizona voter rolls was a 2004 law, known as "Prop 200," which required proof of citizenship to register. It is important to see the Republicans' latest legislative horror show, sanctioning cops to stop residents and prove citizenship, as just one more step in the party's desperate plan to impede Mexican-Americans from marching to the ballot box.
[By the way, no one elected Brewer. Weirdly, Barack Obama placed her in office last year when, for reasons known only to the Devil and Rahm Emanuel, the President appointed Arizona's Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano to his cabinet, which automatically moved Republican Brewer into the Governor's office.]
State Senator Russell Pearce, the Republican sponsor of the latest ID law, gave away his real intent, blocking the vote, when he said, "There is a massive effort under way to register illegal aliens in this country."
How many? Pearce's PR flak told me, five million. All Democrats, too. Again, I asked Pearce's office to give me their the names and addresses from their phony registration forms. I'd happily make a citizens arrest of each one, on camera. Pearce didn't have five million names. He didn't have five. He didn't have one.
The horde of five million voters who swam the Rio Grande just to vote for Obama was calculated on a Republican website extrapolating from the number of Mexicans in a border town who refused jury service because they were not citizens. Not one, in fact, had registered to vote: they had registered to drive. They had obtained licenses as required by the law.
The illegal voters, "wetback" welfare moms, and alien job thieves are just GOP website wet-dreams, but their mythic PR power helps the party's electoral hacks chop away at voter rolls and civil rights with little more than a whimper from the Democrats.
Indeed, one reason, I discovered, that some Democrats are silent is that they are in on the game themselves. In New Mexico, Democratic Party bosses tossed away ballots of Pueblo Indians to cut native influence in party primaries.
But what's wrong with requiring folks to prove they're American if the want to vote and live in America? The answer: because the vast majority of perfectly legal voters and residents who lack ID sufficient for Ms. Brewer and Mr. Pearce are citizens of color, citizens of poverty.
According to a study by prof. Matt Barreto, of Washington State University, minority citizens are half as likely as whites to have the government ID. The numbers are dreadfully worse when income is factored in.
Just outside Phoenix, without Brewer's or Pearce's help, I did locate one of these evil un-American voters, that is, someone who could not prove her citizenship: 100-year-old Shirley Preiss. Her US birth certificate was nowhere to be found as it never existed.
In Phoenix, I stopped in at the Maricopa County prison where Sheriff Joe Arpaio houses the captives of his campaign to stop illegal immigration. Arpaio, who under the new Arizona law, will be empowered to choose his targets for citizenship testing, is already facing federal indictment for his racially-charged and legally suspect methods.
I admit, I was a little nervous, passing through the iron doors with a big sign, "NOTICE: ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE PROHIBITED FROM VISITING ANYONE IN THIS JAIL." I mean, Grandma Palast snuck into the USA via Windsor, Canada. We Palasts are illegal as they come, but Arpaio's sophisticated deportee-sniffer didn't stop this white boy from entering his sanctum.
But that's the point, isn't it? Not to stop non-citizens from entering Arizona -- after all, who else would care for the country club lawn? -- but to harass folks of the wrong color: Democratic blue.
***
Greg Palast has investigated the illegal disenfranchisement of voters for BBC Television, Rolling Stone (with Robert Kennedy Jr.), Harper's, The Nation and Truthout.org. Palast co-authored the investigative comic book, "Steal Back Your Vote" with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., available in full color print or for download at www.StealBackYourVote.com for a donation to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund.
Subscribe to Palast's Newsletter and podcasts.
Follow Palast on Facebook and Twitter.
Support Palast's work by making a tax-deductible donation.
I do find it interesting that a republican governor was instilled because Obama cherry-picked Napolitano.
anyone who is in favour of this legislation care to rebutt?