Sections of Arizona Immigration Law Blocked

[eleanor]

[quote=Huffington Post]Arizona Immigration Law: Sections BLOCKED By Federal Judge

PHOENIX â?? A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton shifts the immigration debate to the courts and sets up a lengthy legal battle that may not be decided until the Supreme Court weighs in. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.

But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that most angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places â?? a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.

She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar action elsewhere, prompted a boycott against Arizona and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the state's border with Mexico is awash in drugs and smugglers that authorities badly want to stop.

Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.

"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told The Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.

The crowd clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"

Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.

"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."

Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled.

Federal authorities have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

The core of the government's case is that federal immigration law trumps state law â?? an issue known as "pre-emption" in legal circles.

The judge pointed out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims that U.S. law supersedes state law.

"Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce pre-empted laws," Bolton wrote.

Supporters of the law took solace in the fact that the judge did keep several portions of the law intact, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as "sanctuary cities."

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies have always been the No. 1 priority of SB1070," said Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the law.

Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/arizona-immigration-law-s_n_662376.html"]Source[/url][/quote]

tl;dr: an Arizona federal judge blocked sections of the new immigration law, namely the part that required police officers to check the immigration status of people caught for breaking other unrelated laws. Delayed sections include: requiring all immigrants to carry papers at all time, making it illegal for undocumented workers to look for jobs in public, and a section that would allow police to make warantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. [strike]Republicans cry moar over activist judges while insisting they hate Russian immigrants as much as Mexican ones[/strike]

[img]http://i29.tinypic.com/30bie6u.gif[/img] Edited July 28, 2010 by eleanor

[CaNz]

why don't they make a law stating everyone has to carry proof of citizenship with them. make it a government issued card. that way when people get stopped for any reason. they can check that. if people are citizens. they have it. if people are legal immigrants they have it and if they are illegal immigrants they will not have it. how hard would it be to keep one card on you at all times? the government coulld actually make money off of it with slightly overpriced maintenance, and we dont have to worry about the BS discrimination clams.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='CaNz' date='28 July 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1280356786' post='698149']
why don't they make a law stating everyone has to carry proof of citizenship with them. make it a government issued card. that way when people get stopped for any reason. they can check that. if people are citizens. they have it. if people are legal immigrants they have it and if they are illegal immigrants they will not have it. how hard would it be to keep one card on you at all times? the government coulld actually make money off of it with slightly overpriced maintenance, and we dont have to worry about the BS discrimination clams.
[/quote]


[color=indigo]Unfortunately the situation is a little trickier than that. The US government does issue a card to every legal citizen, your social security card (as well as a birth certificate if you were born in the US). It also issue immigration papers to every legal US immigrant. On top of that, most states require citizens over the age of 18 to obtain a state id (your driver's license is also a state id). The big problem with having a national id card s the same problem that you have with the social security card/numbering system. Though created for a good reason, the social security cards purpose has extended greatly especially over the past 30 years. This has led to a myriad of problems including an increase in fraud and a decrease in privacy. While I would argue that the social security card/number has done more good than harm, it certainly hasn't been all roses. Many fear that a national id would hinder privacy even more, especially with a truly integrated id that is attached to everything from your mortgage to your spending habits. The real question is, will a national id really help solve the problem of illegal immigration?

Before I give my answer to that question, I want to write a little about Arizona's law and my opinions on it. While I think there are plenty of racist people that support the law, I don't believe that law Arizona purposed discriminates against US citizens. It requires that all immigrants carry immigration paper or have a current application in process (which an immigrant receives paperwork for), not just the brown ones. It also states that police must inquire the immigration status of anyone that they stop, detain or arrest. Again, this doesn't just apply to people of a certain race or skin color. Also, it is important to note that this means police can't just randomly ask a person for their papers, they can only ask once they are in the process of doing their duty (ie giving a speeding ticket, arresting someone for assault or theft, or being suspected of breaking the law in some other manner than being an illegal immigrant). The biggest issue of contention is that the law makes it possible for police to make a warrant-less arrest. Again, I really don't see the big deal in this issue. Police officers make warrant-less arrests all the time. If you are in the process of committing a crime, no warrant is needed for an arrest, therefore the very fact that illegal immigrants are in the act of committing a crime (being in the US illegally) should make it a non-issue.

While I have no real problem with the laws Arizona has proposed, I have no problem in stating that it doesn't matter what anyone's opinions are concerning Arizona's law and its potential effects, it is still unconstitutional. The US federal government is the organization charged with passing and enforcing laws dealing with immigration. If they choose to create a law but not truly enforce said law it is within their rights. It is not within a state's rights to enforce a federal law with their own resources without federal approval.

Now, to answer the question, would a national id help solve the problem of illegal immigration? No, not unless the federal government is willing to enforce its own laws.

Before I go, my two cents on illegal immigration and the whole Arizona fiasco. Anyone that sees the situation in black or white should be consigned to a short bus, not because they are mentally handicapped, but because it will really boost the mentally handicapped kids' morale to have someone on their bus that they can make fun of for being dumb. I have a slew of friends whose parents are illegal immigrants. Every single one of them makes the US a far better place to live in, and it would have sucked to not have them in my life because their parents were deported soon after they arrived in the county. On the flip side, illegal immigration is a huge burden on the US, especially in border states like Arizona and New Mexico. The largest burden comes from the fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants don't pay federal, state, or social security tax. While many state that this is a non-issue because illegal immigrants tend to not utilize government programs like social security, they are sorely mistaken. If illegal immigrants didn't take jobs, then many of them would be filled by citizens that are required to pay taxes. Their are other economic issues, including the simple fact that any illegal immigrant that is sending a portion of their paycheck to another country is immediately adversely affecting the US economy.

At the end of the day the only good solution is to increase the amount of immigrants legally allowed into the US, make the immigration process simpler, and then really focus on enforcing laws against both illegal immigrants and businesses that allow illegal immigration.

Whew, hat a rant...[/color]

[CaNz]

social security is used for citizenship but we are encouraged not to keep the number on us since it has been used for so many other applications. if we could get a card that simply states citizenship and nothing else, people could keep them on there person and be asked for it by a police officer.i think this would accomplish what the bill is trying to achieve, however i don't pretend that it would solve all the problems, because immigration can't be solved through deportation, jail, or amnesty. There are many good things the illegal immigrants bring, as well as hardships...

i am distancing myself from it because i have no solution. my only thought on the matter is USA is a country of immagrants. and the only locals got completely screwed by said immigrants so following history... i say open the floodgates and forget about repercussions... but i am an idealist. Edited July 29, 2010 by CaNz

[Korey]

[font="Garamond"]I'm from a border town in Texas and I've seen both sides of the immigration issue. I don't see any racial issues with the law that Arizona enacted. Arizona was acting upon it's own rights as a state to regulate problems that happen within its borders. There are certainly many illegal immigrants that do help the economy tremendously and eventually do try to apply for citizenship.

But for every few good apples, there are a few rotten ones too. The amount of burden that illegals put on the local, state and federal goverments really skews the government aid systems. People using American Emergency Rooms like local clinics, Faking SSN's to get welfare and unemployment benefits, and getting their children into American schools by being born in American Hospitals (which guarantees you citizenship? WTF) takes away the benefits from American citizens who are in the country legally and have had been having problems. What good is government aid if any old person can loophole the system and get benefits from the government?

Also, I'm noticing a trend within the minority communities. Any time a law is enacted with a border community (California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas) that has to deal with immigration, they take it as some sort of massive insult to their culture and a racist attack on the Latin-American community when it's hardly the case. States have a right to enforce laws to protect people living within them. It shouldn't have to be an issue if people would go through the proper steps to gain citizenship.[/font]

[eleanor]

[quote name='AvalonAngel' date='29 July 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1280429080' post='698221']
[font="Garamond"]
But for every few good apples, there are a few rotten ones too. The amount of burden that illegals put on the local, state and federal goverments really skews the government aid systems. People using American Emergency Rooms like local clinics, Faking SSN's to get welfare and unemployment benefits, and getting their children into American schools by being born in American Hospitals (which guarantees you citizenship? WTF) takes away the benefits from American citizens who are in the country legally and have had been having problems. What good is government aid if any old person can loophole the system and get benefits from the government?[/font][/quote]

I understand people who argue that illegal immigrants put a burden on local government, but what's with the WTF to citizenship granted to those born in American hospitals? Once you're a citizen, you're a legal resident and will have to pay taxes and everything when you get a job. I mean I can see an argument about how these children would take advantage of government aid while their parents don't pay taxes, but you can hardly blame the kids.

[quote name='AvalonAngel' date='29 July 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1280429080' post='698221']
[font="Garamond"]Also, I'm noticing a trend within the minority communities. Any time a law is enacted with a border community (California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas) that has to deal with immigration, they take it as some sort of massive insult to their culture and a racist attack on the Latin-American community when it's hardly the case. States have a right to enforce laws to protect people living within them. It shouldn't have to be an issue if people would go through the proper steps to gain citizenship.[/font]
[/quote]

It's not really a trend, because this has and will always happen as long as minorities exist. It's the mindset of minorities in, well, anywhere. I'm not going to say it's justified or unjustified (because LORD that would be another thread by itself) but it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Living as a minority anywhere has it ups and downs (mostly downs) so when a predominately white group of people start making laws perceived to be against a minority group, yes, people get defensive and riled up. Being a minority sucks enough in itself, so having the majority race make laws aimed at your racial group is more than enough to cause some intense emotions.

And I hope no one here tries to insist that this law isn't aimed at hispanics. You can argue that the law isn't aimed at discriminating, and that people don't hate hispanic illegal immigrants they just hate illegal immigrants, and those arguments certainly have truth in them, but we're not living in some hyper-rationalized country. Economy breeds racism (i.e. Slavery in the U.S., the Irish immigrants, etc.). Now, it's less jobs for citizens and financial burdens on tax-payers --> dislike of illegal immigrants --> since most illegal immigrants in the U.S. are hispanic --> dislike of hispanics. You can say "but I don't feel that way," and be the exception to the rule, but history has proved it time and time again.

States have the right to make laws on anything that the federal government doesn't hold primary power over, but I was under the impression that immigration laws were a federal domain. HC mentioned it, too. Sections of the law may skirt between the separated powers of federalism, but I don't think it's a black-and-white issue where someone can come out and say "Arizona can 100% do this, it's their constitutional right."

Anyways in the end I generally agree with HC's final statements. The U.S. should allow increased numbers of immigrants. Economically, nothing great ever really comes from trying to operate the "American System." Edited July 29, 2010 by eleanor

[James]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]As somebody who is a complete outsider (and therefore I don't have the deeper understanding that many Americans have), my comments probably aren't very valuable. But I did want to make a couple of quick observations.

First and foremost, I think it is entirely possible that there is a racial dimension to Arizona's laws or at least this may be a factor when it comes to some of the private citizens who are pushing for these tougher restrictions. I'm sure we've all seen blatant examples of that.

However, I do think one has to be careful about simply labeling various large groups as racist, or being racially motivated. Those kinds of statements have the effect of disabling any real debate and they also over-simplify what is obviously a complex question. After participating in conversations about Islam and its influence on western society recently, I have become very conscious of the tendency to immediately discuss issues as being about race, when that is not necessarily the case (or at least, not the whole case).

It is obvious that discussions about border protection are pretty much always going to relate to the U.S.'s southern border - not for race reasons necessarily, but for obvious practical purposes. In that context, there are certainly going to be people who are racially motivated and there are going to be people who can only see the debate in racial terms.

Unfortunately - and again, this is an outsider talking - I think sometimes the back-and-forth over race can not only distract from the issue, but it can also prevent serious politicians from coming up with realistic and pragmatic solutions.

The second point I quickly want to make is simple. Quite a few of the people who are in favor of extreme measures (like literally shipping everyone back to Mexico and building a giant wall) actually remind me of those who have similarly extreme views on things like abortion or drug control. They do not see the world as it is, but rather, as they want it to be.

I keep hearing people saying "but we have to uphold our laws!" - and that's fine, but this kind of argument is often made in a reality vacuum as well. Even if you want to actually ship millions of people out of a country (and if you actually think that this is morally and ethically acceptable), you still can't escape the practical implications of such an approach.

The reality is that any solution to this problem will likely be as complex as the problem itself. And there's no doubt in my mind that it will involve serious compromise on all sides. [/font]

[CaNz]

[quote name='James' date='29 July 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1280451265' post='698242'][font="Palatino Linotype"]
The reality is that any solution to this problem will likely be as complex as the problem itself. [/font]
[/quote]
that's exactly how i feel.

race is always an open issue... and as much as we try to avoid it, someone brings it up. I may not be a racist, but it certainly is targeting Hispanic illegal immigrants... but that is because Arizona sure doesn't have to worry about the Scottish walking over. if they want to route out all illegal immigrants than i don't think we should stop with Hispanics... if we want to stop this then we should do it 100% of the way.
make everyone everywhere show papers... or no one at all.

I just think everyone should be a citizen, forced to pay taxes and then with all the extra tax payers we could afford to do something about the few people who enter illegally. Edited July 30, 2010 by CaNz

[James]

[quote name='CaNz' date='30 July 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1280452721' post='698244']

if they want to route out all illegal immigrants than i dont think we should stop with Hispanics... if we want to stop this then we should do it 100% of the way.
make everyone everywhere show papers... or no one at all.

[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]This is what Heaven's Cloud said about it:[/font]

[quote]It requires that all immigrants carry immigration paper or have a current application in process (which an immigrant receives paperwork for), not just the brown ones.[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]Assuming that's true, then obviously a specific ethnic group are not targeted. Of course, if one ethnic group makes up the majority of illegal immigrants, then they will encounter these laws more often than others - that's just an obvious mathematical point.

But I can understand that if one group is in the majority by default, there will always be a risk of a racist element (i.e. especially with some police who are enforcing the laws).[/font]

[CaNz]

it is possible they would feel like they are being targeted... but no one will feel bad if what they are doing is against the law.
44% of the prisoners in the united states are black... does this mean the law is racist? in some cases maybe, but for the most part people go to jail for a good reason.
if everyone, not just immagrents were held to the same slandered. if you get pulled over, show some papers... no discrimination, just law enforcement.

[James]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I personally wouldn't compare the illegal immigrant situation to the prison population. I actually think the two are very different. The illegal immigrant population of America will always be made up of a large majority of people who have come from south of the border - that's just a simple statistical point. I don't think that the breakdown of the prison population can be compared on that basis, though.

Having said that - and without getting into a specific debate about these laws - even as a citizen I'd feel more than a bit uncomfortable if a police officer was always asking me to "show my papers". Even if I have nothing to hide, there's something a little sinister about the idea. Maybe that's just me, though. *shrug*[/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='James' date='29 July 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1280459956' post='698259']
[font="Palatino Linotype"]
Having said that - and without getting into a specific debate about these laws - even as a citizen I'd feel more than a bit uncomfortable if a police officer was always asking me to "show my papers". Even if I have nothing to hide, there's something a little sinister about the idea. Maybe that's just me, though. *shrug*[/font]
[/quote]

[color=indigo]I agree with you, the last thing I want is giving a bunch of police officers the right to hassle law abiding citizens, forcing them to show identification on their whim. That is far too close to a police state for my liking.

However, I don't really see the problem with asking someone who has been ticketed for a speeding or a traffic accident and doesn't have a drivers license to provide proof of citizenship, or have a friend or family member bring the police that proof. Unfortunately, because it is a federal law, right now the police aren't really allowed to do that (there are, of course, circumstances that allow for officers to do this but it usually requires an arrest followed by a warrant).

One of the biggest problems with passing any law in the US is getting past the crybaby special interest groups that cry discrimination and racism regardless of the bill. It is a real mind**** that is constantly targeted by our media. I actually think that this is part of the reason why so many other "first world" nations think our country is so racist. Growing up I sure thought the US was full of them. However, after doing quite a bit of international traveling, I have realized that we have our fair share of bigots, but damn, some of these so called progressive European countries trump us one hundred times over. [/color]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='29 July 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1280462234' post='698263']
[color=indigo]

One of the biggest problems with passing any law in the US is getting past the crybaby special interest groups that cry discrimination and racism regardless of the bill. It is a real mind**** that is constantly targeted by our media. I actually think that this is part of the reason why so many other "first world" nations think our country is so racist. Growing up I sure thought the US was full of them. However, after doing quite a bit of international traveling, I have realized that we have our fair share of bigots, but damn, some of these so called progressive European countries trump us one hundred times over. [/color]
[/quote]

Yeah but are we also going to pretend like racism and discrimination have nothing to do with this law?

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='eleanor' date='30 July 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1280463751' post='698267']
Yeah but are we also going to pretend like racism and discrimination have nothing to do with this law?
[/quote]

[color=indigo]Of course not, I was just ranting on the American political culture and how everything in Washington is dictated in some way or another by trying to offend as few fringe groups as possible. There are plenty of racist people that support this law, and I am sure if it passed plenty of racist people might have the opportunity to abuse it. I just don't think the proposed law is racist (but it is unconstitutional).[/color]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]Before I get started, I want to note that I am only using this quote as a springboard, and am not intending to single anyone out.[/FONT]

[quote name='eleanor']Yeah but are we also going to pretend like racism and discrimination have nothing to do with this law?[/quote]
[FONT=Calibri]I really dislike this approach in general because any comment on it, whether crying out against racial discrimination or defending against an unfair affrontry, is placing entirely too much emphasis on an unfortunate characteristic of the situation surrounding the law. What I'd hope people would consider is this:

Barring highly specific circumstances, [i]is there any other ethnic group that crosses the US's southern border?

[/i]The issue of racism in the law is unfair from any angle because there isn't another race to grant privilege to or discriminate against. We live above an entire continent-and-a-half of Latin Americans. This isn't like the Atlantic Slave Trade where the slaver vessels could have chosen to steal/buy people from anywhere else in the world to bring to this country and then beat down. The four land-bordering states in the south can't choose a different group of people to travel across their bordersâ??again, barring specific situations.

The wording of the law didn't explicitly refer to any particular ethnic group. Could that still be racist, since the only group Arizona has to worry about are Latinos? I don't know.

Would Arizona be treating this situation differently if they had other ethnic groups to deal with? I don't know.

What I [i]do[/i] know is that hinting at the existence of racist motives is still the best way to polarise any complicated topic.[/FONT]

[James]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='30 July 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1280462234' post='698263']
[color=indigo]

One of the biggest problems with passing any law in the US is getting past the crybaby special interest groups that cry discrimination and racism regardless of the bill. It is a real mind**** that is constantly targeted by our media. I actually think that this is part of the reason why so many other "first world" nations think our country is so racist. Growing up I sure thought the US was full of them. However, after doing quite a bit of international traveling, I have realized that we have our fair share of bigots, but damn, some of these so called progressive European countries trump us one hundred times over. [/color]
[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]It's interesting you say that. I think the irony is that sometimes American attitudes are [i]so[/i] sensitive to race, that this itself creates a race problem. It's kind of like a reverse-racism scenario.

There's an episode of South Park that exemplifies this beautifully. From memory, they have a school teacher who is disfigured in a very obvious way and, in an effort to be ultra-P.C., they throw a parade in her honour and they go out of their way to make her feel "special". The irony, of course, is that in pursuing this very noble goal, they actually place great emphasis on her entirely superficial difference. In turn, this makes her very uncomfortable and gives her a heightened awareness of that superficial difference.

In my country, there are certainly racist people. But in all honesty, I suspect some Americans would be quite horrified by some of the things we have on TV or some of the things we do in daily life that they would perceive as racist. The problem is not that these things are [i]actually[/i] racist, but that they are being viewed through a very two dimensional prism.

This comes back to the point I made earlier about debates, especially political debates. While it's very fair to point out the racial dimension of a given debate, it can also be far too easy to shut down constructive, practical discussion by simply labeling a subject or a person "racist". Sometimes this tactic mirrors the very intolerance that it ostensibly opposes.[/font]

[CaNz]

[quote name='CaNz' date='29 July 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1280452721' post='698244']
but it certainly is targeting Hispanic illegal immigrants... but that is because Arizona sure doesn't have to worry about the Scottish walking over.
[/quote]
[quote name='Allamorph' date='29 July 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1280465013' post='698269'][font="Calibri"]
Barring highly specific circumstances, [i]is there any other ethnic group that crosses the US's southern border?

[/i]The issue of racism in the law is unfair from any angle because there isn't another race to grant privilege to or discriminate against. [/font]
[/quote]

was i reading this right or did Allamorph and i have a similar sounding point... other than borderlands i didn't think we saw eye to eye on anything.



[quote name='James' date='29 July 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1280459956' post='698259']
[font="Palatino Linotype"]I personally wouldn't compare the illegal immigrant situation to the prison population. I actually think the two are very different. The illegal immigrant population of America will always be made up of a large majority of people who have come from south of the border - that's just a simple statistical point. I don't think that the breakdown of the prison population can be compared on that basis, though.[/font]
[/quote]
i would say a leading factor of crime would be substandered living conditions and poverty level monitary incomes. this has nothing to do with race, but it happens African Americans have the highest number of people living in these circumstances... which is why i think that would be the reason for the lage black inmate count.
this sure hasn't stopped racist stereotypes of criminal natures in people of African decent, nor has it swayed the popular opinion that police pick on African Americans. if another race took the African Americans place in the chopping block, i am sure jails would switch up as well, same as if anotherr ethnicity was living in Mexico, a country with severe economic hardships, and was able to get past the looly guarded border into America. they would.

i am saying neither one is a race issue, they both are simply statistical happenings.



[quote name='James' date='29 July 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1280459956' post='698259'][font="Palatino Linotype"]
Having said that - and without getting into a specific debate about these laws - even as a citizen I'd feel more than a bit uncomfortable if a police officer was always asking me to "show my papers". Even if I have nothing to hide, there's something a little sinister about the idea. Maybe that's just me, though. *shrug*[/font]
[/quote]

both you and Hc really shouldn't have a problem verifying your citizenship if you are a citizen. what would it matter? its just one more thing they ask for... its already allowed for them to ask for ID, why not ID and proof of citizenship? say... we make a second id card for it... you take your SSN to a DMV... they run it through... it checks out and they give you a card that says legal in big bold letters, has a picture of you on it and has a bar-code that links to your name in the DMV database. would that be hard to do? would your privacy really be infringed? Edited July 31, 2010 by CaNz

[Allamorph]

[quote name='CaNz']both you and Hc really shouldn't have a problem verifying your citizenship if you are a citizen. what would it matter? its just one more thing they ask for... its already allowed for them to ask for ID, why not ID and proof of citizenship? say... we make a second id card for it... you take your SSN to a DMV... they run it through... it checks out and they give you a card that says legal in big bold letters, has a picture of you on it and has a bar-code that links to your name in the DMV database. would that be hard to do? would your privacy really be infringed?
[/quote]
[FONT=Calibri]Also remember that our nation was founded in order to escape (as we saw it) a government abusing its powers. So there's a balancing act that needs to go on here between allowing the State the ability to enforce its own laws and preventing the State from overstepping itself.

Although I will say that if a person balks at the idea of showing their proof of citizenship every time they're pulled over then they might should consider obeying the speed limit. =P[/FONT]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='eleanor' date='30 July 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1280463751' post='698267']
Yeah but are we also going to pretend like racism and discrimination have nothing to do with this law?
[/quote]
Are you going to pretend that racism has a big part in this law? There's almost no other ethnic group that crosses the border, and because the group is a minority, everyone opposed to the law is going to scream and cry about supposed racism. I don't disagree that there are people that think that way, but I'd like to not have them pinned to this law.

I'm okay with the law. I lived on the Mexican border for most of my life and I do not like illegal immigration. There are thousands of Mexicans waiting their turn patiently to get legalized, and then some impatient people decide to hop a fence and cause trouble for the patient ones. Why should the people that jump the border get in the country before the ones waiting for citizenship? Why should they get to take up jobs and take advantage of hospitals without paying taxes that the lagalized immigrants and born citizens have to pay? If it keeps those that get in illegally out of here, I'm supportive of this law.

[eleanor]

[quote name='chibi-master' date='30 July 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1280518975' post='698295']
Are you going to pretend that racism has a big part in this law? There's almost no other ethnic group that crosses the border, and because the group is a minority, everyone opposed to the law is going to scream and cry about supposed racism. I don't disagree that there are people that think that way, but I'd like to not have them pinned to this law.

I'm okay with the law. I lived on the Mexican border for most of my life and I do not like illegal immigration. There are thousands of Mexicans waiting their turn patiently to get legalized, and then some impatient people decide to hop a fence and cause trouble for the patient ones. Why should the people that jump the border get in the country before the ones waiting for citizenship? Why should they get to take up jobs and take advantage of hospitals without paying taxes that the lagalized immigrants and born citizens have to pay? If it keeps those that get in illegally out of here, I'm supportive of this law.
[/quote]

Except that the consequences of this law will certainly include racial issues and more prejudices, so yes, racism is a big part of this law. Anyone who says otherwise isn't thinking very broadly.

As to your 2nd argument, I've already addressed that. Edited July 31, 2010 by eleanor

[CaNz]

[quote name='eleanor' date='30 July 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1280546290' post='698313']
Except that the consequences of this law will certainly include racial issues and more prejudices, so yes, racism is a big part of this law. Anyone who says otherwise isn't thinking very broadly.
[/quote]
it shouldn't include anything racial in the law, however actions that may be considered racist will definitely occur because of it.
i highly doubt it will make more prejudice. people who are stupid enough to believe certain races are superior dont need a law in order to feel this way. It will however give them the ability to locate Illigal immigrants and penalise them according to state/federal laws. i suppose that gives bad people what they want, but it seems perfectly legal to me.

We cant avoid racial issues, but we also cant simply do nothing. We can either be politically correct and never try to fix immigration... or we break a few eggs and put faith in Americans. i figure people are smart enough to figure out this has nothing to do with race. it is purly a law on immigration.

[eleanor]

[quote name='CaNz' date='30 July 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1280547725' post='698316']
i highly doubt it will make more prejudice. people who are stupid enough to believe certain races are superior dont need a law in order to feel this way.
[/quote]

You give too much credit to people


edit:

although my response to Chibi was kind of moot of me to say. It's not really the law that will cause problems, but like I said in my first post, it's economy that creates prejudices many times. The law will just exacerbate those prejudices. Edited July 31, 2010 by eleanor

[Gavin]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]As with James I'm a non-American so my viewpoints are based only on extrapolation from illegal immigration over here.

I do also agree with him that people tend to be too quick to drag the word "racism" into debates that involve immigration. At the moment in Ireland any, and I do mean any, attempt to discuss even the idea of changing immigration laws in regard to asylum seekers or illegal immigrants will result in the individual in question being instantly derided as a racist by special interest groups to the extent that even though there is a wide agreement that with our economy only barely crawling out of the toilet and hard government cuts in every department from education to social welfare the topic will never be discussed for fear of looking racist. I find it truly disappointing that this fear prevents necessary debate which has benefits to both sides of the argument.

That said I can certainly see the potential for abuse in singling out individuals who may be completely innocent simply because a police officer has the law on their side to justify it. I don't know if I'd go as far to say "if one person should have to carry proof of their citizenship then everyone should" but if that would be the only way to combat abuses then perhaps that's what would have to occur.[/size][/font]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='30 July 2010 - 04:57 AM' timestamp='1280462234' post='698263']
[color=indigo]Growing up I sure thought the US was full of them. However, after doing quite a bit of international travelling, I have realized that we have our fair share of bigots, but damn, some of these so called progressive European countries trump us one hundred times over. [/color][/quote]
[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]
I'm semi-curious HC what countries in particular you're referring to ? I'm not going to deny there are racist elements in Europe but it's been my experience that every country has these undesirables in roughly the same measure.[/size][/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='Gavin' date='31 July 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1280598155' post='698348']
[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]
I'm semi-curious HC what countries in particular you're referring to ? I'm not going to deny there are racist elements in Europe but it's been my experience that every country has these undesirables in roughly the same measure.[/size][/font]
[/quote]

[color=indigo]I'm not sure if every country has an equal ratio of racist/bigoted folks, but I do know that some of the racism that I encountered in France and Spain (and to some extent Italy) would blow the average American's naive mind.

In Spain I went to a few (I can't believe I'm being so non-US) football games and came to the quick realization that a very large and vocal base of football fans in Spain don't have much love for blacks. I thought blacks in America had it rough, but no fan in the US would ever make monkey noises and scream (what I was told) repeated racial derogatory remarks at players (they'd get the crap beaten out of them). However, I went to three football games and in two of them at least an eighth of the crowd were vocally insulting the black players on the other team (in one of the games there were no blacks on the field).

As bad as Spain was, France may have been worse (but, perhaps just because I spent more time there). It seems that many of the French aren't too pleased with the Muslim/Arab population that is migrating from North Africa. I was at a bar one evening talking to some students about the differences in American and French politics when the subject of Islam and the war in Iraq came up. The general consensus at the table was that the world would be a better place without Muslims (I think they thought that I would agree with them, being American and all). I would have chalked this up to a one time occurrence, except that, during my entire trip, I had several other similar discussions and even witnessed a cab driver have wine bottle flung at his car followed by a huge string of obscenity.

I also spent a lot of time in England, but I couldn't think of a single real moment that made me think "boy, lots of racism in England". The only real odd thing I was told was not to get into any cabs driven by Nigerians. Since I can't tell a Nigerian from ran Ethiopian it was advice I never had to really follow. I think that England in probably more like the US where there is racism but the socio-economic class issue is probably the more prevalent means of discrimination.[/color]

[eleanor]

I've heard similar stories from people who have studied abroad/backpacked through Europe, concerning prejudice towards blacks and Chinese people in Spain. Don't know much about racial relations in the UK, but even recently (like two days ago?) at one of the Liverpool FC friendlies there was a problem because the opposing team's fans were making monkey noises because of a black player on LFC. If that happened in the US some serious **** would have gone down. [strike]TBQH I am sometimes concerned with any racism/prejudice I will encounter when I study abroad in Europe this fall[/strike]

As much as I drag the word "racism" into this topic (unashamedly), the USA is not some devilish land of racists when compared to most of the world. Since the US really IS the melting pot of the world, we do have more problems concerning racial relations, and while a lot of racism still exists we are not significantly worse than the rest of the world. It's just that other countries have more homogeneity, and therefore have less problems to deal with. So while many citizens of the world can look down upon the US, they probably just don't realize that if their country had a similar mix of races they'd be going through the same problems.

My problem is when people insist that racism either doesn't exist/has nothing to do with a situation (when it does, in one way or another). And I find that that issue itself is deeply affected by race. Ask a group of minorities, and most of them will say the Arizona law is tainted with racism. Ask a group of white people, and a fair share of them will say it has nothing to do with racism. Neither side is being stupid, it's just that both sides grew up with very different outlooks on life/racial relations, and that is usually the hardest kind of personal experience to overcome. Edited July 31, 2010 by eleanor