Immigration law

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

I suppose no one in Boston has a home with door locks?

I never said anything about individual homes. My point is a serious one. If someone wants to disagree with the point, that's fine, but mocking my point should not be okay.

Of course, I realize that my position is far from the mainstream, even for those who disagree with the Arizona law. I will explain why I believe a world without borders is the best alternative.

Borders exist primarily for economic purposes. They have always been made by the rich and powerful, who traditionally have created borders to establish areas of control for markets and taxation as a means of avoiding competition or at least giving themselves an arena over which they have some means of control other than the "anarchy" of simple supply and demand. Corporations move across borders at will, whether physically or virtually.The borders, though, are primarily used to control buying and selling by us, regular people, and to manipulate the pool of workers.

The U.S. economy depends on a large pool of immigrant workers, especially to fill the lowest-paid jobs. One way to keep the wages low for immigrant workers is to marginalize them to the greatest degree possible. If you create borders and harsh conditions for crossing those borders -- terror, difficulty, susceptibility to arrest and deportation -- these workers are highly unlikely to stand up for themselves against the very exploitation that the rest of us would never accept. Then the politicians try to scapegoat them: they are the ones taking our jobs and costing us so much that we can't afford good social services, when in fact our jobs are being taken to low-paying countries by corporations, without government interference (because for them, the borders essentially don't exist) and the money for social services are being spent, well, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's notable that an immigrant crossing into the United States "illegally" in the hope of making a better life -- and that is the very reason most people do so -- will be detained by the authorities if caught and, before deportation, be offered a path to citizenship by joining the Armed Forces and going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Do you need any more indication of whose interests borders serve than that, which happens each and every day?

[Titivilus]

Originally Posted by smc

. . . Borders exist primarily for economic purposes. They have always been made by the rich and powerful, who traditionally have created borders to establish areas of control for markets and taxation as a means of avoiding competition or at least giving themselves an arena over which they have some means of control other than the "anarchy" of simple supply and demand. Corporations move across borders at will, whether physically or virtually.The borders, though, are primarily used to control buying and selling by us, regular people, and to manipulate the pool of workers.

That's actually a good point. And people scoff at my desire to see the "New World Order" come to fruition . . .

In all seriousness, when people speak of a global economy, it really means something. Corporations ignore borders, and rightly so. Nationalism and patriotism are a hold-over from the past, which should blur more and more as time goes by. The economic unification of Europe seems to be working out pretty well, and I believe is just another step in the on-going unification of the world as a whole. Go back through history and you'll see movement towards that goal for as long as people have been writing.

After all, in the end, it's really about allocation of resources. Cooperative effort benefits the species, and, in fact, it seems that our brains are hard-wired for precisely that goal. Once the population reaches a certain threshold, we will be FORCED to consolidate under one controlling mechanism (whatever that might be) to support and sustain said population. I think the Agricultural Revolution is a good example of this principle in action, causing the creation of city-states and jump-starting the centralization of populations.

The U.S. economy depends on a large pool of immigrant workers, especially to fill the lowest-paid jobs. One way to keep the wages low for immigrant workers is to marginalize them to the greatest degree possible. If you create borders and harsh conditions for crossing those borders -- terror, difficulty, susceptibility to arrest and deportation -- these workers are highly unlikely to stand up for themselves against the very exploitation that the rest of us would never accept. Then the politicians try to scapegoat them: they are the ones taking our jobs and costing us so much that we can't afford good social services, when in fact our jobs are being taken to low-paying countries by corporations, without government interference (because for them, the borders essentially don't exist) and the money for social services are being spent, well, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's notable that an immigrant crossing into the United States "illegally" in the hope of making a better life -- and that is the very reason most people do so -- will be detained by the authorities if caught and, before deportation, be offered a path to citizenship by joining the Armed Forces and going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Do you need any more indication of whose interests borders serve than that, which happens each and every day?

I served in the military myself, and live in Arizona. While it's my opinion that the average Joe in this country is both apathetic and ignorant (sorry, but we're dumber as a whole than we have been since before WWII), I myself am somewhat conflicted. I'm the progeny of immigrants, after all, a first-generation American, so I tend to have a very hard-nosed attitude towards people who bypass the system.

Having said that, to ignore the vast numbers of illegals is simply silly. White Elephant in the living room anyone? Building a wall is also silly, and historically speaking, has never worked. Look to the Great Wall for an example. Chest-beating rhetoric and brandished weapons only compound the problem, without addressing the underlying issue.

I don't see any way to REALLY solve the problem without addressing the economic state of our neighbors. Why do people come to this country, after all? If our southern neighbors had economic and social parity it wouldn't be an issue at all, as there would be no incentive to relocate.

Until the Mexican government is stable, including laws which protect their citizenry and workforce, and economically healthy, I see no real solution to illegal immigration.

As for the recent law itself? If I understand it correctly, it's just the Federal law coupled with the ADDITION of Miranda rights (there must be probable cause to justify requesting ID, much like the seatbelt law, and I don't think the feds need to worry about that). I don't have a problem with this at all.

Just my two cents.

[Risquevania]

The uproar is not targeted at the whole thing, but this part:

Officers have to interrogate everybody who looks like an illegal immigrant. Or anyone could sue him or her of not doing their job.

In short, this is a new version of "pull off every car with American-American in it, cus they all look suspicious".

Some police stations are against it because it puts them into a lose-lose situation. If you interrogate someone who looks "illegal", the victim can sue the police for "racial profiling". Now if the officer don't use racial profile, they will be sued for not doing their job.

It's not like some of the right-wing media described, "they wanna open the border". Nobody said let the illegals get in, but this part of the law put police in a really bad position.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Risquevania

The uproar is not targeted at the whole thing, but this part:

Officers have to interrogate everybody who looks like an illegal immigrant. Or anyone could sue him or her of not doing their job.

That's not what the law says. The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.

Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

* A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver’s license or other form of federal or state identification.
* A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
* A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.


Yeah, I know... There I go again bringing facts into the debate.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.
Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

Originally Posted by smc

This is a racist view, pure and simple, painting with a broad brush immigrants as generally linked to crime syndicates. Racism, racism, racism.

I don't find this to be racist at all. Racism implies a superiority of ability due to racial factors. He said nothing of the sort. He simply noted that there is a correlation between the demographics of a certain region and a higher incidence of crime.

[The Conquistador]

Lest we forget, this whole thing was enacted because the drug cartels were killing Americans on American soil so that they could move unimpeded through the area. I believe the figure was something like 10,000- 30,000 people yearly killed by cartel members. Juarez is another good example. The cartels will routinely kidnap Mexicans and Americans, bring them into Mexico and absolutely torture and/or dismember the victims. I've seen videos that they release of the torturing of their victims and one of them showed a guy being fed into a meat grinder feet first. This is a regular occurence in Juarez and Tijuana and most of the cities in Mexico.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...ancun/19506105

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...oviolence.html

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2...nt_9908870.htm

http://www.39online.com/news/local/k...,2298734.story

http://reproductiverights.org/es/node/283

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mex...n_victims.html

This is a daily occurence, not sporadic outbreaks of violence. They started coming over here, kidnappping or killing American citizens and think there will be no backlash or retaliation? In the words of Judas Priest, "You've got another thing comin'."

You can cry racism, but the fact of the matter is that Mexicans specifically are the ones perpetrating these heinous crimes and will continue to do so unless someone puts a boot in their ass.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't find this to be racist at all. Racism implies a superiority of ability due to racial factors. He said nothing of the sort. He simply noted that there is a correlation between the demographics of a certain region and a higher incidence of crime.

Racism is about more than a "superiority of ability." It is belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce some inherent superiority or inferiority of particular races. Hence, drawing a link between race and crime so generally is a form of racism.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Lest we forget, this whole thing was enacted because the drug cartels were killing Americans on American soil so that they could move unimpeded through the area. ...

You can cry racism, but the fact of the matter is that Mexicans specifically are the ones perpetrating these heinous crimes and will continue to do so unless someone puts a boot in their ass.

You are correct that it is Mexicans that are perpetrating the crimes to which you refer. Let me use an analogy to make my point, though, and forgive me for its imperfection. I think the point will still come across. If the government decided that Wall Street bankers such as Lloyd Bankfein had committed heinous crimes by destroying the economy and that as a group the perpetrators of such crimes need to be rounded up so that they cannot do so anymore, would you support New York City giving police the right to stop anyone who looks Jewish and is wearing a very expensive suit? Of course not. The problem with the law in Arizona is two-fold. The first is that an immigration law is not the way to deal with this criminal behavior by drug cartels. The second is that if your explanation is the logic behind the law, then it is based on the concept of collective guilt of all "Mexicans."

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

Racism is about more than a "superiority of ability." It is belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce some inherent superiority or inferiority of particular races. Hence, drawing a link between race and crime so generally is a form of racism.

No. It is simply stating that there is a higher propensity for crime from certain immigrant groups and more often than not, these groups fail to assimilate into the local culture. Is it any wonder that there are less occurences of violence from legal immigrants than illegals and why legal immigrants are pissed at illegals for ruining things for them? Legal immigrants(Like me) adapt to the local customs and cultures and abide by the laws of the land and cultural norms. Those who don't, tend to bring their problems with them and just perpetuate the cycle. Is it racist? No. It is just a fact of the disparity between legal and illegal immigrants.

You are correct that it is Mexicans that are perpetrating the crimes to which you refer. Let me use an analogy to make my point, though, and forgive me for its imperfection. I think the point will still come across. If the government decided that Wall Street bankers such as Lloyd Bankfein had committed heinous crimes by destroying the economy and that as a group the perpetrators of such crimes need to be rounded up so that they cannot do so anymore, would you support New York City giving police the right to stop anyone who looks Jewish and is wearing a very expensive suit? Of course not. The problem with the law in Arizona is two-fold. The first is that an immigration law is not the way to deal with this criminal behavior by drug cartels. The second is that if your explanation is the logic behind the law, then it is based on the concept of collective guilt of all "Mexicans."

This law is the exact thing that will help Arizonans. It simply reasserts and reinforces the current laws on illegal immigration in the book. The local PD are now acting as a suppliment to the Border Patrol and Customs. The more people you have patrolling an area and the tougher the enforcement, the less the likelyhood of occurence. The bill does NOT give the police the right to stop anyone that "looks" like they might by an illegal alien.

I don't know if you've read the bill, but it clearly states that a person has to have legal contact with a police officer first. If you get pulled over for rolling a stop sign, stopped for loitering or get arrested, they are going to check your ID and verify whether or not you are here legally. What you are repeating is the bullshit spouted by idiots. Also, if you have a *valid* driver's license you are assumed to be here legally. So let me see here, if you get a traffic stop, the cops are now going to call in your driver's license to see if you have warrants, are wanted or are in the country illegally?

There is no "collective guilt" in my reasoning. The cartels come over here and kill US citizens. These people are in fear for their life and trying to paint this as xenophobia is ludicrous. People are tired of the crap and are standing against the crimes perpetrated by these bastards and guess what? It is working!http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...w-schools.html

You think that our immigration policy is bad, you should see Mexicos stance on illegal immigration. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm And from what I have heard from El Salvadorian and Guatemalan immigrants, their immigration officials are not as nice as ours and more often than not either beat or shoot illegal immigrants coming in through Mexico.

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

Ahhhhh, the old "white guilt" defense. No cigar this time buddy. Jan Brewer sent letters to Lord Zero stating her concerns and requesting support for the Border agents. Here it is: http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...bama07-ON.html

I think this law has to do with concern and safety for the public rather than bigotry.

[smc]

Postman, I'm glad we can have a reasoned discourse about this, where we have profound disagreements -- even on the definition of terms -- without resorting to personal attacks. It's quite a step up from the crap that goes for discussion on some other parts of this site, and which I, as a moderator, often have to deal with in a different sort of way.

So, that being said, I will treat your "white guilt" comment as a reference to others.

I stand by my definition of racism. I stand by my analysis of the law, which I have read. To believe that there will be none of the kinds of police actions that you say the law does not allow is, in my view, tremendously naive about the history of how the forces of authority deal with minorities when we are on the cusp of historic changes in how society is ordered.

I also stand by my use of the word "reactionary" in this context. Too often this word is misused to mean "right-wing." I don't mean it that way. Reaction is a tendency to revert to a former state. In this case, those who will one day (sooner rather than later) become the minority rather than maintain their majority status are reacting. There is no doubt in my mind.

I have yet to find a credible, unbiased analysis of this law that suggests it is the way to fight the cartels.

I have pretty much said everything I have to say on this issue, but I will continue to point out racism when I see it, so I may post again. And by that, I am not assigning racism to you, Postman. Just to be clear ...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Racism is about more than a "superiority of ability." It is belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce some inherent superiority or inferiority of particular races. Hence, drawing a link between race and crime so generally is a form of racism.

... unless that link can actually be shown to exist. I don't think the person making the link should be immediately accused of racism. Wouldn't that be another ism?

[smc]

Originally Posted by smc

Racism is about more than a "superiority of ability." It is belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce some inherent superiority or inferiority of particular races. Hence, drawing a link between race and crime so generally is a form of racism.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... unless that link can actually be shown to exist. I don't think the person making the link should be immediately accused of racism. Wouldn't that be another ism?

Tracy, there has never been any direct link shown between race and the propensity to engage in criminal behavior. Even in the most dangerous U.S. cities, where crime runs rampant in black communities, sociologists across the political spectrum, law enforcement, scholars of jurisprudence, and so on, agree that it is the socio-economic conditions that create the conditions of crime. The fact that one particular race is committing the crimes under such circumstances is a function of those socio-economic conditions, which may very well be (and are likely) linked to racial discrimination of some sort at some time. But crime is a response by all races, to some degree, to their socio-economic conditions, be it the need to put food on the table or just the need to lash out in a life of desperation and a sense of nothing for which to live.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that drawing a link between race and crime so generally -- that is, brushing an entire race with the brush, explicitly or implicity, of being criminals -- is racism.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

See that would be that ism again. Immediately accusing someone of racism without considering any other motives. Like.... hmmm is entering the US (or most any country) without going through the proper channels legal? Well what-do-ya know... it's not! Imagine that. That could be a reason right there.

What do people shout at me when I say I always speed? GO THE SPEED LIMIT! IT'S THE LAW!!!

As for being terrified that "their America" is disappearing, perhaps we should add this to our law books:
*Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
*Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken US laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy."

Those laws are good enough for Mexico, shouldn't it be good enough for the Mexicans that come here?

And no, I'm not seriously advocating laws like this. Just enforce the laws we do have.