Crayola explains Arizona immigration law

Holy Kaw! All the topics that interest us

Edit
Delete
Tags
Autopost

Crayola explains Arizona immigration law

Posted May 9th, 2010 at 6:57 PM and seen

times

Confused about all the hubbub surrounding the new immigration legislation in Arizona? Crayola clarifies without all the legal jargon and complicated context.

Now if only Mr. Sketch could explain that darn oil spill, we’d be all set.

Full story at Courant.

Stay on top of the latest legal news and views.

Annie Colbert

44 responses
Like
Comment

about 2 years ago jerry berner responded:

I'm sorry, but I did not view Crayola's excplanation.

about 2 years ago jerry berner responded:

I'm sorry, but I could not view Crayola's explanation

about 2 years ago Enhanser responded:

This is a slap in the face to all of the law enforcement men and women who act admirably and lawfully to protect our country's citizens and uphold the laws of the land. There's nothing clever about stupidity.

about 2 years ago Gary Langley responded:

What a crock. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the issue and the law. It is not about race or color - it is about CRIMINALITY. If one crosses a border into an adjoining nation ILLEGALLY, they are a criminal, by definition. Why is it radical for law enforcement to enforce laws?

Many of the police officers enforcing the new law are many shades of brown and black themselves, and 70% of Arizona residents (anybody notice the colorful nature of that citizenry?) support the law because they immigrated LAWFULLY.

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

Gary, when the chances of your getting pulled over increase due to the color of your skin - whether you're a citizen or not - I reckon it's about race. At least it enables those who would like to use race to profile others. If you can honestly say that a white male with a cracked tail light is just as likely to get pulled over and asked for his papers as a Hispanic male driving the same car, well, more power to you.

about 2 years ago sumdingwong (Twitter) responded:

Would you say rednecks are normally white? Yes? I agree. Now can we agree that illegal immigrants are normally hispanic?

about 2 years ago Gary Langley responded:

Robert, I am a white male living in Hawaii, making me a racial minority. I have been pulled over for a burned out tag light bulb. My reaction? I went and got the tag light fixed within the hour. I was driving with an illegal vehicle and the pull-over was righteous.

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

That's a puzzling response, Gary. My point is that you'd be more likely to be pulled over as an excuse to ask for your ID card, not that you'd never be pulled over. Your being a racial minority in Hawaii is hardly relevant though, considering the history of white Americans in Hawaii isn't really comparable to the history of Hispanic people in the United States. (As a white male you represent a majority power in the United States, even if you are in Hawaii, something that doesn't hold true for a Hispanic American in Arizona or Hawaii.) If Hispanic-American citizens are any more likely to be pulled aside for scrutiny than you are in Arizona, then this law seems unConstutional. The fact that some of them *might* be illegal aliens is hardly relevant.

So with the above in mind, "sumdingwong" are you suggesting that rednecks should be pulled over by the police in case they are criminals? Your argument doesn't follow. The law sets up a situation where innocent American citizens are more likely to be harassed because of their race. Even if its intentions were good (and I'm not convinced they were), the law seems to empower the prejudiced. The fact that there may be many admirable law enforcement officers, as Enhanser mentions above, isn't really relevant if a segment still take advantages of the law to harass people.

We're told that immigrants are supposed to have their papers with them anyway. Again, not relevant. Why should a Hispanic American citizen be expected to carry proof of their birth in the United States just to avoid being hauled off for questioning by some law enforcement agent who uses a broken tail light as excuse to pull them over?

Seems like some people are so focused in their ire towards illegal immigrants that they're not even willing to consider the impact this law would likely have on legal Hispanic citizens. That's what would make this law unConstitutional. And the fact that it might net a few "illegals" (to use the disparaging and dehumanizing, yet popular shorthand) hardly justifies it.

about 2 years ago Alan Howlett responded:

Robert Stribley,
re "We're told that immigrants are supposed to have their papers with them anyway. Again, not relevant. Why should a Hispanic American citizen be expected to carry proof of their birth in the United States just to avoid being hauled off for questioning by some law enforcement agent who uses a broken tail light as excuse to pull them over?"
PEOPLE in the US are expected to carry identification with them. It isn't unreasonable. Most carry a drivers license. Papers smapers. Look at the explicately stated AZ requirements for indicating you have legal status here. If not for the constant stream of lawbreakers this wouldn't be needed. Why would you insist that a driver NOT be pulled over for a broken taillight. I'm part of your assumed majority power. And I've been stopped for an inoperative headlight. Why is it that for me you'd likely consider that an anomaly, but for someone of a different skin tone it is discriminatory? Are you not then making it OK for anyone to run around with broken headlights, protected by the shield of 'DISCRIMINATION!' Would lawbreakers, including illegal aliens BTW then take that as a form of Diplomatic Immunity?

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

With all due respect Alan, you seem to be missing the point. If the police pulled everyone over for having a broken tail light, it wouldn't be an issue. (Might be a waste of government time and money, like fining everyone who jaywalks, but that's a different issue.) As I mentioned earlier, do you really think white Americans and Hispanic Americans will be pulled over equally? If not, there's a problem with this law. If you do, well, I wish I had as much faith in the comprehensive integrity of the law as you do. The example of a broken tail light is just that - an example. So, if you can answer my question above with a "Yes," then fair enough. I just disagree.

about 2 years ago ron responded:

SB1070 says that law enforcement must have "reasonable suspicion." Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that not speaking English is reasonable suspicion. Excuse me, but most refugees, who are legal aliens, don't speak Sheriff Joe's English and will be held under "reasonable suspicion."

about 2 years ago Alan Howlett responded:

Rob't,
Regarding your statement "do you really think white Americans and Hispanic Americans will be pulled over equally? If not, there's a problem with this law."
Here are my questions:
If a particular segment of society happens to ignore/infringe on the law, must we all pay equally? Is there now a quota?
If 4% of X- Americans drive with broken headlights and are pulled over, and 3% of Y-Americans drive with broken headlights, must 4% of Y-Americans be pulled over as well, to be non-discriminatory?
And do you refer to yourself as an Australian American? And if so, why are not an American 1st.

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

I refer to myself as a human, Alan. And perhaps that illustrates the difference between our points of view. The "Australian/American" in my profile includes a slash, not a hyphen. Partly a joke. Partly an indication that have dual citizenship. I'm a human first.

For some reason, you haven't answered my question. If Hispanic American are more likely to be pulled aside - for any reason - there's something wrong with the law. It's the very idea that some group might be pulled over more often *under the guide* of something *like* a broken taillight, when it's really to establish their identity as a citizen that makes it discriminatory. And it seems you've tacitly admitted above that innocent Hispanic Americans are more likely to be pulled over. And that doesn't seem to bother you. Perhaps because you're white.

Ever heard the expression about walking another mile in another man's moccasins? Seems relevant.

Your 4% and 3% figures also seem to be convenient, best case scenarios, but yes, discrimination is still discrimination.

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

"under the guide" above should read "under the guise"

about 2 years ago Jake Reed responded:

Look at all these bigots making comments on this. So sad : (

about 2 years ago Alan Howlett responded:

Eureka! I have the answer.
Effective immediately - every automobile must have darkly tinted windows. You must keep them rolled up, thus preventing inadvertent disclosure of anything about you. Thus if you are stopped it must be because there is a valid reason.

You seem to imply I'm racist. I would say I'm quite far from it. I expect I have walked in those other shoes as much as you. Ever worked in a field, harvesting crops, sharing food and water? Ever worked in a factory, hot, sweaty, and so noisy you had to yell into your coworkers ear? Ever put on firefighting gear so you couldn't even identify the person beside you and go into a burning building fully depending on your coworker, and he on you? I've done these things and shared work, food, drink, fun, responsibility, dependability, and risked my life with people of different ethnic groups and nationalities. We are all people,and as you said - human.

Your logic defies logic. You say if any group is more likely to be stopped, there is something wrong with the law. I say if any group is infringing more than any other group, it is NATURAL for them to be observed infringing and thus stopped in higher proportion. This is basic probability - a mathematical science, based on fact and observation. Not based on feelings, or making up for something that occurred in the past. And not politically correct.

Regarding "Your 4% and 3% figures also seem to be convenient, best case scenarios, but yes, discrimination is still discrimination.", they stand up to logical examination with any numbers you choose. Proportionality.

You seem to be condescending when replying to those not sharing your point of view, or even asking a question as my first post was.

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

"You seem to imply I'm racist." No, you may have read the previous comment and conflated it with mine. I simply asked you to consider that this law might enable those predisposed to be prejudiced. Your answer seems to be that since illegal immigrants are more likely to be lawbreakers, it's OK to treat anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant (by your definition) as a potential suspect. Makes me very glad we have a Constitution, which demands that our citizens be treated equally.

You seem to be sidetracked by the particular example of a broken tail light. Did you see Ron's comment above? It's another example. And I'm sure many would say "If you're an American citizen, you should speak English," but that wouldn't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution protects our citizens, whether they speak English or not.

I hope that the ability for someone to challenge your conventions won't continue to be viewed as condescension.

Cheers.

about 2 years ago Johnson responded:

Wow. It's sad how racist people are. Gary and Alan (mostly Alan) are an example of racism alive and well in America. Your beliefs and words are embarrassing to me, as a White American citizen.

about 2 years ago Alan Howlett responded:

Robert, "since illegal immigrants are more likely to be lawbreakers," ? By definition ILLEGAL immigrants ARE lawbreakers.

Johnson, I think you may feel that anyone arguing with a liberal is by definition a racist. Funny you can't consider Gary as minority. Double standard?

about 2 years ago Bill J. responded:

I hate it when people (like some of you above) say stuff like , "it's not about race; it's about the law. If you are here illegal you are a criminal." OK. that sounds logical and correct, but what is really bothering you? Why the uproar?

This is a nation of immigrants founded by illegal immigrants. Our founding fathers came to the land of the "free", illegally -- and you can't tell me that it doesn't matter anymore! Since the beginning, we have been conquering nations from the East Coast to the west Coast, to Hawaii, to the Caribbean, and so on. The Southwest of the United States was Mexico long before it was the U.S. Today, Mexican Americans are the fasted growing minority culture, and our country wouldn't function very well without them. Most of them are doing jobs that U.S. citizens do not want and they're getting paid less than the minimum wage, and so on. So what is really bothering you?

Der Mr. Gary Langley (from above), this Crayola thing is NOT a slap in the face of law enforcement! It's a slap in the face of this particular law itself as well as the people who wrote, supported, and passed it (which probably includes you). I believe that most police officers only want to do their jobs well and lawfully. But this law permits them to exercise discrimination in a potentially harmful ways. So give me a break!

One more note for Gary: so, you are a white man living in Hawaii? Let me see: the United States takes over the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1898, makes it a state in 1959, imposes all it's laws. So, now you're "legal" and it's all OK, right? Does history not matter to you? If it did, you might see Mexican and Latin American immigration differently. The U.S. has a long-standing, economic relationship with migrant workers south of the border. This migration pre-dates the Mexican-American war. People migrate, borders shift, laws change, wars happen...it's ongoing. We need to adapt to reality. Laws are made and unmade everyday. Hopefully, we can unmake this AZ immigration law because this law encourages and permits the practice of racial profiling, inhumane treatment, and un-necessary paranaoia.

In my opinion, we need to rethink immigration law all together. First, I don't think illegal immigration should always be classified at a CRIME. I think it's more like an INFRACTION. I still don't see what harm "they" are doing to the U.S.A. as a whole. Instead, I see that the Unites States simply would stop functioning without them! T

Secondly, we need to look at what causes illegal immigration, instead of just punishing it after the fact. How can we work with Mexico to lower immigration rates? We could also make it easier to let many "illegal aliens" enter legally, as long as our economy remains dependent on them. U.S. citizens are constantly hiring migrant workers for all kinds of jobs. Why? Can't we come up with a system that makes this process easier, and therefore easier to monitor? Can't we just think and discuss things a little more?

We definitely need re-think NAFTA. It has increased illegal immigration to the U.S. because it has caused thousands of jobs to disappear in Mexico, thus increasing illegal immigration.

In sum, we need to focus on the problems caused by illegal immigration and work on solving and minimizing them. Punishing illegals is not going to decrease immigration rates! It's only going to increase hate, paranoia, and pain.

So, those of you who are so in love with what's legal and what's illegal, WHY DON'T YOU ALSO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS HUMANE AND INHUMANE? WHAT WE CAN DO TO LIVE TOGETHER PEACEFULLY AND MINIMIZE RACISM AND HATE?

And think about history. We are in the middle of it NOW. Let's learn from the past.

Still, I wonder: What the heck is bothering you?

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

"Robert, "since illegal immigrants are more likely to be lawbreakers," ? By definition ILLEGAL immigrants ARE lawbreakers."

LOL, Alan. That just ignores my point. (Are you intentionally ignoring the real point, I hafta wonder?) So let me restate:

Given that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers, then, does that make it OK to treat anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant (by your definition) as a potential suspect?

If so, I'm thankful we have a Constitution, etc, etc, etc

about 2 years ago Alan Howlett responded:

Johnson, so brave to call someone names and hide your own. You define racist as some discussing or arguing with a liberal. Why not use your name and contribute rather than throw stones.

Robert, Read our Constitution, and our immigration guidelines, and our laws (I do mean 'our' to include you). They are your laws and constitution as well.

The citizenship eligibility requirements (#8) do expect ability to read, write, and understand English language. Not my nitpick. Your example, not mine. What I have issue with is this. We have rights, human rights transcending the US Constitution, and some guaranteed us by our Constitution. We have laws good or bad, to protect our country and our citizens. We have legislators who enact the laws, and attorneys who argue them all the way to the Supreme Court. And we have law officers who are as perfect or imperfect as the rest of us. They are as trained to uphold the law as those legislators are to write them. I have no desire to trample on anyones rights. They are not perfect, nor are our laws. Who among us has perfect judgement? But we as a nation, and Arizona as a state have the right and duty to protect and defend our borders. And we have a citizenship and naturalization process. So, given all this - why do we have a problem with illegal immigration? And why do we not have the resolve to enforce our own laws? Is that not the path to anarchy? What is in the Arizona law that is not already in the US legal code? Is it the law, or the enforcement mechanism? How do we solve it?
Citizens and Legal immigrants fall on both sides of the issue. If the law is wrong, change it. AZ? US? Both? In the present tho, it is the law.

about 2 years ago Alan Howlett responded:

Robert,
Innocent until proven guilty works for me.
People should always be treated as human beings.
We should, can, and do welcome our brothers with open arms.
Now, how do we solve the illegal immigration problem?

about 2 years ago Gary Langley responded:

Ahhh, I enjoy the rantings of the ignorant. I have been called a racist and a white invader of Hawaii so far in this thread by people who have NO IDEA of my life, and it is hilarious.

Tell you what... come over here and call me a racist in front of these people, those I lead as their pastor and friend. There are a few large men of various shades of brown and black in these pictures who have my back and will tell you what a fool you are for trying to paint me as racist for holding a political view that defends America as a nation of laws.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=168609&id=552858142&l=a9070047c5

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

Thanks for pointing that out, Alan. I appreciate that knowing English is a part of the naturalization process and I agree that anyone becoming a citizen should make the effort to learn that country's language. I lived in Korea for 9 months and learned more Korean in that time than some Americans who'd lived there 20 years. That's just sad. But the Constitution doesn't mandate a national language or that our citizens speak English. It's entirely possible we may become a bilingual country one day and I don't really have a problem with that, nor understand why it scares some folks. Anyway, my point is, you're right people should make the effort to learn English, but it's not a criminal act not to. So I think Sheriff Joe Arpaio goes to far.

I agree that we should also do something about immigration. Part of that lies in enforcement. But what about the companies which hire illegal aliens? I think there'd be a drop in the number of illegal aliens coming here if companies were fined 500,000 for each illegal alien they employed. But that's not likely to happen because companies want to continue to hire illegal aliens and as someone mentions above, there's a long history of migrant workers in parts of the country. Why isn't that controlling the issue from this end *never* comes up as solution from the loudest critics of the "illegals"? (Of which I am not suggesting you are one.) Illegality cuts two ways: Is cheap labor and profits for a company an excuse for hiring illegal aliens? Yet, these critics never raise that side of the issue. So, as usual, the rich continue to profit and the poor experience the brunt of punishment.

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

Gary, I hope you'll notice that I did not call you a racist. I would ask you however to recognize that being a minority white man in Hawaii is hardly comparable to being a Hispanic day laborer in Arizona or Texas. Will you give me that?

I hope you won't simply react to the peanut gallery and use that as an opportunity to ignore what I still think is a very valid point.

I also think Bill J. makes some valid, thoughtful points in his post and that you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm sure you're doing good things in Hawaii. But to ignore the dynamic of the European white male and his impact upon the Americas is to continue to attempt to rewrite, and, um, whitewash history. To point that out needn't be the same as calling you a imperialist marauder! ;)

Cheers.

about 2 years ago Audrey responded:

Oh for crying out loud! READ the law. There must be reasonable suspicion AND only when in the process of another crime/ suspicious activity. You don't need to "look Hispanic;" you need to be doing something wrong already.

about 2 years ago Robert Stribley responded:

Audrey, the law was so vague it had to be revised to prevent abuse and it's still probably unConstitutional.

about 2 years ago wendyc responded:

Crayola, are you kidding me!!! Displays like this just exacerbates the issue and now puts a very bad taste in the mouths of many for Crayola. How very, very sad. Hey Crayola, I take it you have no solutions for the whole immigration issue...figures.

about 2 years ago anonymous responded:

Why bother arguing with Gary etc? They're closet racists who are trying to hide their prejudice beneath the thin veneer of "legality" etc etc because racism is unfashionable today. No reasonable/logical arguments are going to change their minds because their prejudice is irrational. Jesus said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". These are the people who would stone Jesus for saying that (thereby proving himself a "liberal") and for supporting a woman who clearly "broke the law"!

about 2 years ago Gary Langley responded:

ANONYMOUS: If you are going to call people (okay, ME) a closet racist, use your real name and don't hide like a coward.

That's my real name, and my real face. You, on the other hand, hide behind anonymous. I disagree with Robert Stribley, but respect his use of his real name.

How can it be racism? Mexican is a nationality, not a race, and most of the people of Arizona --70% of whom support the new law -- are of Mexican heritage. Are they racist, too?

And I'd suggest that if you're going to quote Jesus, don't take his words out of context when you're talking to a Bishop and Seminarian.

about 2 years ago anonymous responded:

Jesus can be quoted "out of context"? Ha ha, that's a good one :-) Christian, indeed.

about 2 years ago Dave responded:

Typical tactics coming from the "Hate America First" crowd. Scream racism and hope everyone is too lazy to find out the real facts. Arizona is attempting to protect it's citizens again violent drug cartels. Once again, the left-wing lied, and people died.

about 2 years ago Alan Howlett responded:

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/04152010.jpg

about 2 years ago JUSTICESTUDIESGRAD responded:

I HATE WHEN PEOPLE SAY " IM WHITE AND IVE BEEN PULLED OVER FOR A BLOWN TAIL LIGHT AND I JUST CHANGED MY LIGHT AND I DIDNT GET PULLED OVER ANYMORE" WELL UNFORTUNATELY THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN DOESNT CHANGE AS EASILY AS A TAIL LIGHT!
GOD WHAT A JERK...

about 2 years ago JUSTICESTUDIESGRAD responded:

I AM TALKING TO YOU GARY LANGLEY

about 2 years ago JUSTICESTUDIESGRAD responded:

Frankly, you all are missing the real issue. Being a woman of color I have experienced racial injustice and racial discrimination my entire life. Enough to know that racial profiling is NEVER EVER okay! And now they think that they can just slip it into law?!?!? This is not about us supporting immigrants being illegal or supporting illegals crossing the border without the appropriate paperwork. Its about the millions of Mexican Americans who are citizens. Born and raised here just like you, who will now legally be profiled, apprehended, harassed, discriminated against, and automatically assumed to be illegal. That is not right and that is not civil! So thank you Rev. Al Sharpton for inflamming the true issue when so many others are blind, because if this law goes into effect, honestly, WHO IS NEXT?
That’s the problem with white politicians. They think that if a law protect the rights of white Americans than it protects the rights of all Americans and that is not the case! As for President Obama I feel that by him not intervening he is condoning. President Obama we voted for you because you represented CHANGE so please don’t be afraid to do just that!
JUSTICESTUDIESGRAD.WORDPRESS.COM

about 2 years ago Gary Langley responded:

Dear JUSTICESTUDIESGRAD:

I will assume you are a nice person (despite your name-calling because I have a different viewpoint) and an educated person. Those being the case, please cite for me the specific wording or inference in the Arizona law that in any possible way supports racial profiling. I have read the bill, as I must assume you have, since you hold such strong views of it, and find, instead, specific prohibitions against the evils you depict as likely. Please quote the section(s) that allow for racial profiling. Thanks so very much.

about 2 years ago JUSTICESTUDIESGRAD responded:

GARY LANGLEY:
You are correct in assuming that I am an educated person, so unlike you I actually understand what I am reading when it comes to the senate bill 1070. However, since you have challenged me to bust out my handy dandy highlighter, I will present the issue in layman’s terms just for you.

B. For any LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN who is unlawfully present in the United States, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, when practicable, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. ANY PERSON who is ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE person’s IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 30 1373(c).

For those of us who can read between the lines, know that this impressive legal jargon is not fooling anybody.

A law officer can make legal contact where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien. “Reasonable suspicion” is an extremely broad term. Many actions or situations can be deemed “reasonable suspicious” and not involve any criminal activity whatsoever. Sure the bill says that “THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN”, but again you have to read between the lines. It is very easy for an officer to say “I reasonable suspected that this person was an alien not ONLY because they were Hispanic, but because they would only speak Spanish to me as well”. Or an officer could say “I reasonable suspected that this person not ONLY because they were Hispanic, but because they were loitering which made me believe the individual an alien soliciting cheap labor”. That story can be swung any different way.

Next step, if that individual is not able to provide documentation at that exact moment guess what happens to them? The law officer is legally able to arrest that person and refuse to release them until their immigration status can be determined.

Now I hear all of you who say “Well if they have all of their papers together than it won’t be a problem”. Just for the sake of argument, let’s say a Hispanic person is detained, found to be legit, and then later released. Let’s say the individual is able to make it about four or five blocks before he is confronted by another officer (for whatever reason) who is questioning his immigration status. He tells that officer the same thing that he told the last officer which was that he does not have anything on him that proves his citizenship. On go the handcuffs once again and down to the jail they go. But what if it happens again in a week, then again in a month, two months, 3? Not only to that person, but to their sisters, brothers, mothers, cousins, etc. How are the Mexican-Americans, who are legal, supposed to feel pride in the citizenship that they have obtained or were born into if they are constantly being questioned?

Answer me this: How many illegal Irish immigrants, Jewish immigrant, or Chinese immigrants are being asked for their papers at the border? You are alienating an entire people. AND THAT, MY KIND SIR, IS RACISM AT IT’S FINEST.

about 2 years ago Gary Langley responded:

Dear JUSTICESTUDIESGRAD:

There's that condescending discourse lacking in common courtesy we have come to expect from you.

You are presuming that I am stupid (I am not), uneducated (I am not) and racist (I am not). Everything you wrote is supposition lacking substance. It's a lot of "might", "could", and "maybe" guesswork of what you think could possibly happen with zero evidence.

It is apparent that you view the world through a racial lens, attributing bad motive to those sworn to enforce the law. You live on a sad planet, and have my deepest sympathy.

I'd suggest that your argument is not with the State of Arizona (or the other 13 states about to copy their new law) but with the Federal Government. Drop President Obama a shrill note of complaint about 8 United States code section 30 1373(c) upon which the Arizona law is based. Drop that note quick, though, because he will be a one-term President.

almost 2 years ago Francsico responded:

Guys, I believe you are missing the point of why the uproar against the law. It is not that it is nonsense or unjustified. Actually I believe it takes immigration laws to their logical conclusions. The real point is that it incurs in racial profiling, something that is associated with shameful episodes in human history (Nazis, Serbia, Rwanda). Racism is strong in many parts of the world and racial profiling is thightly associated with that. Governments and international bodies have a new paradigm of a globalized world where diversity is embraced, goods and investment flow freely (and therefore traders and investors), which is incompatible with racial profiling. Profiling is left for very critical circumstances like terrorist detection. The law puts AZ in the wrong side of this debate.

almost 2 years ago Angry at AZ responded:

FIRST, this law seriously undermines the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress EXCLUSIVE power over immigration legislation.

I think we can all agree that there is an immigration problem, especially if it takes 10 years to have your paperwork processed to immigrate legally. However, racial profiling is NOT the answer. HISTORY proves over and over that even though profiling will be "against the law" it will happen. BROWN citizens are going to be harassed and stopped for "suspicious" behavior that is not clearly defined. If AZ is so confident that no racial profiling will occur, they need to clearly DEFINE "suspicious" behavior.

Even if it fails to cleanse Arizona of the targeted population, it will create a climate of fear so intense that it will force immigrant workers farther underground and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation by scrupulous employers, thereby increasing the demand for their labor, the principal reason for their presence in the state to begin with.

In addition, why are we only focusing on the problem we SEE. That in itself reeks of racism - a law that only targets one side of the problem - the undocumented workers, but NOT THE EMPLOYERS! Where are new laws for increased employer fines and/or jail time? Or how about we just enforce the laws already in existence? Employers continue to EXPLOIT workers because they want CHEAP labor!! These workers aren't coming here to commit crimes and indeed the vast majority of them commit far fewer crimes than citizens. They are hard working and contribute well over 7 billion dollars to our economy. We only like to sensationalize the crimes of the few and then use it to stereotype everyone. We all need to take a look in the mirror and see what companies we support and what products we purchase that keep the pipeline going. If you want your cheap fruit, food, manicured lawns and numerous other cheap services, then you are directly supporting undocumented immigration. TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR at your own lifestyle before supporting the AZ law.

I grew up near the border in NM and lived there for 18 years. I can only tell you about the countless times I have been stopped at border patrols for HOURS because I am BROWN. Interestingly my family has been in the US since it was established - generations upon generations upon generations - longer than most Irish, English, Germans, etc. It's ridiculous. Do any of you even know there are numerous border patrol stations throughout NM, TX, AZ, and CA???? I'm not talking about the border with Mexico; I'm talking about WITHIN the states themselves.

Perhaps you should talk to my 91 year old father who was recently detained at a border patrol just a few weeks ago - again for absolutely NO REASON. After making him wait TWO HOURS in the hot sun, they sent him on his way. RIDICULOUS and INFURIATING!!!!

So, since I've been stopped so many times, please do tell, what exactly is "suspicious" behavior so I'll know what not to do next time. Because, as far as I can tell from the countless times I have been held at border patrols, it has only to do with the color of my skin. There is NEVER anything wrong with my car or me. I always have my driver's license, but yet sometimes even that isn't trusted. And for those of you who support this law, have you ever had your status questioned on a daily basis or been harassed (for various reasons) day after day, year after year. It's EXHAUSTING, degrading and humiliating! This isn't a one time pull you over for a broken taillight thing. I cannot "fix" the color of my skin.

HOURS upon HOURS of my time is wasted on a regular basis for absolutely no reason except because I am brown. For those of you who are white and live or travel in the southwest, please tell me how many times you have been stopped.

People need to come together and recognize that greedy corporations are the only ones that benefit by pitting workers against workers (undocumented or not). This is done by gender, race, age, immigration status, or any other number of methods. It all works the same. Like all of us, these workers just want to keep their families from starving. They are willing to risk everything, including their lives, to make sure it doesn't happen. Everyone needs to take a class in Latin American history if you think our trade policies and military interventions do not have a strong impact on the decimation of THEIR land and means of subsistence. US policies greatly contribute to and play a role in the push and pull of undocumented workers into this country. These people are HARD WORKING and our economy (and YOUR lifestyle) is dependent on their exploited labor. The estimate is that they contribute over 7 BILLION dollars. They are just like the rest of us, minus the "correct" papers.

Again, yes, we need a way, for them to work legally, but that system is broken. We must demand that the FEDERAL government fix it. This AZ law is just another distraction and a way to get workers to fight amongst ourselves and ignore the real problem. Were any of you paying attention to the recent Supreme Court decision CITIZENS UNITED vs. the FEC??????? Where are the rallies and protests against that? Where are the comments and time spent in reversing that???

Have we learned nothing from the recent economic disaster and subsequent bailout of the corporations?? Follow the money. Almost all of the democrats and republicans representatives on both state and national levels are in the pockets of the corporations. When we, the people, stand up together as workers and fight against corporate domination and worker exploitation, only then can we expect change. Racial profiling is not the answer and DE FACTO profiling will happen. We know this from hundreds of years of history and the countless stories of it already happening.

almost 2 years ago Din Freebies responded:

Look at all these bigots making comments on this. So sad : (
I understand you

almost 2 years ago auto insurance tampa responded:

There is nothing at all about this catastrophe in the mainstream news right now. I am wondering, how long BP and our government are planning to keep the American People and the World from learning the actual extent of this disaster with their unconstitutional ban on the truth?

Follow this Space »

You're following this Space (Edit)

You're a contributor here (Edit)

This is your Space (Edit)

Follow by email »
Get the latest updates in your email box automatically.

Alltop.com

Holy Kaw! All the topics that interest us

Crayola explains Arizona immigration law