i agree with the redhead girl. the SB1070 is so fucked up, offensive, and racist.
When people are afraid it is easy to manipulate them. Arizona is going through an economic meltdown, the people are scared. So some decide to blame the "other", so that they can grab power. In the 1930s it was the "Jews" in Germany that were blamed for their troubles. Divide and conquer, to obtain absolute power. Dig into the history of those that preach this bill, you will be surprised!
Funny how people think the redhead is female. Jihad Punk 77, you're not alone! Maybe I should pop a beard on the guy. Actually...that sounds like fun.In somewhat related news, anyone read this?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/27/888134/-White-pride-group-urges-Tea-Party-to-be-honest-about-its-racism
This comment has been removed by the author.
I consider myself a conservative, albeit one that believes in open boarders. I am sure that SOME supporters of the Arizona Law have racism at the heart of their believes, but not most. It is an easy argument to make and avoids some of the real issues.Personally, I am against the Arizona Law. My main reason is that I see no guarantees in the law that will prevent a police officer from asking a CITIZEN (naturalized or not) for his papers. I would not like to see us develop into a nation where everybody had to show his/her papers on demand. That way lies tyranny. Some say we have that with a drivers license. Not true. That license shows permission to drive on government roads. I would hate to see my wife harassed (Born in Taiwan, Naturalized citizen of the US) because the cop didn't like Asians, thought her accent was to thick, etc. If you are a citizen, refuse to show your papers. I will be doing that. The state I am in (Utah) is considering a similar law to Arizona's. I WILL be sending out some emails to my reps.
There are already state laws on the books that require you to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer that asks you (even if you are not suspected of a crime or arrested). And for at least the last few decades it has been a federal law that all green card holders, and anyone else that is not a US citizen, must have on their person, at all times, their "papers" (i.e. green card or passport with valid visa). And you, as a US citizen, have to show your "papers" in order to work (ever hear of an I-9 form?) So, I'm not sure what the fuss is all about ... my wife is Chinese, but she came over legal (before I met her), and over the years we have paid an enormous amount of money (several thousands of dollars) to the INS (homeland security) to renew her work authorizations, and then later for the green card, and finally, for her citizenship papers. The issue as I see it, is that we did everything by the book, as good citizens and good wanna-be-citizens should do. Like it or not, that is the law. And the US is a nation of laws. People who are not following the immigration laws, in my opinion, and in the eys of the law, do not deserve to remain in the US.In metaphor, why should I have to pay for automobile gas while the guy down the street can steal all he wants and never be reprimanded? Why should my wife and I pay thousands of dollars to the US treasury for a citizenship paper and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants not pay? Why should I pay federal, state, local, SSI, work-man comp insurance taxes while the guy down the street lives tax free and yet he receives the same services I do (if not much more)? I do think this is a very valid line of reasoning and a very valid question.. and I fail to see why I should pay citizenship fees and pay taxes and still provide services for the support of others who are not US citizens.I go to China plenty of times each year, and I have to qualify for and pay for a Chinese visa each time (a huge pain in the rear because I have to personally drive an 8 hour round trip to the LA Chinese Consulate to appear in person to get the VISA). And when I get to China, I have to register with the local police department within 24 hours or they come looking for me. I have to keep my "papers" (my passport and visa) on me at all times. I am white, gray eyed, tall, and quite bald, in a sea of (generally) shorter, brown, black-hair, brown-eyed people. I am, needless to say, easy to spot. And yes, lots of Chinese merchants and police try to take advantage of me (thinking I am niave)... So, what you see in Arizona, and in other states, is exactly what you yourself will be subject to in most every other country that you go visit or try to immigrate into. If you look at all different from the native population, you will be singled out and asked to produce your papers every now and again.As far as I can see, there is noting racist about breaking the law or having local police ask for your ID. And being an undocumented person in the US is, by definition, breaking the law. Being an undocumented person in China, Japan, Korea, or most any other nation is also not racist; it is simply against the law.Int he USA, since it is already required to provide ID upon demand in all 50 states (and not just a driver license; you are required to have some form of ID), and since, in all 50 states there already exist laws that allow the local police, working with the federal government, to verify the status of citizenship for any jailed person, then I really can not see any problem with existing federal law or with any proposed state laws. Playing the race card here just doesn't cut it for me.
Dan, I can always count on your for in-depth commentary!The way I see it, people who think this bill is racist in nature believe that it is the potentially selective nature of it. If Dick and Jane are driving down the street with unregistered tags, chances are a policeman will cite them for that and they will be on their way. Unless of course they reek of booze or there's mysterious knocking coming from the trunk. Now if Juan and Maria are driving down the street with unregistered tags they will get their citation too but the chances of them having to produce proof of citizenship are much higher than Dick and Jane. And I think that's where a lot of the emotion of this proposal comes in.Lets say after all the paperwork and cost of obtaining legal citizenship, your wife was asked to produce proof of citizenship but you weren't. She would be safe since she has her papers in order but I'm willing to bet it would bother her to some degree. We're a nation of immigrants. Having an accent or looking a certain way should not trigger a reaction that causes a potentially perfectly legal citizen to have to prove it.But I think we'd both agree that showing your papers on demand anywhere is a giant pain in the ass and is always, at the very least, an inconvenience.
I agree with Dan as far as punishing those who break the law. They're called ILLEGAL immigrants for a reason. We need to do something about the law about "being born here makes you a citizen". That's the main issue that causes all of this conflict in the first place. "Boo hoo I can't leave me kids here while you deport me." Although it seems harsh for me to say, those kids need to understand that if their parents break the law, they'll have to be punished, no exceptions.On the other hand, if gaining legal immigration status wasn't so tedious and time consuming, people wouldn't really try to cross the border in the first place. My cousins had to wait TEN YEARS to have their papers approved to come here. Not to say it isn't worth the wait, but come on.
I'm all for keeping things legal and above the board but how exactly is a police officer going to suspect a person of being an illegal alien without looking at a person's skin color first?
I don't see much of a problem with the law as I read it. I lived in Japan and carried a foreigner card, one that has my thumb print. I had to show it on numerous occasions. I did not feel that they were racist. Once I was stopped by the police as they were searching for a bicycle thief. Now in Japan one would think bike theft is uncommon, but it is probably the most common not unlike speeding on the highway. I assume that I was targeted because I was a foreigner. I had my card with my thumb print and was allowed to ride home without further issue. I was a legal alien and did not feel that I had sue then or get them fired.I think the bigger issue is how you view the police. 1) If you think that they are all a bunch of racist filthy pigs who should die a gruesome death while their children watch in horror, then yes th law is racist. 2) If you think that the majority of police are good people who have a job that no one else will do because you will lose your life or your job because of a mistake, then the law is not racist.There are racists everywhere just as there are good people. The law is not racist. I can only hope that the majority of police are not racist. But it will only take one scumbag to kill the law if it ever gets through.I always thought the redhead was a guy. I find it hard to imagine that SAM has female friends. wolololololol
In response to Dan: It is not most states; 23 states have stop and identify laws. Most of them require verbal identification. In Utah, the law requires you to state your name and address when asked. You do not have to show or carry ID. If a police officer stops you and you are not carrying your "papers", You can not be arrested for that. Of course, the cops can always get around that, but that is not a good thing.As far as my wife goes, she was here on a student visa when I met her. She is now a naturalized citizen of the United States. I would like her to be treated with the same respect that ANY US citizen deserves. You say that she would be able to produce her papers, but the point is, that as a US Citizen she does NOT have to carry her papers.As far as the Race Card goes; I never stated nor did I suggest that the law was racist. I don't think it is. The point that I tried to make (badly it would seem) is that yelling racist is a very easy argument to use against conservatives, but for most it is not true. My objection to this law is the part that, I feel, infringes on my civil liberties.I fear that the next step is the requirement that all US Citizens to carry and produce ID on demand. If they are going to go that route, they may as well go whole hog and skip straight to wear they tattoo numbers on our arms.Illegal immigration is a serious problem and should be treated as such, but don't sell us all out to deal with that problem.
Personally, I'm not in favor of the law, however what makes me suspicious is nature of implementation. Even if the law is not racist in construction or intent, it fails to recognize one of the major facets of the US, that we are a big heterogeneous country. I've lived on both coasts, and I've lived a few years in Japan as an adult.In Japan, I had a foreigner ID card, and as a Japanese American, I did get to disappear into the crowd and not always get "normal" gaijin treatment. Still, I carried it everywhere and presented it when asked. When I traveled to France, Korea, and the Philippines, I carried my passport. That's just a part of international travel and I have no problem with that. I was a foreigner.But at home, there's a difference. Like everyone else who works, yes, I've filled out an I-9 form, but I don't carry one around. I also don't carry a copy of my birth certificate either. As an Asian American by birth and third generation American I would hope that I would never need to, especially when traveling state to state. Because this isn't a nuisance; this is a deliberate questioning of my personal loyalty to my country. The same kind of questioning that's been bandied about at different times in our history. It's a presumption of being guilty of something for no rational or tangible reason. Even with all the protestations that the law doesn't target citizens, it does.As a minority, I've been treated very differently living in different parts of the country, and I accept that as part of being a minority. But I don't accept it as being right. The other side of the coin, there are places in the US where I have felt more comfortable living, but I wouldn't want my wife, who is white, to live in some of those places because I would spare her the treatment I sometimes have received. This does speak to the law at hand. While many would not oppose the stated intent, it doesn't address the fundamental issues of fair and reasonable implementation while allowing a "pass" of sorts to mindset that is untenable for the reality of our country and a slippery slope most of us don't really understand.