Below is copied from another article comment section. It makes perfect sense. Why does the media insist on inflaming the public at large and not explain what is actually contained in the Arizona Law? The law doesn't target Hispanics... the law puts teeth into the enforcement of illegals.
-------------- Comment that makes Sense-----------------------
At first, I wondered why so many articles leave out the work illegal and just say immigrants. I have also noticed that many articles have left out the full information regarding this law. The Arizona law states that they can only ask for an id if someone has already done something unlawful. Then, if that person cannot provide id and is suspected of being an illegal immigrant for reasons other than race, the authorities can jail them and turn them over to the feds, for breaking the federal law. I believe that current law states that police can ask for id from USA citizens, if they are involved in unlawful activities, also. So the Arizona law is merely enforcing the federal laws.
This makes perfect sense. If someone is doing something unlawful, they should provide id. The Arizona law says nothing about Hispanics and specifically states that the law cannot target someone for race.
Now I realize that the media is extremely biased, because not only are they not giving the full information, they are specifically leaving out the word "illegal" on purpose. Its no wonder hispanics are worried. The media has distorted the law so much that unless you actually read the law yourself, you would not know the truth.
In a day and age where terrorists run rampant, we must control our borders. If we do not secure them, we are opening Pandora's box and we won't have any idea of who is in this country. No amnesty.
If the federal govt. is unwilling to enforce the law, then states should have the right to enforce federal laws. Because if neither the federal nor state enforces the law, we would be lawless. ........
Yes we must control our borders.
But politically-correct liberal dummies don't give a whit about anyone except themselves and their circle of politically-correct friends.
Business owners are politically correct liberal dummies? (nice Christian sentiment btw)
Honestly, Brenda, that is such a knee-jerk, predictable response. I would have thought you wouldn't fall into that same trap.
Generalizations don't solve problems.
That "circle" includes the cities of Flagstaff, Tucson, and Phoenix; all of whom are suing the State of Arizona.
The problem is that our government is actually breaking the law of the land. President Obama, the Justice Department and Congress all have taken an oath to the constitution. They are guilty, it is difficult to understand why our government don't obey the laws. How many times have you heard some politician say '' We are a country of the rule of law ''.
No new laws should even be proposed until the flow of illegals are stopped. The governments solution is to catch and release, release where, back to the border. That process don't work simply that no punishment for breaking the law is administered.
HOW ABOUT INTERNMENT CAMPS ALONG THE BORDER. FIRST OFFENSE 1 YEAR + ???????
The president and other elected officials are condemning the Arizona Law, what a bunch of hypocrites. This nation is in deep trouble when one can break the law and our politicians defend the lawbreakers.
In corrupt Washington today, right is wrong and wrong is right. That's not the America that I knew. Citizens break the law they are punished, non citizens break the law they don't get punished.
Our country stands on the premise that justice must be served.
Contact your public servant, request that he obeys the law of the land.
The thoughts and opinions of your elected officials are bought and paid for by the lobbyists and their handlers.
Why would someone expose themselves to criminal charges and possible imprisonment unless there was a good reason? The payoff is very great and how many presidents have been convicted of anything? The congress knows if they allow the president to be compromised then where will they stand with regards to criminal prosecution? The good ole' boys on the hill protect their own.
Paper never refuses Ink, todays newspaper is tomorrows chip bag, they who shout lowest do so to conceal their own crimes......these are just some of my views on the mainstream media........
The law does nothing to protect me or my fellow Arizonans. It helps conservatives stir fear in their dim-witted base, and brings the Repubs some votes...I guess that's what really counts.
I applaud Arizonas efforts to do something about the illegal immigrant situation in their state. I lived in Phoenix for about three years and worked in the construction boom of the late '70's.
There were many Mexican laborers there and when a green van came on site you could hear the howl of the wind over any machinery noise that had occupied the site.
The problem with the Arizona law is that it punishes the powerless and not the powerful who employ these people. Americans are denied a living wage while the employer cashes in on the profit enjoyed by paying less. The employer who hires illegal workers also is much more competitive in his pricing because he cuts out a competitor who pays his employees a fair wage. That induces the competition to break the law as well to survive.
The problem is not with the illegal immigrant worker but the employer exploiting the cheap labor to line his own pockets and uncaringly weakening the American workforce through this practice.
What if the INS was able to fine an employer say about $50,000 for every illegal he hires. When the green van pulls up you may here the howl of the employers lawyer instead.
LOL! Take another look at your link! LOL!
Nice to see you are so up to date!
Still don't get it do you.
I guess being argumentative is all you have to offer.
Did you even look at the link you yourself posted?
Your statement was there is no INS.
While argumentative at best there are still the INS forms you must submit to become naturalized.
I understand that the INS was absorbed into Homeland Security but the context I employed was referenced to the post I made about the times the INS raided job sites while I was in Arizona.
Maybe your thought patterns are too literal and you should try to not live on the individual words but concentrate on the context more.
Oh, you're getting closer. Have you googled the name of the government agency you are thinking of? Are you too embarrassed to admit it?
The "you should not live on the individual words" bit suggests you are looking for a way out...
Just accept it. The shame will be fleeting if you don't drag it out.
Get your glasses checked as I am sure you can understand some of what is being said without having to drag it out for you.
Oh, you're going to let your pride drag you through the mud, aren't you? That is unfortunate.
We see the world as we see ourselves. Comments like this reveal a lot about you. You make them a lot. I feel sorry for you, but in the way one feels sorry for a stinging insect that's been damaged somehow, grounded and struggling to right itself - pitiable, but not worth the sting any attempts to help it would receive.
The law has <0 chance of ever being implemented. The sponsors, who are slightly more intelligent than the idiots who voted them into office, are well aware of this, but hey... why let convenient, baseless fears go to waste?
What about all the American college girls from Buffalo who invade Canada to take advantage of our lower age drinking limits, yet don't give me the time of day???
If you can't get drunk, underage college girls to give you the time of day you have bigger problems than immigration.
What part of the word 'illegal' are people having a hard time understanding????
There have been immigration laws in place throughout the 20th century. Why were these so woefully conceived that they require new laws that border on a witch hunt? Why are the present laws inadequate and uninforcible? It seems to me that unless the present laws truly are lacking, such new laws are mostly just overkill and scare tactics.
Fear because of terroristic types of raids is not something we need more of. Prosecuting those who hire illegal aliens and being aggressive about *that* would go a long way to alleviating illegal alien status in this country. Prosecuting illegal aliens is obviously also very necessary, but it's about instilling respect for the law, not scaring the hell out of everyone. The two do not have to be synonymous.
The question I have is: Why is our government afraid to enforce our immigration laws? If they weren't afraid, enforcement wouldn't be an issue...
This is a liberal source but the findings make sense. Here are a few excerpts:
The equation to explain the whys of illegal immigration into the US is simple:
Add: Widespread abject poverty and starvation in Mexico after US corporations relocated their cheap-labor plants from the US-Mexico border to Asia, and after Mexican banks and telecommunications were privatized, creating dozens of instant billionaires and plunging millions into poverty.
Add: An extremely porous, under-enforced US-Mexico border.
Add: US employers anxious for more profits, and willing to exploit the poverty and fears of illegal immigrants to do so.
Add: The federal government anxious to curry favor with , and garner votes from, business owners and the Hispanic community...thus, willing to under-enforce borders and immigrations laws, and ignore illegal hiring by employers.
Add: The Social Security Administration dependent on taking in $7 billion annually of contributions from illegal immigrant workers who will never receive benefits from the system.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigrat … Immi_4.htm
Your reference is dated. Support in Arizona is falling like a rock. easy come easy go. You can generate initial support using scare tactics, but it isn't lasting.
"Opinion polls show broad support for tough Arizona immigration law"
April 30, 2010
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 … ration-law
Are you and TK on the same computer or are you making the same mistakes independently?
No, we're telling the same truths independently. Go back to your silly cupcakes.
Past-tense truths perhaps. The fear mongering did garner support for the bill initially, but support is rapidly fading as these people wake up to the consequences of acting without thinking.
When the numbers have dropped from 70% support to about 53% in a week, yes April 30th is ancient history.
And you forgot to mention the 12 other states that want to draft similar legislation.
Offered several posts ago, along with that proof that exists if you simply look at up to date polls. I didn't forget the other states, I just dismissed them as equally misguided and futile.
you usually do dismiss things you don't like or want to factor into the equation
There is no equation. The Arizona law is struck down, the other states STFU and we move on.
Of course the elections will have taken place by then, which is all this nonsense was ever about. Nothing will have been accomplished, the teabaggers simply will have guessed wrong yet again.
Poor little monkeys.
Nice lateral move. Yes, there is a bigger picture (equation). One you hope won't be logically looked at by people who think . . . gasp. . . that we should live by the rule of law.
There you go again thinking States have a right to enact laws!
Don't you know Buck, that Ron is the undisputed authority on our Constitution. Just ask him about the 2nd Amendment.
Or you could just ask X. She knows it so well that she can claim with a straight face that it gives citizens the right to own nuclear weapons!
Same date, same problem. Here, let me help then you can get back to your trolling, while I get back to work: Spolier alert 52 is less than 70.
Washington – As the Obama administration considers a potential legal challenge to Arizona’s tough new immigration law, a professor who helped draft the bill is defending the state measure as supportive of existing federal statutes.
“I think the critics who are claiming the bill will not withstand legal challenge need to read the bill,” said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
“The bill will withstand any preemptive challenge,” he said, because it reinforces existing federal immigration laws and creates no new immigration crimes.
Washington – As the Obama administration considers a potential legal challenge to Arizona’s tough new immigration law,
The jokes on the President ,he should know that there is a federal law on the books that isn't being enforced by him and the attorney general.
We are a nation of the rule of law, established for US citizens. Those who break the law go to jail. The feds catch the criminals and send them back to the border, what kind of punishment is that.
For that reason the illegals have no fear of punishment, they get a free ride to the border and in some instances get released before going back to the border.
Shame shame Barak Obama, Attorney General and Congress for not enforcing our laws.
Arizona isn't the problem, Washington surely is the violator of our laws.
I agree with you that Arizona is not the problem when it comes to this illegal immigration labor debacle.
I wonder why Arizona did not go one step further and heavily fine and possibly incarcerate the offending employers! This is at the crux of the matter.
Without the money for the illegal workers to come too, there would be little or no problem that would exist.
Arizona does in fact do most of what you suggest. A law was passed in 2007 that requires employers to use E-Verify to insure that every worker on their payroll is legally entitled to work in the U.S. Employers caught knowingly hiring illegals face a corporate "Death Penalty", the Arizona Corporations Commission revokes their business license.
One has to wonder how stringently the law is being enforced and if there is some type of pay off taking place that circumvents the law. Revoking a business license for someone who is operating illegally in the first place is a mere inconvenience.
I can't imagine all the illegal immigrants coming to Arizona to take in the sites and sunshine. If they were passing through to other states then they should just let them pass on through and let the Federal Government not do their job elsewhere.
One of the problems is that the Federal government has stepped up efforts elsewhere. The security is much tighter in California and Texas. It was assumed that the Arizona desert was much too hostile an environment for immigrants to cross, and in fact many have died doing so. People have adapted to this deadly environment, and some think that a fence will stop them?
The bottom line is that these workers are needed here, and they will always find a way to get here; it's a matter of survival. Calls for "get tough" policies without comprehensive reform are just pissing into the wind. It may feel good for a moment, but the results will not make the pisser happy.
If the law needs to be changed to fill the needs of the Arizona employers then so be it. But the new law hardly addresses that issue. The two are opposing patterns and there needs to be some clarity so a comprehensive plan can be put in place.
Another more important question that should be adddressed with this situation is why illegal labor is needed to fill the workforce? Is it because most employers are hiring illegals to be competitive and it is just the normal process now or are they hiring them because no legal workers want the jobs?
In many instances, they are the most qualified, most productive workers. They sre more highly motivated than many natural-born citizens.
No doubt that the conditions you cite would make an illegal more enticing to a potential employer. The reward may outweigh the risk the employer is willing to take. Under current laws maybe the penalty is acceptable and after a short period of downtime and loss of the business license the employer is up and running again and free to rehire the same person.
But is it legal and is the new law a quicker way to circumvent the shortcomings of the situation?
It would seem Arizona legislators need to s*&t or get off the pot!
He does. He is ignoring it for political purposes.
If as a business you hire someone and they present false identification that indicates they are citizens or legal residents, what should the consequences be? What steps should a business take in order to verify that the person applying for a job is the person they claim to be? Isn't it a bit unfair to ask business to do what the federal government is supposed to be responsible for?
It is unfair to expect the employer to police the identification process to cover his butt. The ID situation should be made more dependable but if the fine and or penalties are rather stiff, you will find a greater number of employers being more hesitant to hire someone they suspect rather than shrugging it off on the government to prove later.
by Riece 11 years ago
Somebody please explain to me why they think the Arizona law is racist. You say it targets Hispanics, but nowhere does the bill say "Hispanics" and 7% of illegals are Asian, and I want them out too. All it says that papers may be asked for if there is reasonable suspicion they are illegal...
by the new left 11 years ago
Everyone now on the conservative side keeps bashing hispanics are they nuts. They should be trying to persuade us since we are the major minority and in 20 years will be the majority in many states like texas and arizona which would be up for grabs with the growing hispanic population which have...
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Racism is the trendy charge these days. I believe it is over-used and frequently misapplied.I know that racism applies to race and not ethnicity, but that hasn't stopped many from applying the racism charge, so I include it here also.Many of the accusations I see should have been accusations of...
by woolman60 12 years ago
Los Angeles will ban all business with Arizona until it repeals its tough new law targeting illegal immigrants L.A. Votes to Boycott Arizonahttp://www.fresnobee.com/2010/05/05/192 … ycott.html
by tobey100 11 years ago
I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it. All of it. I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling. I always ask my critic, "Have you read the law?" the answer is usually a resounding yes yet, when I ask them...
by Dan Harmon 31 minutes ago
On the news tonight were pictures of "protests" outside the homes of 6 (only 6) of the nine Supreme Court Justices. I had heard that was happening but had not seen confirmation of more than a handful of people.This is very much against federal law; protests attempting to intimidate...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|