COGN 150 Group Project- Social Network Report

On Yi Lee (Jasmine)

Hironobu Kanahara

Hiu Ying Ma (Vivienne)

Jo Kabuye

COGN 150

Summer 10

Professor Aytes

Group Project- Social Network Report

The blog, indifferentcitizens.blogspot.com, which we created, is based on the Arizona immigration law- SB1070. We hope to explore concepts of social networks or an online community in general employing the blogger.com website as a platform and engaging with SB1070 as the central issue. The blog helped online users interact though social network sites such as Blogger.com though it is not as interactive as the typical online social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. As with any blog or network, some of the users are more outspoken, and some others are more neutral. Users don’t necessarily have to know each other to leave comments; they reserve the rights to hide their identities. Having the topic based on the Arizona immigration issue, most of the users who comment are English speakers, with this group of English speakers being primarily made up of those living within the United States. The main form of participation that is available to users on the blog is leaving comments, unlike other SNS they are not able to chat; however they have the option of sharing the blog on their Facebooks, Twitters, or email it to friends and family. The format of a blog allows us to tap into the opinions and viewpoints of the public at large; through this format we hope to connect people together on the platform and face the issue in various ways, knowing that it has been a social problem that affects a massive amount of people. Therefore, a blog that is about posting issues related to the law helps people voice their opinion and express themselves. Racial profiling, power abuse, and stereotyping are all problems that are potentially created from this the law on top of that lays a heightened emotional involvement. It is controversial because many people feel passionate about the issue; however lack the ability to express themselves in adequate fashion. We believe users might therefore be able to also share their experience through the comments they share. A blog can potentially lead to the creation of protest and civil disobedience as the numbers grow, which can be linked to participatory culture.

Our blog is managed by four team members, and each of us posted different blog entries adding to the information available to viewers. The way participatory culture works is through contributions of people who relate to certain things; in other words, the way it works on the internet is by people’s actions. What we figured out through working on our blog is participations of each member builds up a ‘participatory culture.’ One updates of a member facilitated another updates of other members. Within the realm of participatory culture, the actions of each project member, which was in essence free digital labor, was all towards a common goal. Therefore, participation or updates of blog contents became significant actions among all of us, which means that we made our ideas into texts and updated them as blog contents without any reward. It is true that reaching our team-goal is a source of reward for our efforts we have made to sustain and develop our project. Participatory culture is formed through our taking part in something and sharing our views, ideas and thoughts. We came to the conclusion over the course of this project that participatory culture exists within the Gift-economy. The topic of our blog relates to the immigration issue of which most of us had little understanding; however, by researching about different things for our posts increased our understanding about the issue of Arizona Immigration Law through collaboration. Our blog became a hub for our team-network and each member shared ideas to create value that drew internet users to view our blog. Our responses for articles written about Arizona immigration created the sense of learning and we could teach and learn mutually. Therefore, our team project could progress toward our goal through each team members’ participation in the realm of the Digital Economy.

In Howard Rheingold's From the Screen to the Streets, it is stated that political activists can actually use various forms of media to mobilize collective action. They can use these mediums to mobilize individuals from different places into joining in street protests and demonstrations, fund-raising activities, vote campaigns, and even legislative lobbying. Since the medium is accessible and can reach numbers of individuals in a short period, people can easily be made aware of various political issues which need to be addressed. The protesters would be able to reach large numbers of people and mobilize them into acting upon said issues in the form of collective action (Rheingold). This means that anyone who has access to any form of media has the capability to mobilize and be mobilized. Using new social media such as blogging, we are not only creating social awareness to inform the public but also to affect the public sphere.

In fact, media is a very powerful entity that even has cause political action to be taken against in order to neutralize its power and effects. As seen in the aforementioned discussion, new media like this is a very powerful tool in changing the society and the world. A lot of individuals may say that media exists to entertain people, but it has a far more important role than that. Media can make people aware of social and political issues and mobilize people into organized social action; with media, people are given more opportunities to revitalize their societies.

Media, indeed, is powerful, with it individuals have the power to spread photos and stories from medium to medium, making it possible for other individuals to become aware of certain issues and thus, engage in social action. It is stated that media and its ever-changing technology can do even more than just mobilize people into collective social action, or prompt people to download various software to crash an organization's mainframe for the organization to lose millions—it can even unseat a president from his position. (Zuckerman).

Within this group there were no issues of privacy being encroached upon because we made it so individuals can post on the blog anonymously. This allows them more freedom in their opinions and viewpoints they express. Looking at it from the perspective of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon, these participants are no longer under perceived surveillance so they have more room to express their individual opinions, whether or not they adhere to popular modes of thought, without fear of persecution. It was interesting to note that what we might have considered widespread beliefs of those are against this law were not actually always present. Looking at one of the comments, they believed race is not an issue when it comes to this law making the point it is all about the age old debate about the power of the federal government to control the sovereign power of the states. In this it can be seen that social networks such as these attract all kinds of people each with different backgrounds and each with their own view of a subject. For though we were united by a common interest and cause there are intricate complexities that arise in all social networks that in fact enrich the experience of others connected to the network.

The blog is puts to use the idea of collective intelligence, for by its very nature a blog is one that allows comments and feedback from individuals who share their opinions and add to the discussion thereby influencing another person’s thought system while simultaneously having their thoughts influenced by another. In this sharing and commenting lies the heart of collective intelligence for what is formulated is a kind of group well of ideas and thought from which participants are able to draw from. This manifests itself in how they can take knowledge or information they have gleaned from their group experience on the blog and use it outside the group in discussions with others, for example a debate over the constitutionality of the new Arizona immigration law.

This blog seeks to challenge the effects that living in a fast-paced media rich environment has had on those within this society. The effects being that of hyper-tension, which is focusing on multiple things simultaneously allowing for multitasking; however, on the con side this hyper-tension has caused the populace to lose interest in things after short periods of times this can be exemplified in the public’s large response to happenings like Hurricane Katrina or the tragedy in Haiti. Both occurrences were met with overwhelming signs of support in terms of the efforts to rebuild those areas as well as provide aid to the inhabitants; however, after shorts periods of time the public’s interest waned on to the next “in” cause that arose. Thereby we seek to draw the attention of the public to what we consider an important issue that looks to shape the face of the United States for years to come. In such a way as to instill a form of deep attention so that they can become effective in their support and desire to further educate themselves about the Arizona immigration issue.

In terms of number of participants we lacked a great outpouring of support from the public in terms of comments and views on the blog. This can be due to a number of reasons, but if we were to do this again we could have advertised this blog more on other social networking site, harp on family and friends to get involved, and commiserate with other blogs that are similar in content to build a wider audience.

Works Cited:
Rheingold, Howard. “From the Screen to the Streets.” 28 Oct. 2003. Web. 18 Aug. 2010.
Zuckerman, Ethan. “Mobile Phones and Social Activism: Why Cell Phones May Be the Most Important Innovation of the Decade.” 20 June 2007. Web. 18 Aug. 2010.
Boyd, Dana., Ellison, N.B. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2007. Web. Article 11.
Terranova, Tiziana. “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy”. 24 Apr. 2000. Web.
Hayles, Katherine. “Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes”.
Foucault, Michel., Bentham, Jeremy. “Discipline and Punish”. “Panopticism”. 1975.

you could view these...or not

We see all this turmoil happening because of the immigration law with people getting shot, innocent people getting charged, and police using technicalities to detain people- like really dude was going 45 in a 40 and you stopped him, but thats not racially motivated right?. Then we learn that according to an AP report that changes that were being considered being made to the law including, and i quote "a requirement that police check a person's status while enforcing other laws if there's a reasonable suspicion the person is in the United States illegally," are no longer going to be made it will remain the same but be fastracked through the courts to be decided on. How can you see these videos and still be an avid supporter of this law you have to be blind, deaf, and sleep to not take note of the serious flaws not only in the law but in the mindset of those who support these laws some of these people being in positions of power and authority *cough* REP. TED POE *cough* who seem to be the reincarnation of nazis and the gestapo with the way the compare immigrants to bugs needing to be extinguished.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration


but then again we could care less right?



from one indifferent citizen to the next...

what am i doing with my life?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128865939
http://www.londonwired.co.uk/news.php/56344-Protests-across-US-over-Arizona-immigration-law
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051310dnmetarizonaprotests.17b97dc.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-diamondbacks-astrosprotest
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-26/us/arizona.immigration.protests_1_immigrant-rights-activist-immigration-status-controversial-immigration?_s=PM:US

The secret to life is the question that has plagued humanity for ages and will continue to do so. However, one only needs to ask one question: "What am i doing with MY life?" and in answering that will at least put them in the ballpark. For you cannot know life and what it is about if you yourself do not know your own particular life and what you are doing with it. Therefore, taking up a cause that threatens for an issue that threatens not only your own but your communities existence becomes in of itself a way to answer this self-reflective question. What are you doing with your life? How are you contributing to the fabric of this society, are you holding the spool or just a bystander? A life well lived can be measured by the effect one has on others lives that being said when you close your eyes at night can you say that you have positively effected another or are you a bottom feeder in the pool of society? How willing are you to step out of your comfort zone and your normal sphere to participate in something bigger than you? How dedicated would you be if you were told there was the possibility of legal repercussions or violence be it emotional or physical? Would you be a fair-weather supporter or grind your heels into the dirt taking the offenses you suffer as indication you are upsetting the status-quo? Ask yourself these questions then Look at these links and ask yourself the age old question: "What am I doing with my life?"


from one indifferent citizen to the next....

Emotional aspect of debate over Arizona Immigration Law.

Case one:

-In terms of democratic stand poind, majority's opinion would be inclined to take side of federal government that challenge the Arizona's new law.

-When ignorance comes into effect, people would disagree with Arizona Immigration Law. What is ignorace??? What I mean by ignorance is that racism or hatred against certain groups of people.

Can you combine these two above?? What can you guess a person with these two ideas or thoughts would say about Obama's challenge to the Arizona law??



Case two:
-Serious illigal immigrant workers do not commit crime and are making contribution for the life of rich American. so.. lets say California needs illegal immigrants.

-illegal immigrants are cause of increasing crime rate, because police says that illegal immigrants are related to most kidnapping or other crimes.

Can you make a easy decision based on these two above?? Do you regard the former as an important or a latter?? Actually, both are significant.


It would be much easier for people to not think about immigration issue from perspectives of economic, democratic, social, America's multi-ethnic aspect. I would be easier if people can just think the issue of Arizona as a controversy between federal government and Arizona state government. Acutally, government is the one that makes decision; in other words, government is the one that makes solution regardless of how many people agree and disagree.

So.. what is the point of demos against Arizona immigration law?? or what is the point of people who oppose or agree with the law issue?? and getting mad about the issue??

What can you think of as the best solution to this issue?? or what is at the end of this debate over immigration issue??

Obama Administration's decision to challenge the new immigration law.

PHOENIX – The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and the state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.


The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix argues that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations usurps federal authority.

"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law declared invalid.


The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement
 
tacticshttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100706/ap_o…
 
Do you agree or disagre with Obama Administration's challegne to Arizona immigration law????
If you are American who understands the form of goverment you live in, you would be agreed to the fact that challege is to be made. President or federal government's challenge to the state law issue would make the solid and strong 'federal law.'

on second thought...

"maybe gettin rid of illegal immigrants was not such the best idea i mean they are not that bad after all right? perhaps we were a bit hasty in our decision." guarantee that is what lawmakers and supports of the arizona immigration law are thinkin right now as they scramble to rectify what has been an economically disatrous decision as the work force has decreased significantly with the firing and removal of illegal immigrants leaving business owners hurting financially im guessing this is sure to change their minds about this issue for in the words of the Wu Tang Clan: "C.R.E.A.M." cash rules everything around mebut we could all care less right?

from one indiffernt citizen to the next...

Underlying problem of the Arizona debate that makes a debate complicated.

Jebbie from Yahoo Answer says "The Arizona Immigration law criminalizes illegal immigration by defining it as trespassing and allows local la,w enforcement agencies to question people they suspect of being undocumented.Do you feel it is fair or unfair for law enforcement to "question people they suspect" in this manner?"

It is really hard to make answer for this question. The new law allows police to question a person who appears to be suspicious; in other words, the new law justifies stereotyping of certain ethnicities. Therefore, when the strict immigration law is viewed from emotional aspect, it seems to be unjustified and unfair.

What about public safety?? can the new law of Arizon helps?? I think the answer is Yes, but I should pay more attention to the parts of society that benefit from the new law.

Some possible results that would be brough about are:
Decrease in crime rate: This is the main idea that people claim as the benefit of the new law.

"Here’s the real picture Obama does not want you to see. Warning signs were posted this past month by the federal government 80 miles North of the border on the South side of I-8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend urging U.S. citizens not to camp or hike in the “Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area” because “Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals.”`
Cashelmara from Yahoo Answer.com

Ok... can you say the new law will not gonna help decrease crime rate?? I would say yes, but it is still hard to agree with the implementation of the new law. There are many illigal immigarants in the U.S. society, and many are serious workers, and are obviously the part of U.S. society and the state economy. This might be one reason that people  disagree with the new law, since those people working seriously and not commiting crime can be deported to their country. However, they comitted crime when they entered the U.S. or in other words, crossed the border.

The huge debate over the new immigration of Arizona is partially caused  by emotion of people and sympathy toward illegal immigrants.

When the race issue is associated with immigration Law, people become emotional.

"Heated debates over the bold decision of Jan Brewer to implement Arizona Immigration Bill meant to ease the capture of illegal immigrants by allowing Law Enforcement Officials to verify the legal status of any citizen according to "reasonable suspicion", are not even close to chilling out. If you haven't heard yet of the consequences here are some of them:


◦The law sprung some boycotts around the United States, the greatest being that of Los Angeles. Losses that Arizona may support as a result of the boycotts are tremendous. Phoenix is already estimating a boycott could cost $90 million and that's just one city in the state. However, if Arizona decides to boycott California back by cutting the power supply as some news sources state at the date being, there is no telling how much damage that would imply.

◦The toughest sheriff of USA, Joe Arpaio and his aggressive tactics against illegal immigrants have also been frequently in the news lately. 93 people were detained in the latest sweep, and officers suspected about 63 of them are illegal immigrants. This brings up the question – on what ground were the other 30 detained and if they are legals, isn't it an argument that "reasonable suspicion" doesn't work in certain cases? President Obama said that the law “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

◦Well and the last hot topic discussed on all news portals these days is the Calderon's visit to the White House. The Mexican President took the unusual step Wednesday morning of criticizing an American law while visiting the White House, saying cooperation is needed to fix the US-Mexican immigration issue but "such laws as the Arizona law that is forcing our people to face discrimination. If we are divided, we cannot overcome these problems.”

One question remains rhetorical, at least to a person who judges beyond borders and immigration: Aren't Americans the ones who provide jobs to illegal immigrants choosing cheap labor and neglecting the legal status of the employee?"

http://immigration.civiltalks.com/?p=51


I think the most considerable aspect of the debate over Arizona immigration issue is feeling of certain ethnicity that is in the center of the debate, they are Mexican people. Besides the economic aspect of chnages that would bring about by the new law, it is important to think about how people in certain ethnicity feel about the new law. From different point of view, new immigration law of Arizona is; in other words, the product of stereotype against certain ethnicity. I really feel this debate hardly makes the solutions, since both the disadvantages and advantages are expected, and at the same time, emotional aspect of this issue is tremendous.

What does Arizona's immigration law do?

What does the Arizona law do?
Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.
It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.
Are other states considering similar legislation?
Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, helped draft the language of the Arizona bill. Hethmon said lawmakers from four other states have approached him asking for advice on how they can do the same thing where they live. He declined to identify which states, citing attorney-client privilege.
State laws relating to immigration have increased in recent years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In 2005, 300 bills were introduced. The next year, that number nearly doubled, and in 2007, more than 1,500 bills were introduced. Another 1,305 were introduced in 2008, and about 1,500 were considered in 2009.
About 15 percent of those were enacted, dealing with issues such as driver's licenses, health and education.
About 1,000 bills have been brought up so far this year.
What do opponents say?
Critics, including immigrant advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, say they are concerned the law will foster racial profiling, arguing that most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.
Read remarks made Friday by president, Arizona governor
Is federal immigration legislation coming?
Democrats tell CNN that if they don't get Republican commitments soon, they likely will push to move a bill without GOP support.
Democratic sources said the chances of passing immigration reform in that scenario this year are slim, but they want to make clear to key constituencies they are at least trying.
President Obama is still pushing for a bill, though.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican.
Obama recently called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him on board, a Brown spokeswoman said.
On Thursday, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, said in a statement that during tough economic conditions, Americans are "dubious" about immigration reform.
He said the White House and Congress should not immediately take up the issue -- but instead "take targeted steps to deal with the crisis at the border, increase the usage of the E-Verify program, and enhance prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal workers."
The last immigration reform efforts in Congress were in 2005 when Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown's predecessor, introduced a bipartisan bill that aimed to implement guest-worker programs and ways for more illegal immigrants to become citizens.
The McCain-Kennedy bill, however, never came up for a vote in the Senate.

Other legislative efforts have failed to gain momentum.

Brief for 9 states backs Arizona immigration law

DETROIT – States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.
Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.
President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.
"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.
Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.
In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.
"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.
The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.
Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.
"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said.

Political cartoons that have opposing views of the immigration debate in Arizona

http://cagle.com/working/071123/margulie…
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/f…

What is the reasons some people call strict immigration law a racism.

Why are some people so upset over the Arizona immigration law when the Arizona immigration law is identical to the Federal immigration law ?

This below is an opinion of one U.S.citizen about racial aspect of the immigration laws.




"People are so prone to just call things racist instead of seriously discussing them. This situation brings up more questions. Here are some random ones.

1) Are illegal Mexican nationals held to a lower standard or given preference over other nationalities in regards to immigration law? If the immigration laws do not apply to illegal Mexican nationals then which federal/state laws do apply to them?

People all over the world go through the immigration or visa process yet are declined. They are not allowed to come work, attend school or reside here. I have a friend, from Italy, who can attest to just how difficult it is to obtain a visa.

You would think there would be an international uproar over the fact we are declining a large amount of visas while at the same time allowing a specific group of people the ability to work, attend publicly funded schools and reside here. All without having to go through any of the immigration procedures that everyone else is required to go through. Would this be discrimination on the part of the U.S. government against all those people whose visa or immigration applications were declined?



2) Who should the immigration laws apply to? Should the immigration laws only apply to those who do not speak Spanish? Should they not apply to those here as seasonal farm labor or working low paying jobs?

What about Spaniards? They would be coming here to work higher paying jobs and it’s unlikely they would be working as farm labor or mowing lawns. Should the laws be adjusted so that only those who speak specific Spanish dialects not have to follow proper immigration procedures?

In this day and age instead of talking about immigration or race issues. People just yell racism the moment they hear a view they don't agree with. It's much easier to yell slanderous comments then actually have a serious debate."

Source: James from Yahoo Answer

Do I look Illegal?

What Good Is It Being American.. if you don't LOOK LEGAL?

credit: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/immigration/ig/Immigration-Cartoons/

unconstitutionality at its finest...

according to judge napolitano theres a fine line between deeming something illegal and a crime and it would seem the state of arizona has just crossed it
if one judge deems it so blatanly unconstitutional it would seem that this new arizona legislation is going to be given the axe before it even learns to walk. i guess arizona only has two options control their borders better or secede from the union...ok so maybe they only have one option haha. but then again we could care less right?

from one indifferent citizen to the next

Description of the Arizona Immigration Law, and my impression about it.

"The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.

# The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.

# 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."

At first, I would like to state my first impression about Arizona Immigration Law. First thing came up to my mind was this, ‘there is nothing wrong with the new Law enacted by the state of Arizona.’ At next, I thought about why I think this way; although, there are many protests going on in and outside of Arizona. If I want travel to other countries, I have to obtain Visa to enter and stay there. Staying other countries without legal document is a ‘Crime.’ I think the laws that prohibit illegal entry should not be criticized, since it is essential to ensure security of nations. The law that prohibits entry of illegal alien is essential, but what is the reason for Arizona immigration issue became controversial…. From one point of view, the state of Arizona just made its law coherent to the federal one….

Ethnicity, racism, class, and justice, all related to the Issue of Arizona Immigration Law. Furthermore, I came from pretty much homogeneous country; therefore, it is significant to deepen understanding of the American Society to understand this Law issue.