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??
Monday, August 30, 2010
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.'
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.'
Thursday, August 26, 2010
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...
from one indiffernt citizen to the next...
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
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.
◦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.
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.
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.
Monday, August 23, 2010
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
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
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
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
Sunday, August 22, 2010
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.
# 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)