"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.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)