talkpolitics | More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law: Why? What do they want?

According to the survey, nearly eight out of ten Americans have heard about the law. Of those, 51 percent support the measure and 39 percent oppose the law. (Source)

Could that means that about 40% of the population supports a law that forces you to carry proof of citizenship on your person or risk being detained until you can prove that you are a citizen? I wonder, how many people really understand what this law means? Could they have taken the question to mean "Do you support immigration laws?" (most people do) rather than support this particular law?

But no one can deny that some people who feel that illegal immigration is an urgent issue that is hurting the country. This law came in to being since some people felt the need to "do something" -- so, I want to ask: what is the problem they are trying to solve?

We could say they are bigoted and believe that American culture, the English language and the wealth of our nation could be diluted or destroyed by people who do not have the same values, language or wealth. It could be racist fears of dwindling numbers of white people, supported by "rational" theories about the relative quality of cultures. (Why is it that all of the nations where people have brown skin are so poor? Could there be something wrong with those people?) Some of the people who support the law believes this or variations of it.

Or maybe for some people it is more about money. These are the people who will tirelessly argue out that illegal immigrates "use resources." The idea behind this theory is that Americans pay taxes but those taxes are diverted to serve people who are not from this country and don't pay taxes. (This ignores the fact that many illegal immigrants pay taxes, but more than that, it ignores what illegal immigrates contribute to this country-- both economically and culturally. Our nation would be diminished if all illegal immigrants vanished.)

But maybe, for others still, it is just an abstract matter of "the law" --laws should not be broken because they are laws--it makes a mockery of the system when laws are not enforced. This compliant is the most legitimate in my view. But, it is also the least urgent. We must "do something" to realign the laws with reality or reality with the laws... or both.

So, if we should do something what would make sense? Here is my plan:

1.) The real issue is illegal workers. No one can stay in the US without some decent source of income. Hence, the policy must focus on employment.
2.) For all people in the US at this time a road to citizenship would be available that would be just as long as the road for other immigrants who have followed the proper process. Immigration for those currently caught in the system trying to do the right thing would be expedited. For people and employers found breaking the law starting 5 years after this mass "grating of a road to citizenship" penalties would be much more harsh.
3.) At the same time, we should make entering the US easier for immigrants from all nations. Especially Haiti. (I know that's specific, but it really burns me.)

The thing is, I don't really see what else we can do. The social trauma that would result from trying to remove (shudder) all of the illegal immigrant in the US now is enormous. In my neighborhood it would lead to all kinds of separations, stress, depopulation, essentially a return to the 1970s -- one of the major factors in NYC revival was increased immigration both legal and illegal. The laws need to catch up with reality.

But seriously, what else could we do besides this? I'm not talking about a law like the Arizona law which will simply harass people regardless of they are American citizens or not. I'm talking about what do you want to do to solve the problem. Border fences and brandishing guns, forming militias, institutionalizing low-grade harassment only keeps people in the shadows. It also keeps their wages low, and this makes me very cyclical about the motives of some of the people who claim to want to "solve" the immigration "problem."

Yes. It is another post. It's that important.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

High unemployment: how is that a result of Liberal policy? I seem to recall Bush giving tax breaks for employers to create jobs overseas.

Growth, expansion, and promoting of unions, high regulatory costs, high corporate taxes.

reduction in federal income: you mean like cutting taxes?

No, like raising taxes to promote offshoring and tax havens.

rampant government borrowing: you honestly think only Liberals do this?

Clearly no, but the result of liberal policies always end up with more institutional spending.

No really, how is any of the above solved with illegal searches of our citizens?

It's not, but no one's looking to enact a law for "illegal searches," just one that checks the citizenship status of already-in-trouble people.

Growth, expansion, and promoting of unions, high regulatory costs, high corporate taxes.
And when did all this happen?

No, like raising taxes to promote offshoring and tax havens.
Once again, when did this happen?

Clearly no, but the result of liberal policies always end up with more institutional spending.
Military is government spending too.

It's not, but no one's looking to enact a law for "illegal searches," just one that checks the citizenship status of already-in-trouble people.
The broad guidelines of this law say otherwise, and I'm sure the Supreme Court will disagree with you as well. To quote the actual law:

A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION

So what constitutes "reasonable suspicion"? You don't see how this gives a police officer the right (if not the requirement) to pull anyone over for "appearing" to be illegal? And what criteria would be used to determine this?

And when did all this happen?

Over the last 60 years, mostly due to liberal politicians.

Military is government spending too.

But it's not the lion's share, and is Constitutional.

So what constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?

We'd use the test from Terry.

You don't see how this gives a police officer the right (if not the requirement) to pull anyone over for "appearing" to be illegal?

I know it doesn't, because the law specifically limits it to lawful contact.

And what criteria would be used to determine this?

Whether they can produce proof of citizenship or legal status. That includes a license in Arizona.

More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law: Why? What do they want?

no subject

no subject

no subject