Arizona Immigration Law

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by madanthonywayne, Apr 26, 2010.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I think this law is more of a political statement than an honest attempt at immigration reform. Unless you have the federal government enforcing the borders, this new law is not going to stop the flood of illegals streaming across our borders. It may make life uncomfortable for some people, including some governments. But it won't stop illegals from coming across the border and it will not stop employers from hiring illegals.

    The nation needs a more comphrensive approach to the problem with illegal immigrants. And unfortunately we are starting in the hole with more than 12 million illegals already present. If we want to identify and deport those folks it is going to require a huge expansion of federal government. And I find it ironic that the mose feverent backers of kicking the illegals out our those who say they want a smaller government and less federal spending.

    The problem with illegals needs to be addressed. But thus far, I have not seen a serious immigration reform plan from either political party.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Any law that's about deporting and otherwise marginalizing illegal immigrants themselves, without an accompanying reform of workplace practices and legal immigration, is not an honest attempt eliminating illegal immigration.

    What it is is an honest attempt to marginalize illegals so they can be more readily exploited. It's an attempt to cleave them away from law enforcement, so that they may be preyed upon rapacially, without recourse to justice.

    And unless by "federal government enforcing the borders" you mean "comprehensive reform of immigration quotas and labor eligibility enforcement" you're wrong. There is no border-enforcement solution to the issue - there's too much border, and too many incentives to cross it.

    The enforcement canard remains in circulation as a way of pretending that the issue can be addressed with localized measures - i.e., without any changes to how things work in areas away from the border. This is a fiction - you're going to have to change how hiring and employment work in the entire country if you want to change things.

    As someone that lives near the border, I find this stuff particularly galling. Basically, a bunch of people that live thousands of miles away want to militarize the area I live in so that they can feel like they're being "stern" towards illegals, or somesuch nonsense. Meanwhile, plenty of illegals will still be getting in, and moving to their towns, and mowing their lawns. In response to which they'll want to build yet more fortifications and station yet more gestapo in my back yard.

    It's only a "hole" if you don't want the United States - with its massive surplusses of capital - to interact in an economically optimal way with Mexico - which just so happens to have a surplus of labor (not least because NAFTA gutting the agricultural labor sector in Mexico). If what you want is for everyone to get as rich as possible as fast as possible, then those 12 millions migrants aren't a hole - they're a hill.

    I say just legalize them so we can all get back to making heaps of cash.

    Not only that, the primary reason they cite for backing reduced government is reduced "interference" with the "free market." And then they turn around and call for a massively expensive program of deportation of migrant workers. We call that "labor market interference" when we're speaking economics-ese.

    What again is the problem, exactly? That they speak Spanish, or are Catholic, or something?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member


    Yeah, poor illegals, they won't have any motivation to confess to murder because they might get deported!

    BTW aren't there ways of tipping law enforcement anonymously?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    yes because its "illegals" who comit the worst crimes. oh wait, no its not, the racial profile for the adverage serial killers is "white male between the ages of 20 - 40 generally married with an inflentual job", the racial profile from a pedophile or rapist is "white male between the ages of 20 - 40 generally married with an inflentual job", the racial profile for a sweet shop owner or sex slave owner is "white male between the ages of 20 - 40 generally married with an inflentual job"

    seems the "illegals" should be scared of you not the other way around and ever police force in the world knows this which is why they work so hard to get the trust of the underclasses and exploited
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    There should be an international monetary fund to subsidize illegal immigrants.
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Louisiana held out until 1998, which is why they were the last state in the Union to raise the drinking age to 21.

    And I'd note that Arizona's agenda on speed limits has, in my experience, been to set markedly lower ones than surrounding states, coupled with aggressive use of speed traps near the borders, in order to extract tribute from the fact that most users of the interstate highways in Arizona want nothing more than to get out of the state as quickly as possible. So I'm puzzled that their agenda would conflict with Federal standards - perhaps you have a source that describes the history of this issue?

    A preposterous hair to split, for any reasonable person.

    But exactly the sort of cheap evasion we'd expect from racists.

    Also, you don't seem to realize that the reason that Arizona didn't have de jure segregation by the time that Brown v Board rolled around was that a previous Supreme Court decision struck down Arizona's segregated school system about 3 years prior. And so, the entire narrative about Arizona resisting MLK Day because "they didn't have segregation" is itself a canard intended to conceal Arizona's actual history of racist policy and conduct.

    All the more reason to memorialize the man and his ideas, then.

    In the first place, I'm not really concerned with the entire world here.

    In the second place, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind, when the segregation reaches a certain critical mass with respect to political representation and power more generally. That any given major city has a few suburbs (or exurbs) full of reactionaries is not the point - that Arizona has no real political counterweight to such groups is.

    California, for example, has no shortage of white-flight gated communities - and plenty of people that openly admire Arizona's new laws. But they aren't able to dominate state politics.

    In the first place, Phoenix is not "very liberal." It is, charitably, "Democratic-leaning."

    But more to the point, describing the political orientation of Phoenix itself is a distraction - the relevant population has all moved outside of the actual city limits of Phoenix - Maricopa county has 4 million residents, only 1.5 million of which are Phoenicians. And Maricopa county is a reliable Republican stronghold, and long has been, regardless of what Phoenix thinks.

    That's how "white flight" works: the whites keep all the power, avoid funding any services in the city where the minorities live, and generally pretend that they don't even exist.

    Err, methinks you misunderstand. I wasn't talking about Phoenix naming a street after MLK. I was talking about them later renaming the street. That has not happened in most American cities with an MLK street - and in the few where it has, it's been part of an overt white supremacist push.

    Yes. In my book, having only 1/3 as many black people as would be expected is "severe."

    I'll note that such is a frequent feature of white supremacist societies, particularly ones where whites form an overbearing majority and monopolize political power. In situations where whites do not feel threatened, and feel that the "pecking order" is well-established, then interaction with the "lower castes" is desirable - every interaction instantiates the hierarchy, which the dominant party approves of. And so they take some "pride" in how "charitable" they are about interacting with their lessers.

    Not that every individual thinks that (even implicity) - but you'll see the exact same sort of "pride" coming from overt Southern racists, cited as evidence of how superior their white-supremacist framework is. This same point has been thrown around since before the Civil War, when the higher level of black-white interaction in the Slave Power was cited in response to Northern criticism of slavery, in order to demonstrate the putative supremacy of Confederate society.

    They have little choice - in Maricopa country, for example, white people are like 80% of the population. You refuse to hang out with them, it's slim pickings.

    Imagine an elementary school class with exactly 1 non-white student - he'll hang out with white kids, or else be ostracized. But that sort of "integration" doesn't translate into enlightenment amongst the white kids - it occurs in an environment where they monopolize all social power and norms, and so is entirely on their terms. That they end up comfortable with that situation is often regressive - they mature into the sorts of adults we see here who don't think that they're racist ("I have black friends!") but go around insisting that any display of non-whitewashed minority identity or agency is an attack on society that must be repressed.

    And, as I just mentioned, 80% of that 4.3 Million are white people.

    In its proportions of white people, you mean? I don't think you'll find another major mtero area in the southwestern US that is that white.

    Err... that is a racial trend, to begin with. It may not indicate a racist trend, but it certainly isn't evidence against such.

    That would be the case if Ohio weren't being depopulated in the first place - the fact that no Asians are moving there doesn't tell us anything, since nobody else is moving there, either.

    But people are moving into Arizona, from all over. So if certain classes of people aren't showing up in that population inflow, that raises questions.

    And to that point: ever ask a black person from elsewhere in the country what they think of Arizona? The state does not have a good reputation in the black community - just ask Chuck D.

    It says that they imported millions of them as slaves for centuries and so ended up with a huge poplation of black people.

    We've gotten along fine without an official language so far, and so I see no reason to throw away our pragmatic, convenient current system (wherein whatever languages are needed are used) in favor of some ideological favor for English - which, in the context of Spanish being the only possible challenger, by virtue of Hispanic immigration, I find impossible to dissociate from anti-Mexican animus.

    In other words, highly racist. You're talking about colonial empires that wiped out other races and imposed their cultures amongst the ruins.

    I know plenty of Americans who consider official languages to be an offensive ethnocentrist practice, and who cite the longstanding success of the United States without an official language as conclusive evidence that the arguments in favor of them are hollow.

    I've tried to, but you don't seem to want to hear it. Instead you keep repeating bits of the fantasy history that racists like to impose on Arizona (no segregation, opposing MLK day to pretend that Arizona didn't have segregation, "touchy-feely" law enforcement, etc.).

    Hating it for valid reasons, and adding the term as a legitimate description.


    No need - we've seen this show before, and know how it ends. You can extend credulity to Arizona all you like, but reasonable people have no reason to do so, especially when it comes to a state with such a reprehensible track record.

    I'm still waiting for someone to articulate exactly what the "disaster" here is, or how it would be improved by this sort of crack-down. Which is why I continue to assume that this is simply culture war fodder to lock up the votes of the Maricopa county country club set.

    That's a side-issue, yes.

    Not to the extent of Phoenix. There are plenty of other sprawl cities, to be sure, but the level observed in Phoenix is not the norm. And when you consider the numbers of pools and lawns installed in the middle of the desert, it becomes a real facepalm.

    You spend your entire life living in states that border Arizona, you end up with a pretty dim view of them. They are the single most reviled group where I currently live ("Go back to Arizona, douchebag!" can frequently be heard at the beach or in traffic during the tourist season), and ran a close second to the Texans in my previous location. It makes sense, if you think about it: what kind of person would choose to live in Arizona, when every single state that it borders is far preferable?

    Right, like I said: the rest of the state except for Phoenix (I did already give Flagstaff and Tuscon passes didn't I? And the Navajo Nation gets one too - so who am I missing?).
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Since the US is 80% white, one would expect 80% of the criminals to be white. Thus the average criminal of any sort should be a white male. Big deal.

    Also, I've never heard of a "sweet shop" referring to anything criminal. Is that Australian slang, or did you mean a sweat shop?
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    That's 75% white, and then only if you count white Hispanics. By the definition that people use when you say "white" to them, it's something like 65%.
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    No, that's 79.8% white, so long as you count white Hispanics (and why wouldn't you? Is a Spaniard less white than an Italian?). If you arbitrarily choose to not count as white those people with Spanish sounding names; the number drops to 65.6%. All this is per the US census:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.c... US&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Neither "Spaniards" nor "Italians" occupy any position on the American racial hierarchy. The category "white" does not really exist in Europe, at least as we understand it here. Assuming that Europeans use the same racial system we do, and so identify with us as "white people" is a common misconception amongst people with no substantial knowledge of European society. "American" might as well be a separate race, as far as they're concerned. Moreover, Spaniards (and Italians) consider themselves ethnically distinct from the European ethnicities that combined to produce American whites (English, Irish, German and Polish mainly).

    But we aren't talking about Spaniards and Italians. We're talking about Hispanic Americans. And as to your question: it's not me doing the choosing. American society does not generally treat Hispanics - even "white" ones - as whites. Some perentage of them can and do pass, of course, but then one wonders how "Hispanic" they really are - many of those in that category are of Irish or Central European descent, and just happened to spend a generation or two in Latin America prior to moving here. And there are of course those who mark "Hispanic" on the census that are no more "Hispanic" than I am "Irish." Which is to say, they have ancestors from there several generations back, but no real connection to the actual ethnic group as such.

    Nevertheless, it's good that you're apprehending the direction this will have to go in, if a white majority is to be sustained - we're going to have to reclassify considerable percentages of Latin Americans as "white." But that's why your support for Arizona's racist legislation is troubling - we all know that it's going to target primarily dark-skinned Latin Americans with poor English skills, while the lighter-skinned, wealthier, English-proficient immigrants won't be bothered as much. It is, in effect, a racist immigration policy. And that's fucked up.

    No, that's if you exclude people who voluntarily mark "Hispanic" on the census. It has nothing to do with last name - a consierable portion of those people don't have Spanish last names (Bill Richardson, for example).

    And, again, I'm not the one doing the choosing here. As I said in the post you're responding to, I'm invoking the definitons that your average American uses when you say "white person" to them. There's a reason these boxes are included on the census form, and that people choose to mark them, and it's because the ethnic category in question is held as distinct by US society generally.
  14. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Interesting. Still, an Italian-American would likely take offense if you described him as "not white". Ever see the movie True Romance? There's a great scene involving Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken speaking to that specific issue.
    Hispanic is a term that includes people of every race. Black, White, even Asian. It is a term first used by the US government during the Nixon administration. Prior to that, the terms used were "Spanish-Americans", "Spanish-speaking Americans", and "Spanish-surnamed Americans". Obviously a somewhat nebulous category. But it definitely includes many the average Joe would categorize as "white".
    Here we agree completely. Isn't that what's always happened? Jews certainly weren't considered white at one time. Even the Irish were looked down upon. And as Fraggle has pointed out, Hispanics tend to intermarry more than most ethnic groups. So, except for the Spanish sounding names, most of them will end up being classified as "white"
    I believe the law was amended to specifically ban using race (skin color) as a reason to question someone's immigration status. Now as to those with poor English skills, sure. That's an obvious marker for a person not born in the US.

    I had an aupair a few years ago from Latvia. She had a very thick accent and was clearly not from the US, despite clearly being white.

    One day she got into a car accident (just a very minor fender bender). When the police came to the scene of the wreck, she was hysterical assuming that the police would question her immigration status and ship her back to Latvia.

    Now why would she expect that? Because she was obviously not from the US and didn't realize that the police here didn't bother to enforce the law regarding immigration.

    Of course, she was here legally anyway and so had no reason to worry. But the point is that she expected him to inquire about her immigration status because it would seem perfectly reasonable for an officer of the law to do that when he comes across a person (even a white person) who was obviously not a native of the US.
    Sure, but as I mentioned earlier, Hispanics were once classified as "Spanish Surname" and I've filled out forms that used that classification, so it sticks in my mind.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I don't want to live in a country in which people who have done nothing wrong and are perfectly legal find it "reasonable" to fear the police, to become "hysterical" over police attention in the wake of a minor car accident.

    I want people who fear the American police because of what police were like in their home countries, to be wrong about that, not "reasonable".

    If the Arizona police act like corrupt Eastern European thug cops, I don't want people defending that as "reasonable".
  16. soullust Registered Senior Member


    Then you should be all for this law. Unless you're doing something illegal
  17. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    I see your point, but nevertheless, she had nothing to fear even if they had checked her immigration status. She was here legally. She had a passport and an international driver's license. Furthermore, these weren't corrupt thug cops.

    Every time I'm pulled over by the cops (and I've been pulled over a lot), they ask for my license and registration. How is this so different? I believe the law in question even states that an Arizona license may serve as proof of citizenship.
  18. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    It's not like the cops will be setting up roadblocks looking for illegals. It's just that they run into so many people who probably are illegal but are falling through a legal loophole that eventually something like this would be bound to pop up. In the case of Arizona, and with reasonable cause, I suppose this can stand up in court.

    You can't build a wall 600 miles long- it is impossible to build and maintain. Even a simple prison-type of fence is impossible to police... you'd need thousands of employees and billions in hardware and software. The police policing, meanwhile will watch nothing 99.999% of their time as the Mexicans cross through in El Paso, or a hundred different places.
  19. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    The "reasonable" part of the post you're replying to is the police to inquiring about the immigration status of a person who is obviously not from the US. Was it reasonable for her to fear the police when they did this? It doesn't appear so. Just because someone has an unreasonable fear of the police, it doesn't mean that the police are doing anything wrong or acting like tugs.
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    This one wouldn't - I got used to having my "whiteness" questioned back in elementary school. When your last name ends in a vowel, you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware of how tenuous that whiteness is, once a Hispanic identity becomes clear. When there's a black guy in the room, sure, they count as "white." But in a room full of people of Northwest European backgrounds? Not so much (excepting those that can pass, of course).

    That wasn't an amendment to the law, that was simply a statement by the governor that police wouldn't discriminate based on skin color. If you value that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    The law is about people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, not people who aren't born in the US. We give out 1 million green cards per year and naturalize close to that many, and have for a long time - there are tens of millions of people here legally that were born elsewhere. For that matter, I know plenty of naturalized citizens that have strong accents - people that move here in adulthood aren't ever going to lose those. Being born in another country should not amount to reasonable suspicion of being here illegaly, since most of the foreign-born residents are, in fact, perfectly legal. They outnumber the illegals by like 4-to-1.

    And so you know why illegal immigrants involved in fender benders so frequently flee the scene - do you really think that increasing such incentives makes our society safer? How many criminals will now victimize the immigrants communities, safe in the knowledge that they won't go to the cops for fear of deportation?

    ? Doesn't make sense. If she was here legally, she shouldn't have anything to fear from the cops, regardless of what they do and don't enforce.

    Yeah, living under totalitarian oppression tends to instill that sort of fear of authority in people. You realize that this type of "show me your papers!" policing is typical of the Soviet and Nazi empires, right? And so that the lack thereof here is supposed to be a point of pride? Again I'm left wondering where all your airy pronouncements about freedom from government interference went.
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    The Feds already do that, by the way.

    And I fully expect the AZ police will, as well.
  22. TheCareTaker BBUURRIITTOOSS!!! Registered Senior Member

    Im in Arizona, and the immigrants are going insane
  23. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    So far as I know, no court has ever provided a hard % probability of where reasonable suspicion begins, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them thought that 25% was sufficient. Where would you draw the line? 50%?

Share This Page