[Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 25 19:34:08 PDT 2010
Just for the record, I think that the Arizona law is at best an excuse
for racial profiling that is already happening and at worst a step down
the road to total fascism.
That having been said, I am interested in discussions about how to
improve immigration laws.
Paul
keely emerinemix wrote:
> I'm really disappointed in the tone of much of the discussion here.
> While it is true that I have much more liberal views on immigration,
> and particularly illegal immigration, than most of you, the point of
> my initial post is that the Arizona bill signed into law by Gov.
> Brewer is a civil-rights, human dignity horror.
>
> I think that's the thing we all ought to agree on. Regardless of what
> people would propose to solve the issues presented by illegal
> immigration, I'd like to believe that every one of us would recognize
> bad law when we see it, and would condemn it as such immediately.
> After all, if there were a bill that required that all gay people be
> rounded up and deported -- that is, all people presumed to be gay by
> whatever criteria the cops are told to consider "probable cause" -- I
> think it would be wrong to respond by discussing, say, domestic
> partnerships or other issues involving the GLBT community. We would,
> I hope, vehemently condemn a despicable law, regardless of our views
> on other issues involving the targets of it. Let's discuss the issue
> of undocumented border crossers, but let's remember that the topic
> immediately at hand is a markedly un-American (and un-Christian) bill
> that ought to provoke our fiercest response. This isn't one of many
> reasonable solutions to immigration problems. Let's not discuss it as
> though it were.
>
> Before we discuss the "problem" of illegal immigration, shouldn't we
> take a huge step back and look clearly at what this law does? Does it
> concern any of you that under the guise of addressing a legitimate
> issue, the State has determined that physical, linguistic, cultural
> and other ethnically-based criteria can be used to make people produce
> certain documents, regardless of whether or not the subject has done
> anything to attract the attention of law enforcement? Can you
> reasonably suggest that there is somehow a non-racial/ethnic aspect to
> this law? Is this really what you want law enforcement to occupy
> itself with?
>
> And does it bother you at all that if you're an Anglo person in the
> U.S., you're not going to be asked to produce your I.D. and birth
> certificate or other residency/naturalization/citizenship papers just
> because a cop tells you to, using immigration as the reason for
> his/her demand? Are you at all concerned that my sister-in-law's
> family, or my dear friend Hilda, could be forced to produce
> documentation that shows their legal residency, just because their
> skin color, last names, or accents appear "Mexican" -- even though
> they're American citizens? This is a hateful and unconstitutional law
> that every single American -- and particularly our libertarian freedom
> advocates -- ought to greet with horror, and if it continues
> unchallenged, we won't be able to blame "illegals" for sullying the
> values and laws of the land. We'll have Arizona's and other state
> legislatures to thank for that instead.
>
> And to promote reasonable measures to address the issue, I'd suggest
> the following -- but only after making it clear that unreasonable,
> unjust, and un-Constitutional approaches don't merit discussion as if
> they were somehow something good people can disagree on.
>
> 1. Grant immediate amnesty to any immigrant employed here for more
> than three consecutive years, and include their working or non-working
> spouses and their children, foreign-born or American-born. This ought
> to be a priority for the "family values" set.
>
> 2. Tax them as we do all other workers, after they pay a fine -- say,
> $1,000 per family for every year in the country without papers. The
> fiscal conservatives ought to love this.
>
> 3. Make it more easy for immigrants to enter the country legally.
> It's currently damned near impossible, even for highly skilled
> workers, and agricultural industries need a steady number of
> low-skilled people to harvest crops, regardless of how they get here.
> (Notice that even the most conservative farmers, dairy owners, and
> other ag-industry owners aren't on the anti-immigrant bandwagon?)
> This should please those conservatives and all others like them who
> eat, as well as those who think that people risk their lives to cross
> over because, dang, it's kind of a hassle to go through legal channels.
>
> 4. Once those immigrants are granted amnesty -- permanent
> resident-alien status, with a tax break, perhaps, upon earning
> citizenship -- the borders should be patrolled humanely,
> constitutionally, and legally, and stiff penalties for crossing
> illegally should then be enacted. This should satisfy the
> law-and-order crowd, although I'd remind them and anyone else who
> clamors for the prosecution of employers who hire undocumented workers
> that the Federal I-9 employment form MUST, by law, be accepted by an
> employer IF it looks genuine. I've been through U.S. Immigration and
> Naturalization Service training on I-9s twice, and I know I could be
> fooled. Employers don't have the luxury, thank God, of examining an
> I-9 that looks fine and then declining to hire the presenter anyway
> because statistics say it's PROBABLY not genuine anyway. That's
> illegal, too. If an I-9 looks real, it has to be accepted. Period.
>
> Finally, I'd ask each one of you who think we need to get tough on
> "illegals" how hungry your kids would have to get, or how threatened
> your wife would have to be, before you'd do something like cross a
> border without papers to feed or protect them. Then I'd ask you to
> consider that you probably won't ever have to face that situation, and
> perhaps extend some understanding to those who have.
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: bear at moscow.com
> To: godshatter at yahoo.com
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:10:15 -0700
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
>
> Paul,
>
> I agree that this is an issue that there are no simple answers to.
> When you said "what we are now doing which is holding illegal
> immigration to be a status that should be demonized", shouldn't it be?
> I am NOT talking about those in this country legally, but those in the
> country illegally. Those folks that have jumped through the hoops
> have paid their dues so to speak and should
> be welcomed and should be held up as great examples. Those however
> that have entered illegally, have in fact committed a federal crime
> and should be prosecuted, deported and barred
> from re-entry.
>
> Now, one of the areas that does impact us locally is with the
> certification that has to be submitted by employers to the Department
> of Labor to bring in foreign workers.
>
> The employer has to certify:
>
> * There are insufficient available, qualified, and willing U.S.
> workers to fill the position being offered at the prevailing wage
> * Hiring a foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and
> working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers
>
>
> Just think about this when it involves the University and bringing in
> employees from outside the US. The University is saying, "There are
> insufficient available, qualified, and willing U.S. workers to fill
> the position being offered at the prevailing wage". Well, what is that
> based on? Notice there is NO mention of "best qualified", just
> "qualified". For instance, a position becomes available at the
> University. Several people including US citizens, put in for the
> position and a foreign national is given there job. Now, when the
> University certifies to the federal government that "There are
> insufficient available, qualified, and willing U.S. workers to fill
> the position being offered at the prevailing wage" is it true? And is
> it even looked into or is the certification taken on face value and
> no subsequent investigation as to the truth or falsehood of the
> statement by the employer is made? And there is a pro-forma process
> where the notification is "posted" for two weeks outside an obscure
> office door where the other applicants are unlikely to ever see it
> and be able to contest the hiring decision. And a better question
> would be who makes the determination at the employer level that
> "There are insufficient available, qualified, and willing U.S.
> workers to fill the position being offered at the prevailing wage?"
> Some clerk? The University President? Who is held responsible IF a
> determination is made that the statement is false? What is the
> consequence? Currently, it doesn't appear to be any at all, so why
> would the "system" ever change?
>
> This is just an example of large gaps in the current immigration
> system that should be plugged. It is also one of the reasons why laws
> like the one Arizona are passed and why there is such a strong
> backlash against illegal immigrants. When qualified US citizens are
> passed over for US taxpayer funded jobs to bring in a foreign
> national, there is bound to be a backlash. And the depressed economic
> situation adds to that backlash and frustration.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps we should convict the employers even if they didn't know
> that they hired an illegal alien. It might make them care about
> due diligence when hiring someone a little bit more. I imagine
> that most of these people aren't being paid at executive levels,
> they are probably being paid at much less than minimum wage. That
> alone should be a sign that they don't have a legal status. I
> don't think it's a case of employers being duped by devious
> immigrants, they are in this with their eyes wide open.
>
> Paul
>
> lfalen wrote:
>
> This sounds good on the face of it. The problem is in how do
> you known if they are an illegal alien? Will people have to
> produce some sort of proof that they are a legal resident?
> These documents can and are forged. I have no problem with
> convecting employers if it can be proven that they knowingly
> hired illegals. This may be hard to prove.
>
> Roger
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> From: "Mike Deleve" coolerfixer at roadrunner.com
> <mailto:coolerfixer at roadrunner.com>
>
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:50:03 -0700
>
> To: "Wayne Price" bear at moscow.com <mailto:bear at moscow.com>,
> "keely emerinemix" kjajmix1 at msn.com <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
>
>
>
>
> It's incredibly easy. $100,000 mandatory fine with 1 year
> MANDATORY time in FEDERAL PRISON for anyone employing an
> illegal alien. Employers are taking advantage of the
> border jumpers, but the employment is why they come.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Price To:
> keely emerinemix Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> Sent: Friday, April 23,
> 2010 5:30 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
>
>
>
> Keely,
>
>
>
> While I agree that this has opened a whole can of worms
> as far as profiling, DWM, etc, etc, What can or should be
> done about ILLEGAL immigrants?
>
>
>
> There is a process, for better or worse that allows folks
> that are not US citizens access to the US and to jobs in
> the US. From what I understand, the AZ law isn't going after
>
> those folks at all. It is focused on the illegal immigrants.
>
>
>
> Solutions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:26 PM, keely emerinemix wrote:
>
>
>
> Arizona Governor Signs a Controversial Immigration Bill
>
> > > Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a bill that
> would require
>
> > the police to ask people about their immigration
> status if
>
> > officers have any reason to suspect that they are in the
>
> > country illegally. (NY Times, April 23, 2010)
>
>
>
> This is shameful.
>
>
> "Any reason to suspect" that someone is in the country
> illegally means simply that "anyone who looks Mexican"
> could have their race, language, ethnicity, customs become
> probable cause for questioning. The idea of "driving
> while Mexican" used to be a wry, sick joke. Now, it's a
> cornerstone for "law and order," and it reeks.
>
>
> I hope our local "Libertarians" and freedom lovers join
> me in condemning this bill with all vehemence. Because if
> not, the silence from their keyboards, fieldhouses, and
> offices would be deafening, given the incessant braying
> recently about the State's denial of rights, pronounced
> threats to liberty, and an alarming erosion of
> Constitutional and family values.
>
>
> Keely
>
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
> <http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com>
>
>
> Keely
>
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
> <http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and
> e-mail from your inbox. Get
> started.=======================================================
>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving
> the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts
> with Hotmail. Get busy.
> <http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list