The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments on Arizona's anti-immigrant law SB 1070. I was inside the chamber as the justices indicated they were inclined to uphold at least part of the law, the "show me your papers" provision. It allows police to detain people they believe are in the country illegally while their immigration status is determined.
It's tragic that we have even gotten to this point. At the same time, compelling arguments have been made about how opponents of SB 1070 might benefit from galvanizing the support of the Latino community. A political silver lining for some, perhaps, but that won't matter for the families who suddenly find themselves at the mercy of local law enforcement able to freely discriminate.
Earlier this year while campaigning in Arizona, Mitt Romney declared his support for the state's 'model' immigration law, and pledged to drop the Justice Department's challenge to SB 1070 should he become president.
Even worse, he told voters about his plan for addressing undocumented immigration, which amounts to finding ways to make life so difficult for the undocumented that they 'self deport.'
Imagine how that might play out.
Perhaps it will look something like the Underground Railroad of the Free State/Slave State days or a mass exodus of the oppressed out of the hands of their oppressors a la biblical Egypt.
To anti-immigration extremists, this scenario might seem like sound, constitutional public policy. To me, it sounds like an America where we might have to put the Statue of Liberty in storage or be called hypocrites.
Now that Romney is virtually assured the GOP nomination, he is desperately trying to shed his 'severely' anti-immigration skin that has baked in the Arizona desert while he pandered to the SB 1070 zealots. No doubt about it, Mitt must molt. Conditions have changed.
'Self deport' and praise for SB 1070, for example, have repelled potential Latino supporters in battleground states as well as farmers and businessmen. It was no surprise that in an attempt to back away from SB 1070, a Romney campaign spokesperson last week 'clarified' that the candidate, in fact, did not call SB 1070 a model immigration law, but was instead referring to Arizona's e-verify system.
That was news to the law's author, former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, who, like the rest of us, was sure Romney was referring to SB 1070. So was I, which may be the only time you'll hear me agreeing with anything said by Pearce.
President Obama's immigration record isn't exactly blemish-free either. Under his watch, the federal government's unjust Secure Communities deportation program has greatly expanded. Though perhaps not as toxic as SB 1070, Secure Communities often results in racial profiling and leads minority communities to distrust law enforcement.
Still, Obama is rightfully challenging unconstitutional immigration laws like Arizona's, and he steadfastly remains on the right side of important legislation like the DREAM Act. But in trying to get Congress to put immigration reform on the agenda, the president has fallen short. Challenging SB 1070 merely on the grounds that state law cannot displace federal law on immigration laws does not address the larger issues at stake.
The Arizona desert can be an unforgiving place. But it can also be one where an immigration policy that is fair and respects civil liberties can flourish. The heat is on for the candidates to make that happen.
Dawud Walid: End Racial Profiling Act: A Smarter Policy
(Continued from previous post)
Did you also know that many of the Mejicana women I have met and worked with know how to work the system so that they can get government benefits (foodstamps, Medicaid, etc.) by claiming that the father of their children is back in Mexico, when that is not the case...Did you also know that many of the violent murders, kidnappings and drug wars that once were happening only across the border, have now spilled over into the U.S. and no one is really safe...Civil liberties should be for those who are protected under the Constitution, which means U.S. citizens. What about OUR rights as citizens to live in a free nation, one in which our laws are respected, our economy protected, and our rights accepted as a measure of our liberty? Those from outside our borders should not demand rights that they themselves have not earned, yet they push and persist, calling those of us who resist "racists." We are all immigrants with the exception of the Native Americans, whose lands we once confiscated, and those who come here illegally, are trying to push us around much the same way we pushed around our Native brothers and sisters. Their fight seems to be working, as day by day, we are being bullied into submission and our econmy, political system, and culture are decaying and failing. (To be continued)
Hey, here in the border state of New Mexico, we give people coming here illegally, driver's licenses, food stamps (aka SNAP), Section 8 and Low income housing, student loans, Pell grants, LIHEAP (electricity and natual gas assistance), tuition assistance for pre-school age children through Head Start programs, Free Lunch programs in the summer and during school hours, WIC (nutrition program for pregnant moms and young children), TANF, (temporary assistance in the form of cash for needy families), Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, Worker's Compensation (if injured on the job), and they also have a right to sue citizens for a myriad of reasons...seems like a good deal they've got going on, and believe me, as an Hispanic American and citizen, I'm not sure that you nice folks really understand what your are dealing with. How many times do we have to listen to the lie that they are only doing jobs Americans won't do? High school kids the unemployed, the disabled and the poor, now have to compete with undocumented workers for jobs, tuition assistance, medical care and government assistance programs. Did you also know that Medicaid is paying for braces for low-income children, and adults, and many illegal immigrants fall into that category. Did you know that your tax dollars are helping to pay for open heart surgeries, c-sections, and a variety of medical problems and conditions from these undocumented workers as well?
ANTI- ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.
Legal immigrants are supported fully by Conservatives.
You know this, but keep playing to the young and dumb.
We need then to get rid of the racist Mexican government who is deporting people from Guatemala, right? They must be racists! Following your logic, EVERY country in the world is racist because they have immigration laws.
Can you name at least one country in the world that doesn't have immigration policy?
We can go back to cave times, and there was always an "immigration policy" in place - people from the other cave were not welcomed in somebody's else cave, unless they were invited.
IMO, the Pres. may have won more Hispanic votes, but he lost independent and middle of the road voters for this plot to undermine legitimate immigration law enforcement. Remember, this same Justice Dept. can't determine who is responsible for "Fast and Furious". Clearly, this admin is not supportive of federal immigration laws and the legal pathway to citizenship.
Since he wants much more immigration then we currently have and I want much less I'll agree to support his idea if before a single immigrant is allowed in the country he first:
1. Finds the massive increased amounts of fresh water supplies needed for the new people.
2. Find a non-hostile country to buy the massive amounts of energy needed just for the new people.
3. Find a place to put housing for all those millions that does not take our needed farmland, open spaces or sensitive areas.
4. Find the funding to build the thousands of schools needed every year at 40-100 million each and the funds to staff them without raising taxes on those of us already here.
5. Build all the new roads first so we don't suffer from even more gridlock.
6. Find places for and build the new landfills and waste water plants first.
7. Find a way that our social programs, including assistance for all those kids they will have are in place and have the additional funds that millions of low income, uneducated people need.
It's called planning ahead and I think we need to do it since just a quick look around this country shows we are far behind right now - what will bringing millions of low income people do to these expensive infrastructure items besides collapse them?
For an organization which purports to protect citizens (non-citizens?) rights, they might ponder Ben Stein's comment about "a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen"
The statue aside from being a gift from France with THEIR poem on it, welcomed LEGAL immigrants. An illegal alien would probably not have seen it or it's legendary poem because they avoid inspection to enter the US. This country, like any other civilized country in the world including our next door neighbor, has immigration laws. We don't and should not make citizens of everyone who sets boot here.
People don't gain any right to stay, work or raise a family in the US or anywhere else just by crossing the border. Latin nations and our own president would like to change that, but it has little likelihood of happening. The Supreme Court is the deciding factor on whether SB1070 is Constitutional. Foreign countries and liberal politicians can say anything they want, but our Constitution is written in ink and still available to read. It doesn't call for open borders or freedom for foreign nationals to come as they wish. In fact it doesn't mention immigration at all.
The Court seems concerned for US sovereignty and security appears to be first on their minds. They'll rule for what they see as the good of the Americans and our sovereign nation. Consideration of the feeling of foreigners and their supporting nations and groups probably won't be given. They are not blinded to what is happening in the country as they deliberate.
Should we let anybody in the world in? From any other country?
I'll be waiting.
Lets close all borders tight.
Censorship is evil.