Under this law, it would be a violation of the state law to be in the United States without appropriate documentation. It also empowers police to stop anyone they think might be illegal and verify their citizenship status. Naturally there is a hue and cry revving up about trampling on people's rights. (Opportunities for racial profiling would be interesting to sidestep by also stopping whites and blacks. Seriously, we don't know who is coming in, which is the problem with our current immigration laws.)
We have laws that some states, in effect, nullify, by refusing to enforce them. San Francisco has designated itself a "sanctuary city", where illegals are welcomed. Assuming that the citizens living in San Francisco are well-meaning, they are still incredibly misguided. What could they possibly think they have to gain from this approach other than cheap labor and high crime? If everyone is welcome, where is it more likely the criminal element will go? And if people are working for too little money, they will be tempted to steal to make up the difference.
The word for a law that is not enforced is "wish". We have a "wish" that people should apply through proper channels to enter the country. We have a wish that people would not sneak over the border and wander all around the country. We have a wish they would not allow themselves to be exploited through low pay and, in some cases, physical abuse. We are unable or unwilling to enforce these "wishes" because it makes some people uncomfortable. Whether for political expediency or misguided empathy, it seems like the people in office don't want to "upset" anyone. Unfortunately, while trying not to upset the various Latino factions (e.g. La Raza), the politicians have upset a lot of the non-Latino people who voted for them in the first place.
Even if Arizona is able to enforce its latest law, that's only part of the border. There are still miles of inadequately guarded border in California and New Mexico. The Border Patrol does what it can but it is spread thin, and the personnel were recently cut back. So many miles, so few Border Patrol officers. Civilians who would like to help are labeled vigilantes. Suggestions about deploying National Guard units are dismissed because apparently border guarding is not within their assignable duties. Or so I am told, though it's hard to believe.
An open border, unguarded, makes serious immigration law enforcement impossible. Why bother to reform the existing law when the politicians have shown they have no intention of enforcing any laws? San Francisco is not a sanctuary city "just until we get some good immigration laws". But San Francisco's self-awarded status won't matter if the border is closed.
A closed border doesn't mean no one is allowed in, but that everyone who wants in has to follow the legitimate process for entry. We could actually try to verify an individual's history in their home country, and screen out criminals. We could let people in only if we had jobs we couldn't fill with people who were already here. Matching people with jobs could also eliminate the ability of employers to hire people for less than minimum wage or to abuse them worse than workers who were born here. We could require them to learn English and encourage them to assimilate in the culture. We could ship them back out if they become unemployed rather than pay them unemployment, or let them go on welfare.
One thing that puzzles me is why illegals want immigration reform. How could the laws be any friendlier, unless we put into law what we are actually doing, which is letting everybody in and according them almost all (if not all) the rights of citizens? If we grant the current lot of 10 million or so amnesty and let them stay as citizens, then they cannot be ultra-cheap labor anymore, and they wind up quickly unemployed. They collect all the social safety net benefits that any citizen is eligible for. It would be staggeringly expensive. And then the employers would replace them with other illegals who would again work cheap.
And the cycle would start again. The border must be closed. Without the closure of the border, there is no immigration law. And for some, that is a wish come true.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Rimfrel only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Rimfrel is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-15 13:38:54
One thing that puzzles me is why illegals want immigration reform. How could the laws be any friendlier
While various immigration "reforms" of the past generation gave precedence to those from our hemisphere and other "non-traditional" sources, the actual process of immigration is cumbersome.
In 1901, when the last of my direct ancestors came ashore, complying with US immigration law was no more involved than reporting to a government weenie at Ellis Island, giving the names - as best they could be spelled in English - of those in the family, their birthdates - as best you could recall - and the cities from which each were born and lived and boarded the vessel that brung 'em.
The government essentially did it all for them. Right then and there. If you had a large family and didn't speak English, it might have taken you fifteen minutes.
The process today requires filling out forms declaring a desire to emigrate, submitting same to a US Embassy or Consulate, being interviewed at least twice [and probably more times], waiting for whatever paperpushers are involved to push the papers to the various pigeonholes and extract them again and push them into new pigeonholes, and then - eight months or two years later - learn the fate of your "application".
Like everything else the US Guvmint has gotten their hands on in the last few generations, it's top heavy, officious nonsense. They and their advocates have a point.
