12/21/24
May 04, 2010
Phoenix to wear 'Los Suns' jerseys for Game 2 vs. Spurs: The Phoenix Suns made a bold statement Tuesday denouncing the controversial new immigration bill that recently was signed into law, and widespread reaction has followed. Managing Partner Robert Sarver decided - with unanimous support from his players - that the Suns would wear their "Los Suns" jerseys in recognition of playing Game 2 against San Antonio on Cinco de Mayo. He also addressed the immigration bill that has been a divisive national topic since Gov. Jan Brewer enacted it into law April 23. "It's a clear-cut issue for me," said Steve Nash, the South African-born Canadian who is one of three foreigners on the Suns roster along with Brazil's Leandro Barbosa and Slovenia's Goran Dragic. "I don't agree with this bill. I don't agree with the spirit of the bill or the message it sends, not only to people in our community but how it represents our community across the country and the world.
posted by tommytrump to culture at 10:41 PM - 113 comments
Don't want to be too political about this, but let him go back to Canada if he doesn't like the AZ law.
Clearly shutting the hell up and getting out is the best logical solution to a law you don't like.
posted by jmd82 at 11:37 PM on May 04, 2010
Nash had better get a special pocket sewn into his jersey for his work permit. Otherwise, look for the Spurs to have an immigration officer on their bench for a potential game 7 advantage.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:49 PM on May 04, 2010
a country that tests prosepctive citizens on their ability to speak English
Quoted for Muphry's Law amusement. And irrelevance to the topic at hand.
Otherwise, look for the Spurs to have an immigration officer on their bench for a potential game 7 advantage.
Who'll come on and break his nose.
posted by etagloh at 11:53 PM on May 04, 2010
I said speak English, not type it. :)
My misspelt point was that it's harder to get a work permit in Canada than it is to get one in the US.
Given that they also wore the Los Suns jerseys for a marketing stunt a couple of months ago cheapens the message a bit, but hey, they're free to wear whatever jersey they want.
posted by dviking at 12:38 AM on May 05, 2010
Odd that a player who is a citizen of a country that tests prosepctive citizens on their ability to speak English would complain about this law..
Of course, that isn't true at all.
For certain classes of immigration into Canada, you need to show a proficiency in English OR French.
For other classes of immigration, you are scored on education, business experience, age, adaptability, and (finally) English OR French proficiency. So having a poor grasp of English AND French can be overcome quite easily if you are young, educated and have work experience.
Otherwise, look for the Spurs to have an immigration officer on their bench for a potential game 7 advantage.
Considering the Spurs have the same number of foreign-born players as the Suns (3), both teams better have their papers in order.
posted by grum@work at 01:00 AM on May 05, 2010
Oh, okay, they have to have some proficiency in either of the languages spoken in Canada. Point is, most of the illegals that AZ is targeting wouldn't be allowed in Canada either, so Nash's point is somewhat misguided.
Additionally, while I'm not a lawyer specializing in Canadian Immigration law, based on the site I checked, I'm not too sure many of the illegals in AZ would qualifty for immigration to Canada even if they spoke French and/or English. How many Physiotherapists are sneaking into AZ?
Better places to discuss politics....How about those Twins...walk off wild pitch win tonight!
posted by dviking at 02:02 AM on May 05, 2010
"Clearly shutting the hell up and getting out is the best logical solution to a law you don't like."
Yeah. That goes for all the clowns that don't like current gun laws. They can leave too!
posted by Bernieyeball at 02:35 AM on May 05, 2010
I agree, fresh immigrants should be able to pronounce and understand such long-standing English words like Arizona, Phoenix, Tucson, and Tempe. I mean, what kind of country are we running here?
posted by afl-aba at 06:30 AM on May 05, 2010
Tuck-son? Pho-nix? I'm actually surprised the NBA went along. League officials may agree with the viewpoint, but I figured they'd want to keep the politics off the court.
posted by jjzucal at 06:58 AM on May 05, 2010
I hear this all the time: Keep the politics out of sports!
Sport is suffused with politics, at all levels. Always has been. Would these people say the same about Jackie Robinson? Curt Flood? What about after 9/11? Didn't hear much grumbling about real life issues getting on the field then.
The Arizona law is racist, gives the state enormous power, and clearly is an embarrassment to the better people living there. It's on everyone's minds, and the Suns are supposed to ignore it?
posted by afl-aba at 07:37 AM on May 05, 2010
Clearly shutting the hell up and getting out is the best logical solution to a law you don't like.
Yeah, that's a very American attitude. What were our Founding Fathers thinking?
The law is stupid. I'm happy that teams are speaking out against it.
posted by bperk at 07:55 AM on May 05, 2010
At least they're getting the games played before Texas secedes and the players and fans find themselves singing two national anthems prior to tipoff.
posted by beaverboard at 08:08 AM on May 05, 2010
The law is stupid.
How so? I want to hear someone's viewpoint that has an educated opinion why they think this law is stupid. Then I'll share my viewpoint from someone that is in the middle of an Arizona city overrun by illegals.
posted by smithnyiu at 09:44 AM on May 05, 2010
fresh immigrants should be able to pronounce and understand such long-standing English words like Arizona, Phoenix, Tucson, and Tempe. I mean, what kind of country are we running here?
If I get some of the logic used above, just because the US has historical connections to Spanish speaking people, that our borders (and our entitlement programs, schools, hospitals, roads, etc) ought to be totally open to anyone that speaks Spanish.
I speak English as my first language, and have ancestors that come from several different countries. That gives me no right to just enter those countries, or any that use English, illegally and take up residency.
The US has cities/states with names derived from many languages, that is of no importance when it comes to determining legal immigration status.
posted by dviking at 10:34 AM on May 05, 2010
In response to smithnyiu:
Because a citizen should not be required around legal documents identifying them as anything. Secondly, it gives the police & government too much room to detain a person for any reason. We have seen abuses from other other laws enacted. This could easily be used to detain somebody because a cop simply does not like their behavior. Thirdly, this case is straight up legalized racism on the behalf of law enforcement and the government. If a cop sees somebody on the street who looks Hispanic and detains them for not carrying documents, how is that not racism? This law is aimed squarely at people who do not look White- You are expecting a cop to determine one's possibility nationality based purely on their race. Fourthly, as I attempt to invoke Godwin's law, this reeks way too much of the Nazi's requiring all Jews to wear the Star of David.
This is not an immigration law. It is a racial profiling law.
posted by jmd82 at 10:35 AM on May 05, 2010
I hear this all the time: Keep the politics out of sports!
Do we start by not singing national anthems at their outset each and every time? Or can we go back to the "boys" and "girls" signs on the locker room doors? Or never pay anyone to play?
Sport IS political---Period.
posted by Spitztengle at 10:36 AM on May 05, 2010
dviking:
Oh, okay, they have to have some proficiency in either of the languages spoken in Canada. Point is, most of the illegals that AZ is targeting wouldn't be allowed in Canada either, so Nash's point is somewhat misguided.
How is it misguided? He's not in Canada, and he's not holding up Canadian immigration policy as some kind of standard of how to do it. He hasn't made any statement about what he thinks about Canada's immigration requirements; for all you know, he thinks they're boneheaded stupid.
jjzucal:
I'm actually surprised the NBA went along. League officials may agree with the viewpoint, but I figured they'd want to keep the politics off the court.
The politics are already on the court. Never mind history and Jackie Robinson and all that, in this particular instance Arizona is being targeted with tourism boycotts in protest of this law. This most definitely includes high profile sporting events that would bring out-of-state visitors, and the NBA doesn't want a boycott pooping on their playoffs. From reading the article, it seems like the Los Suns gesture is sincere on the part of the players and at least some of the management, but it would not surprise me at all if the NBA's statement of support is somewhat more cynically motivated.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:01 AM on May 05, 2010
This is not an immigration law. It is a racial profiling law.
OK, this is what I expected to hear. All of your points are valid and I agree with you across the board, as do most people here in Arizona. So how did this law get passed? It has more to do with the bigger picture of politics.
You see, we have a free spending government right now, and we in Arizona need help, but our requests for assistance are falling on deaf ears. The immigration issue is a localized issue for the border states, but none are hit harder than Arizona. We spent over $1 billion dollars last year fighting this issue. Now that this controversial law was passed we are on the forefront. I predict there will be national immigration reform passed before this law actually goes into effect in October.
The biggest part of the bill is what happens to businesses if they are caught hiring illegals. That doesn't get discussed in the media because it's not necessarily a human rights issue.
Now, on the issue of racial profiling; whatever. The law enforcement and border patrol here know exactly who they need to detain. The are experts in this issue, and if innocent latinos are asked to show proof they are not illegal, that is, for lack of a better term, a casualty of war. Out of 22 million illegals in this country right now, over 17 million are latino. And most of those come across the border in my back yard. And the biggest issue with the flow of illegals is the drug war going on right now in Mexico. There is an all-out war with the Cartels and law enforcement there, and it is spilling over into Arizona now as I'm sure you've heard in the news.
I feel for the poor from a human standpoint. I really do. If I were in their shoes I would try to make a better life for my family too. I would do exactly what they are doing, so I don't hate latinos. But our state is broke. And now with the potential of federal help we might win this war. Because right now we are losing. Badly.
posted by smithnyiu at 11:10 AM on May 05, 2010
The state clearly added language to combat racial profiling. They can only check someone's immigration status if they are already stopped for another crime.
Clearly, they're not trying to go after all Hispanics. At this point, the vast majority of the illegals are Latinos so, who would you like the authorities to check.
It's all this policital correctness that is a bit out of hand. We're searching Grandma's at the airport, and three year olds flying from St. Paul to Chicago have to get their shoes screened. All because we don't want to offend any one group that might be causing problems. Showing my immigration papers, if I'm an immigrant to a foreign country, is easier than having my shoes screened, so why the big deal?
Instead of just picturing a poor family trying to skirt our laws in an attempt to make a better life for themselves, picture the drug smuggler that will shoot to kill if they have to. This isn't some feel good issue that just goes away if we allow total freedom to cross our borders and stay here. It's getting worse each year, and something has to be done.
llb, I think Nash's statements are a bit misguided (or at least disingenuous) because every country with a border worth protecting has similar and/or more stringent laws in place. That a state like AZ decides that they're going to actually enforce those laws is not sending some signal to the rest of the world. Well, actually, it probably does...that message is that they need to reinforce their borders and immigration practices to ensure what is happening here doesn't happen in their countries.
posted by dviking at 11:27 AM on May 05, 2010
If a cop sees somebody on the street who looks Hispanic and detains them for not carrying documents, how is that not racism?
This isn't allowed by this law. People cannot simply be rounded up. They must be detained for some other reason first. This law follows the federal law already on the books, but not enforced by the feds.
this reeks way too much of the Nazi's requiring all Jews to wear the Star of David.
Yea right. We're going to round up families and send them off to Auschwitz. Get real.
We're the only country in the world that doesn't control its border. Illiegal immigration is costing us billions and it must stop. I'm all for immigration...the legal kind.
posted by Shotput at 11:32 AM on May 05, 2010
Fair enough and point taken about the spending. However, I honestly fail to see how this law addresses the $1 billion being spent on illegal immigration or how it will fix the state being broke.
I don't disagree that reform is needed (though I'm probably much in favor of amnesty and easier naturalized citizenship than most), but I just cannot see how this is the reform that will help immigration.
The state clearly added language to combat racial profiling. They can only check someone's immigration status if they are already stopped for another crime.
Thanks for the correction, I did not know that. The articles I read made it sound like cops could stop anyone and demand to see their papers.
We're the only country in the world that doesn't control its border.
Huh? I've traveled in Europe across country borders a number of times and wasn't asked for my passport on more than one occasion- and that was easily controllable trains.
posted by jmd82 at 11:40 AM on May 05, 2010
Yea right. We're going to round up families and send them off to Auschwitz. Get real.
The U.S., under the orders of President Roosevelt, sent all Japanese Americans on the West Coast to internment camps.
I've been to Manzanar. Seems pretty real to me.
posted by cjets at 11:44 AM on May 05, 2010
Fair enough and point taken about the spending. However, I honestly fail to see how this law addresses the $1 billion being spent on illegal immigration or how it will fix the state being broke.
Because it will be federal money being spent, not state money. It will take the equivilent of a handful of people with their finger in the dike the size of the Hoover dam and make it a national issue with more resources to work with. Our state spent more money combating illegal immigration than educating our children last year.
posted by smithnyiu at 11:53 AM on May 05, 2010
They can only check someone's immigration status if they are already stopped for another crime.
Actually, they can check someone's immigration status if they have "lawful contact" with that person. That includes interviewing them as a witness, or, my favourite case, if a person walks up to an officer and asks them for directions.
posted by grum@work at 12:10 PM on May 05, 2010
The state clearly added language to combat racial profiling. They can only check someone's immigration status if they are already stopped for another crime.
And we know what the other crimes will be. Jaywalking while Hispanic. Taking pictures of government buildings while Hispanic. Driving while Hispanic. Looking at a policeman with Hispanic eyes. Flaunting Hispanism in public places.
We're the only country in the world that doesn't control its border.
I skipped a major conference in St Louis this year because I didn't want to deal with obnoxious and obstructionist US Immigration people, not to mention the TSA hassle and the general extreme paranoia of the US border controls. And I'm a white male fluent in English.
posted by rumple at 12:18 PM on May 05, 2010
Worth a read is Jeff Passan's take on the potential impact of the legislation on the Arizona minor-league baseball scene:
In less than two months, the Arizona Rookie League begins its season. Nearly 140 young players born and raised in Spanish-speaking countries will congregate in Phoenix and its suburbs for their first taste of professional baseball. They may do so as the nation's most controversial law the one that says some people who look like them are most certainly not welcome goes into effect in late July.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:49 PM on May 05, 2010
I for one think that 'trying to make a better life for themselves' does not allow anyone to break reasonable laws. If that was an allowed legal defense almost any financial-related crime would be legal--if I don't pay my taxes, if I rob a bank, if I sell drugs I can spend more on a better life for my family.
As stated every country (attempts to) control its border and who can work within them, so I think on the national level our relevant laws are reasonable.
However I do not like this law because it blatantly brings a hammer to a tea party; there are already laws on the books to fight violence and drug traffic. And I don't think a state has the constitutional right to make such a law. If they did, for example, state medical marijuana laws would not be trumped by federal drug law.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:05 PM on May 05, 2010
The state clearly added language to combat racial profiling. They can only check someone's immigration status if they are already stopped for another crime.
That's not quite true, and the Arizona House also added language that extends the legal remit to civil as well as criminal matters -- "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state" -- which extends to overgrown lawns and barking dogs, and one of the drafters suggested that cops might want to go knocking on doors when they see cars up on blocks in the yard.
Looking from the sporting side, the obvious point here is that elite-level foreign athletes, who have one of the easiest paths to legal residence among all immigrants, still get a taste of the underfunded Kafkaesque mess of US immigration law that most citizens never encounter their entire lives.
So Jeff Passan's right to point out how the sporting world's sandboxed acceptance of diverse foreign lineups, including players with little or no English, abuts the suspicion towards such people in wider society. He also correctly notes how it's standard practice among teams to handle the paperwork and safeguard players' visas and passports, even though it's at odds with federal law. (USCIS actually encourages tacit disobedience to that law, given that it's a misdemeanor charge that's rarely if ever enforced, and that replacing a lost or stolen visa or green card is a huge hassle for them and the holder.)
That MLB is pushing for a players' league ID to be accepted in lieu of state or national documents gives a sense of the way that the AZ law is just another dumb bodge on a bodged legal structure.
posted by etagloh at 02:13 PM on May 05, 2010
People from Northern climes and foreigners who have no idea, much less firsthand knowledge, of how unmanagable the Mexican border situation has become have nothing to say that will sway the feelings of the voters of Arizona, or other people living adjacent to the border. Crime and drugs being brought into this country aside, any fool knows that open border immigration is unsustainable in a country that provides welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, public education and basic healthcare.
posted by mjkredliner at 02:40 PM on May 05, 2010
People from Northern climes and foreigners who have no idea, much less firsthand knowledge, of how unmanagable the Mexican border situation has become
I started to write a comment about this a bit back and gave up because it's hard to say exactly what I mean. My concern is that it looks like two issues are being conflated here: one is a question of how to handle immigration in this country and one is how the hell to deal with the failed state south of the border. I don't know the answer to either, but I don't think the solutions have much in common and I'm worried about the effects of trying to solve both problems the same way: with force. Mexico either needs to grab hold of itself, which seems like a longshot at this point, or the US needs to defend itself. But that doesn't mean US citizens need to revive Know Nothing Party and start snitching on anyone who doesn't look "American".
People from Northern climes and foreigners who have no idea . . . have nothing to say
On a personal note, I'll invite you to place that right back in the orifice it fell out of since it takes a very short trip through US history to see why letting one part of the country decide how things should be isn't a good idea. How is it posters here can cry up the Constitution when it suits them and then forget it when it doesn't? Last I checked we still had some national laws and oversight via three different branches of state.
posted by yerfatma at 02:51 PM on May 05, 2010
If they want to make a statement, shouldn't it be "Los Sols" instead of "Los Suns"?
Arizona, Phoenix, Tucson, and Tempe
Not sure I get the point, but it seems that there was some assertion that these are Spanish words. Actually, Arizona is from Basque (not really Spanish) or Indian; Phoenix is from either Greek or somewhere in Europe or Asia (it is a mythological term and not Spanish); Tucson is the Spanish spelling of an Indian term; and Tempe is actually from Greek.
posted by graymatters at 02:54 PM on May 05, 2010
I'll invite you to place that right back in the orifice it fell out of
That was a crappy (ha!) thing to say and if I could, I'd edit it out. Sorry.
posted by yerfatma at 04:19 PM on May 05, 2010
How is it posters here can cry up the Constitution when it suits them and then forget it when it doesn't?
Not sure what, or who, you are referencing here, but why, when the state of Arizona opts to pass a popular law requiring Arizonan officials to comply with and enforce federal law, suddenly all of the usual suspects come completely unglued?
Last I checked we still had some national laws and oversight via three different branches of state.
Who apparently are completely out of touch in regards to the border crisis, and who are unwilling to enforce immigration laws already on the books.
That was a crappy (ha!) thing to say and if I could, I'd edit it out. Sorry.
No problem at all.
posted by mjkredliner at 04:20 PM on May 05, 2010
The latest in Dave Zirin's articles on the topic.
posted by Spitztengle at 04:27 PM on May 05, 2010
I don't think this law will keep illegals out, or get rid of the worst elements of the illegal drug trade currently in Arizona. It's an opportunity to punish and set examples. The law smacks of "don't come here", rather than "protect the border". I would imagine the vast majority of those caught will not be hardcore gangbangers and M13 dudes. Those guys aren't going to do anything different and I'm pretty sure it isn't papers that are keeping those guys from leaving.
However, I won't pretend to understand the entirety of the situation and I would think that most people - cops, lawyers, etc. - would be sensitive and try to operate under the spirit of the law, rather than the didactics of it. But Arizona doesn't exactly have a strong track record of racial progress. Martin Luther King anyone?
And Canada has hundreds of thousands of illegals in the cities. Most have had VISAs expire and just don't leave. I know several. They all have jobs, are paid cash, and don't pay taxes. They'd be legal if it were easier to get it done, but Immigration Canada is backlogged like all hell. It takes 3 years to process an application, but technically, if you have an application in process, you aren't subject to deportation. Also, if you're under a refugee application, you can get a Social Insurance number and work, you just can't leave and return. I know all this because my ex-girlfriend was from Iran and here illegally after her visa expired.
To be honest, most Canadians just don't consider it much of a big deal in my experience. We're all immigrants here, and the Natives remind us that we can clean-up our mess and leave anytime.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:01 PM on May 05, 2010
graymatters, that actually crossed my mind earlier today when I responded to afa-aba...decided to give his odd comment the benefit of the doubt. But, yes, I guess we shouldn't let people from Greece, or any other country in without proper papers being in order.
For the record, I think people living just about anywhere can understand the issues being faced by AZ, which is why I find Nash's comments so misguided (disingenuous, whatever).
posted by dviking at 06:03 PM on May 05, 2010
Who apparently are completely out of touch in regards to the border crisis
The way people talk about it, you'd think it was a plaque of locusts that was descending upon the fair city to strip it to the roots.
Or that there were constant gun battles in the streets between honest cops and dirty Mexicans.
Or that the Republicans were busy lurching to the far right while alienating what used to be a strong Latino Republican vote.
posted by grum@work at 09:15 PM on May 05, 2010
oddly, the locust reference is exactly the terminology used by the city building inspector to describe the rash of copper tubing thefts in the area near where my parents live. Several illegals were caught, so, yes, they know who was responsible.
Bascik is a fool.
posted by dviking at 11:07 PM on May 05, 2010
"... a person walks up to an officer and asks them for directions"
Does this actually happen? I mean, I'm a middle-aged middle-class white suburb-dweller and I avoid any contact with cops that I possibly can.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:17 PM on May 05, 2010
Does this actually happen? I mean, I'm a middle-aged middle-class white suburb-dweller and I avoid any contact with cops that I possibly can.
I work on Capitol Hill and it happens all the time. Of course, parts of Capitol Hill look like a police state with a few officers on every street corner. Luckily, brown people don't have to show their birth certificates and passports here for jaywalking or asking for directions.
posted by bperk at 07:51 AM on May 06, 2010
Not sure I get the point, but it seems that there was some assertion that these are Spanish words. Actually, Arizona is from Basque (not really Spanish) or Indian; Phoenix is from either Greek or somewhere in Europe or Asia (it is a mythological term and not Spanish); Tucson is the Spanish spelling of an Indian term; and Tempe is actually from Greek.
I never said they were Spanish -- I hinted at their non-English origins. If you wanna go Spanish state/city names, California has more than its share.
"Hey! This is Los Angeles! Speak English!"
posted by afl-aba at 08:36 AM on May 06, 2010
The Arizona governor responds to call for boycotting state sports
posted by jmd82 at 09:41 AM on May 06, 2010
Does this mean anything? The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales... I think it adds some meaning to the discourse seen here...
posted by wildbill1 at 10:30 AM on May 06, 2010
This too....The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico .
posted by wildbill1 at 10:31 AM on May 06, 2010
wildbill1: Do you have a link to where the Mexican legislators say this?
posted by grum@work at 11:02 AM on May 06, 2010
Maybe our immigration laws should be as tough as those in Mexico.
posted by mjkredliner at 02:01 PM on May 06, 2010
The problem with the Arizona law isn't having tough rules against illegal immigration. It is the process they go through to find out who is illegal. What is a reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal? What should an American without a passport be carrying with them at all times to prove citizenship? It is like apartheid. You are brown, show us your papers. Mexico's laws seem like federal law before the Arizona law.
posted by bperk at 02:27 PM on May 06, 2010
What is a reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal?
I can't believe people are actually still asking this question. Like the law enforcement here has no clue what they are doing. All they are doing is enforcing a law that already exists. Previously they didn't have the right to ask for citizenship WHEN DETAINED FOR ANOTHER REASON. Now they can. I can't believe how wrong the whole country is on this whole issue. And they will probably ask "brown skin" people the question more often if they can't speak english. No kidding, that's the number one reason. They ask for citizenship in spanish. Boo fucking hoo, let's all cry for human rights.
What should an American without a passport be carrying with them at all times to prove citizenship?
A driver's license, work permit, green card, or any US government issued ID card is all you need.
It is like apartheid.
Bullshit. Arizona is just shortening a process where we deport illegal aliens on an air-conditioned bus back to Mexico. Comparing this to attempted genocide is just fucking stupid.
posted by smithnyiu at 02:47 PM on May 06, 2010
Jan Brewer and her staff are good with the words but as usual its 1984 in new threads. Two examples:
"Put simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests."
Tell that to the people of South Africa. Wait, talk to the people of Arizona about how well their initial decision on an MLK holiday worked.
Second, how else can people who have no vote in Arizona concretely demonstrate opposition to the law?
"It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel."
I don't think anyone is questioning specific individual policemen. But as with any sizable group of human beings, some will behave badly and misuse this law for improper reasons. So when laws are made this possibility needs to be taken into account.
posted by billsaysthis at 04:07 PM on May 06, 2010
Previously they didn't have the right to ask for citizenship WHEN DETAINED FOR ANOTHER REASON. Now they can.
Of course, they can now ask for proof when the citizen hasn't been detained, as has been mentioned above. So for the legally immigrated people of Arizona, they'll still have to have their proof of citizenship with them at all times. Going to the store to pick up some cigarettes? Normally, you wouldn't need your proof of citizenship, just a $20 bill. Now, if you happen to witness a crime and the cops want to talk to you about it, you could be in big trouble if they end the interview with "By the way, please show me your proof of citizenship."
I can't believe how wrong the whole country is on this whole issue.
That's my favourite line in this entire discussion.
posted by grum@work at 04:25 PM on May 06, 2010
Now, if you happen to witness a crime and the cops want to talk to you about it, you could be in big trouble if they end the interview with "By the way, please show me your proof of citizenship."
but, of course that's not true at all. The police have to have reasonable suspicion that you've committed another non-immigration crime. This whole..."we're going to be treated like how the Nazi's treated the Jews" argument is just garbage. No one, especially the police, is looking to do that. They're just trying to address the issue of what to do with all of the illegals they have coming across the border that committing crimes. Comparing this to the Nazi's or Apartheid is wrong on so many levels.
Second, how else can people who have no vote in Arizona concretely demonstrate opposition to the law?
Well, for starters they could go back to wherever it is that they're a legal citizen of, and then work for a legal work visa. Oh, did you mean how can they protest us enforcing our laws, especially those that are less restrictive than the laws of their home country (assuming they're from Mexico, I realize not all are)...well, you got me there. But, frankly I don't give a shit. I'm upset that I can't commit crimes in Mexico, but protesting that fact never occured to me. If you were referring to citizens of California, they ought to stay home, coming to AZ to protest is counter-productive. They'll surely buy something (gas, food, hotel, etc.) and thus contribute to AZ's troubled economy rather than to their own state's bankrupt economy.
Taking a truth in advertising stance...the story about the nine senators from Sonora traveling to Tucson is true, however, it's an old story dealing with a trade restriction bill passed in 2008. It did have the effect of causing some illegals to lose their jobs, and thus perhaps return home, but it really isn't part of this issue.
I never said they were Spanish -- I hinted at their non-English origins
Whatever...what was the point of listing words of Greek origin? Does showing that there are some cities in America that have names derived from languages other than English prove anything?
posted by dviking at 05:32 PM on May 06, 2010
what was the point of listing words of Greek origin
That we all come from somewhere else? We've been through this before. Vote Know Nothing in 2012! Slogan: "We're here! Now shut the door before anyone else shows up."
posted by yerfatma at 05:39 PM on May 06, 2010
That we all come from somewhere else? We've been through this before. Vote Know Nothing in 2012! Slogan: "We're here! Now shut the door before anyone else shows up."
Holy Crap, I thought I was reading the Tea Party Manifesto when I read the description of this "organization".
In 1855 it renamed itself the American Party.[3] The origin of the "Know Nothing" term was in the semi-secret organization of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply, "I know nothing."
The first rule of the American Party is your don't talk about the American Party. The second rule of the American Party is you don't talk about the American Party.
posted by Demophon at 06:14 PM on May 06, 2010
By the way, please show me your proof of citizenship
Actually what the cop will ask anyone of any color is, "Can I see some ID?" as he's filling out his report. Then the legal citizen yanks out his/her driver's license and he goes in to kwiki mart to get his cigs.
I totally get what will probably happen is a car full of hispanics will get pulled over more frequently because now they can, legally, and be asked to show ID. I know that will happen, and I ask what else can be done? How else can we stop the flow of illegal traffic and drugs coming up I19 into the US? I have no doubt this can be twisted around to look like racial profiling for no other reason than the color of their skin, but unlike other cases where it did happen, there is a reason. Almost every single person that is trafficking people and drugs illegally here in Arizona, is from Mexico. How else do we approach the delicate subject of race in this case?
But let me back up to my original point at the top of the thread. It's not Arizona's job to protect the rest of the country. This law was passed to get the federal government involved in securing our borders. Now I think they will.
posted by smithnyiu at 07:28 PM on May 06, 2010
Now, if you happen to witness a crime and the cops want to talk to you about it, you could be in big trouble if they end the interview with "By the way, please show me your proof of citizenship."
but, of course that's not true at all. The police have to have reasonable suspicion that you've committed another non-immigration crime. This whole..."we're going to be treated like how the Nazi's treated the Jews" argument is just garbage. No one, especially the police, is looking to do that.
The language of the law states that an officer can ask for proof of citizenship while making "lawful contact" with someone. Lawful contact includes interviewing a witness for a crime, or being approached/interacted with by an individual. It's right there in the law itself.
If someone watches the cop interact with a Latino who has a heavy accent, and that cop doesn't ask for the Latino's proof of citizenship, the observer can then bring a lawsuit on the police force for not making an attempt to determine the Latino's immigration status.
So even if a police officer doesn't feel like enforcing the new law, he runs the risk of having his police force being sued.
If you haven't guessed it, the biggest winners for this entire boondoggle are the lawyers.
- they got paid to help craft the law - they get paid to help sue the government for enacting the law (challenging the legality of it before it can be enacted) - they get paid to help defend the government for enacting the law - they get paid to help sue the government/police for enforcing the law (individuals who are mistaken for being illegal by not carrying the information with them) - they get paid to help defend the government/police for enforcing the law - they get paid to help sue the police forces for NOT enforcing the law - they get paid to help defend the police forces for NOT enforcing the law
posted by grum@work at 07:30 PM on May 06, 2010
I totally get what will probably happen is a car full of hispanics will get pulled over more frequently because now they can, legally, and be asked to show ID. I know that will happen, and I ask what else can be done? How else can we stop the flow of illegal traffic and drugs coming up I19 into the US? I have no doubt this can be twisted around to look like racial profiling for no other reason than the color of their skin, but unlike other cases where it did happen, there is a reason. Almost every single person that is trafficking people and drugs illegally here in Arizona, is from Mexico. How else do we approach the delicate subject of race in this case?
Maybe it would be helpful to look at why racial profiling hasn't worked in other cases, and to ask if the same thing is likely to happen here. There are a lot of reasons why racial profiling doesn't work, some of which could be grouped under the broad heading of, "Leads to sloppy police work (which in turn leads to failure to convict and to the real criminals getting away)". Another problem with racial profiling is that it tends to be an outgrowth of the "logic" that if 90% of the crime is committed by [insert profile], all you have to do is arrest the [insert profiles] and you'll get 90% of the criminals. What is overlooked, of course, is that (in the words of Sir Bedemir) universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. "90% of the crime is committed by members of [ethnic group]" does not equal "90% of the members of [ethnic group] are criminals", and behaving as if it does means that you inevitably roust and harass a lot of peaceful and law-abiding citizens. Now, you may feel that people on the receiving end of crap like that should heave a philosophical sign and grin and bear it, all in the name of exigency, but that isn't how people in that situation react. You may feel that they should, but they don't, and you may not think that you'd probably feel the same in their situation, but that's the problem that you have to deal with. That is the exact problem that Arizona has to deal with now.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:14 PM on May 06, 2010
Remembering of course, that in any US state the police can pretty much pull a car load of Hispanics, or Black, or Asians, or Whites, over any time they want. The missed turn signal, the brake light that's out, 1 mile over the speed limit, radio on too loud, Virgin Mary statue on the dash a bit too big...I think you get the point. If they want, they'll find the reason to stop a car.
The law is about helping the state deal with the huge number of illegals they catch committing crimes. If you want to believe that the various law enforcement agencies in AZ have nothing to do right now, and that they're just waiting for the law to take effect so they can go round 'em up, welll you're entitled to that opinion.
As to the lawyers, I'll guess that the lawyers on the government's payroll were going to be paid regardless, and yes, there'll be suits brought against the state...there are now. I think those suits, or the threats of those suits, will help keep the cops focused.
Maybe we can get grum and Steve Nash to each take about 15, 000,000 of the illegals to Canada...that would solve the issue. Let me know if you need help setting up the car pool.
posted by dviking at 10:10 PM on May 06, 2010
i don't recall my people giving any of your people visa's or green cards when those little wooden ships landed. Or permits when you started to chop down trees for your houses and stockades. You all have 24 hours to either leave or spend your life savings in one of our casinos.
posted by irunfromclones at 12:45 AM on May 07, 2010
Maybe we can get grum and Steve Nash to each take about 15, 000,000 of the illegals to Canada...that would solve the issue. Let me know if you need help setting up the car pool.
I assume that after the 30million people leave your country, you and your friends would step into the breach and fill the wonderful jobs they left behind? At the wages they were getting?
No? Not anxious to work the fields, do some landscaping, wash some dishes, for sub-minimum wage?
posted by grum@work at 01:34 AM on May 07, 2010
Why, no, I won't be landscaping anytime soon (well, okay, I will as I mow my own lawn thank you very much), as we have plenty of documented, legal workers to handle that. Maybe I live in a different community than most, but there's no shortage of high school kids looking to make a few bucks mowing lawns here.
FYI, I hire around 200 people a year, almost all starting under $9 an hour, and I have lots of great legal candidates to choose from. It's hospitality work, so cleaning dishes, mopping floors, and cleaning toilets are all involved. I think it's misleading when people say that the illegals only do work that US citizens will not. It's more of a comperative advantage situation in that the illegals do what they do because, for the most part they're not skilled to do anything else, AND because some companies will hire them to save money. Note, that they save money not on the base wages, but, rather on the benefits/payroll taxes/administrative costs. Here in Texas the people I know that use illegals for various "landscaping" jobs have to pay well over $10 an hour. The irony of the situation is this...once they become legalized, and are then subject to the various benefits/payroll taxes/administrative costs, they'll be too expensive to hire. So, the hardworking ones will be looking for work, but the criminal element will be just as active as now, perhaps more so.
I get the human element of the situation, truly, I do. I am not in favor of any sort of "shoot them as they cross the border" mentality. I just see what is happening in the border areas, and I know it can not continue like this.
Now, about that car pool, is 10:00 AM good for you?
posted by dviking at 02:16 AM on May 07, 2010
Speaking of working the fields, the 2% that are actually doing that can stay.
Given the data on the link, I suppose that it's not too surprising that one of Gov. Schwarzenegger's ideas for saving money in California was for California to build prisons in Mexico for all the Mexicans arrested in California.
posted by dviking at 02:40 AM on May 07, 2010
.......... or spend your life savings in one of our casinos.
Does it have to be all at once, or can I make a few trips ?
posted by tommybiden at 08:37 AM on May 07, 2010
Now, about that car pool, is 10:00 AM good for you?
"I'd rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona."
posted by grum@work at 09:03 AM on May 07, 2010
Why, no, I won't be landscaping anytime soon (well, okay, I will as I mow my own lawn thank you very much), as we have plenty of documented, legal workers to handle that. Maybe I live in a different community than most, but there's no shortage of high school kids looking to make a few bucks mowing lawns here.
Odd-jobbing high school kids do not a workforce make. Just sayin'.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:30 AM on May 07, 2010
Odd-jobbing high school kids do not a workforce make. Just sayin'
while get where you're going with that, high school students are a very vital part of our work force, one that is hampered by the infux of illegals.
posted by dviking at 11:41 AM on May 07, 2010
The way people talk about it, you'd think it was a plaque of locusts that was descending upon the fair city to strip it to the roots.
Or that there were constant gun battles in the streets
posted by mjkredliner at 01:17 PM on May 07, 2010
Or that there were constant gun battles in the streets
Yep, there are.
That's Mexico.
posted by grum@work at 01:30 PM on May 07, 2010
I don't think too many people here are saying that we shouldn't have borders or immigration laws or that the drug violence is coming north. Just that this is a bad law and not the right way to get relief.
And frankly the drug violence has gone well past Arizona now. I live in the little Silicon Valley town where Google hangs its hat and we have multiple latino gangs, with more than one related violent death every few months. San Jose, 15 minutes away, has a lot more.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:59 PM on May 07, 2010
llb...I'm sooo sorry s/b "while I get..."
posted by dviking at 01:28 AM on May 08, 2010
grammar cop
posted by graymatters at 01:47 PM on May 08, 2010
dviking: if you say that high school kids are a "very vital part of [your] work force", I'll accept that...but I'll also say that I don't understand how a student, who is supposed to be in school for six hours or more a day, can possibly be a very vital part of any work force. They're just not going to be able to supply that much labor -- not unless they're really just a student in name only and are completely blowing off school to work six hours a day at a McJob, and if they are, I don't see that as a win for anyone.
p.s. graymatters: that's not grammar
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:21 PM on May 08, 2010
llb, go to a McD's,a Kroger, a Target, a JC Penney's, a 7-11,a Lowe's, a Blockbuster, Starbucks, AMC theater, a mall, a Chili's, the list could go on forever...then come back and try to tell me that the high school aged demographic for workers isn't a vital part of our economy.
Keep in mind that many work only on weekends, some have work releases that get them out of school early each day. Some are single parents working hard to make it through life. Some, like my own 17 year old son, are just working 15 hours a week to get spending money and perhaps save some for college. It's not that any one of them are working 40 hours a week (some are) it's that there are millions of them and their contributions to the work force add up. I've operated several of the establishments listed above during my career, and the high school student (and the lower wage they will work for) played a huge part in my operations being profitable.
As to the grammer/not grammer of my prior post...tell me you couldn't deduce what I meant. We've both posted enough messages to this site to not have the discussion bog down due to an obvious omission of one letter.
posted by dviking at 06:37 PM on May 08, 2010
16-19 year olds represent 4.4% of the workforce (pdf) compared to 8.8% in 1980.
posted by bperk at 01:49 AM on May 09, 2010
a few points on the link that bperk posted.
1) be careful when looking at the 4.4% compared to the other age brackets. The 16-19 group is only 4 years, while the others are 10 year spans (20 to 24 is 5 years)
2) This data shows the total employed, not the total in the workforce. Unemployment is higher in the younger bracket, and I've seen several surveys that show the 16 to 19 group as high as 8% of the total workforce.
3) The younger workers are the most heavily affected by the illegals, as they most often are employed in the lower paying jobs. So, to see a drop from 8% in 1980 to 4% now really doesn't surprise me as the last 30 years has seen a dramatic rise in the number of illegals in this country.
4) While teenagers, and those over 65 make up a combined 8.4% of the workforce, it's a very important 8.4%. As I stated before, their willingness to work at a lower wage has allowed many companies to survive. Fast food and retail operations work on very thin profit margins, and without minimum wage workers they wouldn't survive. Illegals often fill these jobs as well, however, once they become legal (I'm 100% sure Obama will legalize them) we'll see how they want to work for minimum wage and be subject to the various taxes that others pay. Actually, the illegals around here seldom do day labor for minimum wage, so they're really going to be shocked once SS/Medicare/payroll taxes start being taken out of they pay
posted by dviking at 01:54 PM on May 09, 2010
I've lived and worked in the Trans-Pecos and Permian Basin regions of Texas my whole life. I've seen the Mexican towns on our border (Juarez, Ojinaga,Ciudad Acuna, Piedras Negras, Nueva Laredo, Reynoso, Matamoros) turn from quiet, idyllic places to fucking war zones the State Department warns travellers of. I've been to oil well sites on ranches and heard ranchers complaints firsthand. I've seen the influx of crime in cities and towns, and illegal immigrants with fake documentaton taking oilfield and other good paying jobs, seen the willingness of undocumented workers to work for a lower than standard wage drive down the prices for which citizens of this country must charge for all kinds of labor, from landscaping to carpentry. I've seen legitimate corporations and mansions rise out of nothing but laundered money. We turned a blind eye for a long time, but enough is enough, and I wish the State of Arizona the best and hope that the State of Texas enables similar legislation.
That's Mexico.
And that's where it needs to stay.
posted by mjkredliner at 04:08 PM on May 09, 2010
with you on that! Enough with the political correct bullcrap that tries to paint this as a group of peaceful families only taking jobs that Americans won't do. The crime wave they bring with them, and their unwillingness to fully intergrate into our society is going to cause issues for years to come. The tax burden they bring will far outweigh any benefit some companies enjoy from artificially lower wages.
So, back to the car pool to Canada...somebody ought to pick up some snacks.
posted by dviking at 07:10 PM on May 09, 2010
The crime wave they bring with them
posted by cjets at 12:29 AM on May 10, 2010
posted by mjkredliner at 01:10 AM on May 10, 2010
The web site mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com is a lousy source to cite. I found the original, which is a right-wing legal group that has been around for a while, but it doesn't link to a page explaining the stat.
If it's legit, the fact that almost half of 35,000 immigrants arrested had criminal records doesn't mean half of illegal immigrants had prior records. It means half the ones that they chose to arrest did. We're deporting 250,000 a year through Tijuana, according to a 2008 USA Today report.
So if we're deporting 250,000 and 17,500 had criminal records when arrested by ice, 6.8 percent had criminal records. 16 percent Americans has a criminal record.
posted by rcade at 07:05 AM on May 10, 2010
The triple threat of drug smuggling, illegal and unknown crossers, and rising violence are the reality facing communities. While many illegal aliens cross the border searching for employment, not all illegal aliens are crossing into the United States to find work. Law enforcement has stated that some individuals come across the border because they have been forced to leave their home countries due to their criminal activity. These dangerous criminals are fleeing the law in other countries and seeking refuge in the United States.
From your own source, courtesy of the feds.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:31 AM on May 10, 2010
What's the point of quoting that? Are you trying to understand the issue, or just fishing for citations you think are damning of illegal immigrants? I've already shown you that the number of criminals appears to be less than the number in the U.S. population, and Cjets' link shows that the crime rate is dropping in Arizona. Perhaps it's not as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.
posted by rcade at 09:44 AM on May 10, 2010
Are you trying to understand the issue, or just fishing for citations you think are damning of illegal immigrants?
I learned a long time ago you'd best know some Spanish if you're gonna live and work where I do. I've worked side by side with illegals over the years and frequent establishments that employ illegals exclusively in my weekly Saturday morning quest for menudo and Tecate. I know some people who have employed their peon for 30 to 40 years, and who treat them as part of the family. I have no problem with a person wanting to better themselves, and I certainly don't blame people whose towns have been overrun by the cartels for wanting to leave (If they even have a choice in the matter.) But if you think that there has not been an increase in crime (not just in border areas) in recent years associated with illegal immigrants, you are sadly mistaken.
Perhaps it's not as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.
Of course it's not. I lay most of the blame for the border violence on the insatiable appetite of the dope fiends North of the border. And we all know there are a myriad of excuses for their behavior.
Bottom line: Enforce the laws on the books.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:30 AM on May 10, 2010
I don't have a problem with enforcement of most immigration laws. But some of them -- like the one that provoked the "Los Suns" statement -- are terrible. Legal Americans should never feel like they have to carry their "papers" around all the time to avoid heightened police scrutiny. There have to be better ways to address the issue.
posted by rcade at 11:46 AM on May 10, 2010
But if you think that there has not been an increase in crime (not just in border areas) in recent years associated with illegal immigrants, you are sadly mistaken.
From the Arizona Republic (May 2nd)
The article continues:
FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line......
In Yuma, police spokesman Sgt. Clint Norred said he cannot recall any significant cartel violence in the past several years. Departmental crime records show the amount of bloodshed has remained stable despite a substantial population increase......
Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff of Pima County, said there always has been crime associated with smuggling in southern Arizona, but today's rhetoric does not seem to jibe with reality.
"This is a media-created event," Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."
So I can believe the Police in the actual Arizona Border towns, the FBI, the Arizona Republic, and dozens of family and friends living in Arizona, all of whom say that there is no increase in violence.
Or I can listen to you and John McCain (the person who picked Sarah Palin as a running mate).
posted by cjets at 12:23 PM on May 10, 2010
Or, I can listen to my parents who tell me that crime has gone up in the areas surrounding where they live.
When viewing some of the statistics keep in mind that Arizona's population grew at a increased rate during the 1980 to 2009. Mostly senior citizens moving in from more expensive areas, and/or from colder climates. My parents are a good case in point. Very little crime in Sun City...hard to rob someone and then get away in a golf cart.
Point is, crime when viewed as a % of the population can be misleading if the population is skyrocketing.
Also, crime enforcement has picked up during the past decade. Solid success on the part of the men and women in blue! We are deporting more illegals now than ever before, and I'm all for it. However, if we have an additional 31,000,000 illegals living here, common sense says that they are committing crimes. Obviously, not all of them, but some of them, and that's additional crime added to what would be here without them.
Please keep in mind that the crime situation is only a subset of the issues created by the illegals, and it's not what my original post dealt with. I'm much more concerned with the financial burden these people are putting on our economy. From law enforcement, to health care, to schools, to basic services, they are adding billions of dollars to an already dire situation. My posts above regarding the labor situation are based on personal knowledge/experience, and I have a great deal of fear for what is in store for us. Once they become legal (Obama will grant this on a political basis) our unemployment rates will go up, causing more money to go out in entitlement programs, and wages will be forced even lower. It is not a good situation. I could be wrong...there may be millions of jobs just waiting to appear once they gain citizenship, but I'll be damned if I can figure out where they're hiding those jobs.
posted by dviking at 12:59 PM on May 10, 2010
Arizona is also leading the world in protecting us from Animal-Human Hybrids!
Look out Dr. Moreau. Arizona's gunning for you!
Seriously though (not that SB 1307 isn't actual law), I live in L.A. and deal with undocumented workers every single day. We've got 3 million in California. That's six times what Arizona has.
The vast majority of them are hard working people who simply want a part of the American dream. Just like our parents or grandparents or great -grandparents wanted when they came to this country as well.
I'm all for better enforced borders.
But once they are here, I don't understand how see how harrassing people whose sole crime is crossing the border to find a better life for themselves and their families is going to lower the crime rate or help the economy.
They still purchase the same goods as the rest of us, still pay sales tax and many of them even pay income tax (because they want desperately to be citizens).
The idea of deporting 12 million people and tearing families apart or giving cops the right to harass anyone who looks hispanic is just right wing hysteria, closely related to their hatred of a black man as a president.
It's not going to help with crime either. The police need the trust of the law abiding undocumented workers to catch the bad guys. That's one major reason why gangs thrive in inner cities. Because everyone distrusts the cops.
A law like this, which ignores the facts regarding crime and sends a message of hatred to all brown skinned people is a disgrace.
posted by cjets at 01:13 PM on May 10, 2010
We've got 3 million in California. That's six times what Arizona has.
And oh boy, aren't things going swimmingly there.
posted by mjkredliner at 02:15 PM on May 10, 2010
And oh boy, aren't things going swimmingly there.
I'm pretty sure that has to do with documented politicians more than undocumented citizens.
posted by grum@work at 02:16 PM on May 10, 2010
I believe you're right about that.
posted by mjkredliner at 02:18 PM on May 10, 2010
Or, I can listen to my parents who tell me that crime has gone up in the areas surrounding where they live.
Why are your parents more of an authority than the other sources cited? Illegal immigrants are a convenient scapegoat. Lots of people believe things about them that do not prove true.
I wish you and others would stop using the term "illegals" as shorthand. It's offensive. Lots of people commit crimes in the U.S. without being reduced to that term.
However, if we have an additional 31,000,000 illegals living here, common sense says that they are committing crimes.
If you have an additional 31 million senior citizens living in Arizona, would you or anyone else use this "common sense" argument about them even though it's equally valid?
We're talking about the crime rate, not the total number of crimes committed. If the crime rate is going down despite the influx of illegal immigrants -- and you've seen cited sources that the crime rate is going down -- then blaming them for rising crime is simply false.
posted by rcade at 02:20 PM on May 10, 2010
And oh boy, aren't things going swimmingly there.
"I'd rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona Texas."
And don't get me going about prop 13 again. It's greedy conservatives that have ruined this state not undocumented workers, who, according to you, somehow force businesses to pay them less than minimum wage.
posted by cjets at 02:24 PM on May 10, 2010
"I'd rather be dead in California than alive in Texas."
Heh. The San Andreas fault might help you with that.
cjets, I have made no mention of party affiliation in this thread, yet you have twice chosen to single me out. I will close by suggesting that your states liberal politicians will be the demise of the Golden State, if not the United States.
posted by mjkredliner at 03:01 PM on May 10, 2010
Any chance we can skip the formulaic partisan politics? If you want to rail against the other side in politics, there are a million better places for that than SportsFilter.
posted by rcade at 03:06 PM on May 10, 2010
I'm late to this party. And I'm done too.
MJK, I wasn't singling you out. The first "Crime wave" quote I refuted was Dviking's, not yours. And the remark about who bears the blame for CA's issues was not directed at you, but the people in CA who caused it.
So, nothing personal. But I do know that history will prove me right so I've got that going for me.
posted by cjets at 04:04 PM on May 10, 2010
Rcade, seems as I've hit a nerve.
As to my parents, no, you probably shouldn't listen to them. For what it's worth, my father is one of the directors of the HOA where they live, and this past March when I was spending some time with them I went with him to a Maricopa country task force meeting. One of the main topics was the rash of copper tubing that was being stolen in the area. Several illegal aliens were caught, and the law enforcement and property management types were talking about the increase of this type of occurrance.
As to calling them illegals, I will add aliens after that if it makes a difference. That's what we're talking about illegal aliens. If you prefer the political correct undocumented worker, that's your choice. The news media calls them illegal aliens, so that's what I use.
In regard to your comments about 31 million more seniors living there, why yes, one would expect crime to go up. It'd be different crime, but clearly 31 million of any demographic is going to bring an increase in crime. Are you really saying that no illegal aliens/undocumented workers are engaging in crime? I doubt you are, so clearly they are adding to the situation.
The crime rate is the number of crimes committed per 1000 people. There absolutely are more crimes of every type being committed now than in 1980. Did the number of crimes rise at the same level as the population? No, but I already mentioned several reasons for this...increased enforcement and incarceration rates, increase deportation, increased efforts by the wonderful law enforcement agencies.
But, again, the crime is just one issue that we're dealing with. If you and Steve Nash get about 31,000,000 others together to each personally pledge to vouch for, and cover the expenses of, each of the undocumented workers, then fine. If not, I don't want to pay more in taxes so people that are here illegally can have more benefits.
This is going to get ugly, and crime is just one small area of it. Arizona and California are going broke, what then?
Lastly, there is no such thing as a conservative politician in CA...your governor is a R.H.I.N.O., and I make no justifications for what he has done.
posted by dviking at 04:21 PM on May 10, 2010
Lastly, there is no such thing as a conservative politician in CA
Wow! Really? Ever been to Orange County? The Central Valley? Bakersfield? Heard of Richard Nixon? Or how about Ronald Reagan? Think he's conservative?
More recently, how about Darrel Issa, Steve Poizner (running for Gov. and supports the AZ law), Carly Fiorina? Roy Ashburn...etc. and so on. CA also passed a ban on gay marriage.
You might want to use this before you make more generalizations like that.
posted by cjets at 05:04 PM on May 10, 2010
The first "Crime wave" quote I refuted was Dviking's, not yours.
Could you please be specific as to what post of mine referred to a "Crime wave".
I have clearly tried to get the conversation away from the crime aspect and more toward the financial burden the undocumented illegally here people are putting on our country.
I did state that they are most certainly committing crimes (some, not all), but again, any group of 31million people would most certainly be committing crimes as well.
cjets, the RHINO line was a joke, clearly you have Conservative politicians, your governor just doesn't happen to be one.
posted by dviking at 05:37 PM on May 10, 2010
As to calling them illegals, I will add aliens after that if it makes a difference. That's what we're talking about illegal aliens. If you prefer the political correct undocumented worker, that's your choice. The news media calls them illegal aliens, so that's what I use.
The mainstream media doesn't call them "illegal aliens." The preferred term, as per the AP Stylebook, is illegal immigrant. What I said that was it's offensive to call them simply "illegals". Calling them "illegal aliens" is questionable too.
Lastly, there is no such thing as a conservative politician in CA.
California voted Republican in every presidential election but one from 1952 through 1988. If you look at the county map in 2000, around 22 counties in California voted McCain.
posted by rcade at 06:31 PM on May 10, 2010
Let's not get into a discussion of conservative vs. Republican. I'm up for it, just not sure this is the best place...I think we've lost any sports connection to this thread about 90 posts ago.
I love this site, and I do hope I haven't offended anyone. The situation with the people from Mexico is going to be an issue that impacts our lives in numerous ways.
As to the terminology used...it depends on what sites/TV shows one views. I see everything from illegal aliens to undocumented workers, to simply immigrants. They're here illegally, and they are foreign aliens. Not all are workers, so undocumented worker is incorrect. Illegal immigrant sounds nicer, so fine. I'll end my thoughts on this by quoting a noted Democratic leader, who calls them illegal aliens.
posted by dviking at 06:54 PM on May 10, 2010
dviking, here's your full quote:
with you on that! Enough with the political correct bullcrap that tries to paint this as a group of peaceful families only taking jobs that Americans won't do. The crime wave they bring with them, and their unwillingness to fully intergrate into our society is going to cause issues for years to come. The tax burden they bring will far outweigh any benefit some companies enjoy from artificially lower wages.
So, back to the car pool to Canada...somebody ought to pick up some snacks.
I bolded the part I quoted. And you have been trying to steer the conversation away from that. I'll give you that. I just think you guys are wrong. As I said to MJK, nothing personal.
As far as the joke, my sense of humor is never as good on a monday. Arnold is an unusual politician. It's too bad more politicians (red and blue) aren't willing to think for themselves rather than kowtow to the party line.
posted by cjets at 07:00 PM on May 10, 2010
As to the terminology used...it depends on what sites/TV shows one views. I see everything from illegal aliens to undocumented workers, to simply immigrants.
The terms "illegal aliens" and "illegals" are considered offensive by a large number of people. You act as if it's a gray area, but it's about as gray as "wetback." There's a reason the AP settled on "illegal immigrants" and the only people who use "illegal aliens" are folks like Ed Koch who have an agenda, just as "undocumented worker" is agenda-driven from the other side.
posted by rcade at 07:41 PM on May 10, 2010
Wetback is a term that has no meaning other than as a slur used to describe a Mexican here illegally.
Illegal alien doesn't even quantify that they're Mexican, which is accurate as many are from other countries. They're most certainly here illegally, so whether we call them Illegal aliens or illegal immigrants is splitting hairs. Undocumented workers is misleading because many are not workers. Not saying that perhaps most don't want to be, just that they're not all presently working.
cjets, you got me on that one, didn't think I had referred to it as a crime wave, as I really don't think that is the case. As stated it's just that 31million people do bring baggage, some good, some not so good.
posted by dviking at 01:28 AM on May 11, 2010
... whether we call them Illegal aliens or illegal immigrants is splitting hairs.
Not to Hispanics.
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists calls the term degrading and dehumanizing. The Georgia Association of Latino Officials compares it to a racial slur. The Hispanic Bar Association and the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court believe that the term biases juries.
The term "alien" is antiquated. No one ever calls a foreigner an "alien" except when referring to the ones living here illegally. It has become an offensive pejorative term, and to pretend otherwise ignores reality.
posted by rcade at 07:14 AM on May 11, 2010
I do like this line from one of your links The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering.
Yea, pretty much sums it up, we shouldn't be allowed to call a criminal a criminal because it might offend them. If it offends them so much, they do have options to take to remove themselves from the sigma of it.
posted by dviking at 11:03 AM on May 11, 2010
So you're in favor of stigmatizing them and don't care about the concerns of Hispanics and others. Why do you pretend that's not what you're doing with terms like illegals and illegal aliens? You want to dehumanize them. That's the goal of your language. Like all your factually inaccurate talk about bringing crime with them, it's an attempt to make the face of illegal immigration the scary gun-toting druglord instead of destitute people chasing the American dream.
I'm glad Los Suns stood up against the Arizona immigration law that stigmatizes legally resident Hispanics by making them carry their birth certificate around for fear of being detained by police. One of the biggest reasons that tougher immigration will fail, and the politicians who favor it will fail, is because they stigmatize first-generation Americans. Like Dviking, the most fervent immigration critics can't help themselves and their efforts become xenophobic. Waves of immigrants have always been demonized as "The Other" in our history. People don't like change, so they associate everything bad with it.
posted by rcade at 11:25 AM on May 11, 2010
Wow, nice.
If the current group of immigrants were taking the lawful approach that the first groups of "The Others", as you put it, did. Or, if they were more active in intergrating into our society (by perhaps learning the language and respecting our laws) maybe this wouldn't be the same situation that it is.
Instead, they have chosen a non-law abiding method of getting here, thus the illegal tag. This differentiates them from the legal immigrants that have chosen to respect our laws.
As to your line about my not being able to help myself...bite me, I live and work in Texas, and have numerous LEGAL immigrants that work for me. Even my Hispanic peers in this area are very concerned about the border situation.
posted by dviking at 01:57 PM on May 11, 2010
There are plenty of people who are concerned about illegal immigration without resorting to dehumanizing language or trotting out every factually dubious talking point they've ever heard about immigration. Now you're on the they-won't-assimilate kick. It's like you're going for every spot on the Anti-Immigration Bingo Card.
posted by rcade at 02:16 PM on May 11, 2010
nah, actually, the they won't learn to speak the language (assimilate) point was the very first point I made.
My main point on this thread was that I felt Steve Nash was being a bit disingenuine given that his country of citizenship actually requires any immigrant to prove proficiency in either French or English. I think the current set of immigrants would do well to model themselves after those that have preceded them from both their own and other lands.
BTW, to call the people coming across our borders "first-generation Americans" is extremely misleading. There are millions of second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth and beyond, Hispanic Americans. My dear neighbor Norma, is a third generation American, whose Grandmother moved to San Antonio from Monterrey, Mexico. Grandma ( I don't know her real first name, but she treats me like family, so I treat her the same) has told me stories about how her husband had to work hard to learn the language, and how he did everything he could to assimilate into the US society, including joining the military. My 78 year old neighbor, Helmut, who came to the US from Bolivia, also speaks of joining the military here. Both of these men had served in their homeland's military prior to coming here. Point is, they made sacrifices and worked hard to gain the right of US citizenship...not exactly what we're seeing from many of the current group. As I have said before in this thread, many are working hard, but not all. It's the ones that are not following the laws that I am concerned with.
As to my fears, you called me xenophobe if I remember correctly...I fear for many people in that we will very soon be dealing with the financial situation that is causing riots in Greece. We, the US, are writing checks that we can't cash, and the increased burden that more and more immigrants are adding will not add up to a pretty future.
posted by dviking at 05:57 PM on May 11, 2010
BTW, to call the people coming across our borders "first-generation Americans" is extremely misleading.
When I referred to first-generation Americans, I wasn't referring to newly arrived illegal immigrants. I was referring to all first-generation Americans, many of whom are stigmatized by the rhetoric of the anti-immigration crowd and the laws like the one Los Suns oppose.
You see only the bad in the increased immigration to this country, illegal or otherwise. It's not that simple. Our military has been recruiting illegal immigrants since 2007 and offering them a path to citizenship.
Immigrants also will help the United States avoid the problem of zero-population growth currently affecting Japan and several countries in Europe. We're an aging population with the baby boom hitting retirement age, and their welfare needs require a large young workforce to support. The higher birth rate among Hispanics will help this country have enough young workers to be economically successful and keep the social safety net for the elderly. Mexican Hispanics, who are culturally conservative, have large families and are hard working, are a much better fit demographically with the U.S. than the new immigrants in other Western countries -- regardless of language.
Illegal immigrants are here because of the work available to them here from employers who are rarely prosecuted. If amnesty was approved again, the vast majority of these people would happily begin paying all of their taxes to contribute to the country. Some already pay income taxes.
Reagan gave 1.6 million illegal immigrants amnesty in 1986. President George W. Bush speaks Spanish, had a warm alliance with Mexico's president and opposes those in his party who demonize immigrants.
Why do you think these Republicans did this? It's because there's a plus side to immigration and it's not the nightmare situation you think it is.
One final question: If you lived in Mexico and couldn't feed your family there, would you cross the border if that represented your best hope to give them a better life?
posted by rcade at 06:37 PM on May 11, 2010
Wait, now you're linking to sites that refer to these people as illegals??
seriously, I think you're only hearing part of my argument.
I have stated at least a dozen times that I am all for people coming here legally. I have never advocated a shoot them at the border mentality, nor have I said that we ought to round them up like cattle. I just don't think we can afford to have open borders at this point of time.
25 years ago, when Reagan gave them amnesty it made all the sense in the world. Our unemployment was low, prosperity was high, and we did need workers for the jobs they fulfilled. Times have changed. Our reported unemployment is 10%, which is currently artificially low due to census workers and the millions that have stopped looking for work. The 31 million additional people, will add a burden that we can not afford. Granting them amnesty does not give them jobs. It creates a minor tax increase...most will not earn enough to actually pay income taxes, some will, we already get any sales tax they might generate. It does open up a can of worms that is our entitlement programs. They're rioting in Greece to protest the cutbacks in welfare...it will get ugly here when those checks are cut back.
I have also spoken of the legal immigrants, that currently work for me (truth be told, they work for companies that I contract work out to), glad to have them. They went about this the correct way, as did most of our ancestors. The declining birth rate, and the positive effect that immigrants will have on that depends on these people gaining the skills that will enable them to secure good jobs. Do you agree that far too many of them are not taking the steps now to learn English and thus get a solid education that will help them obtain those jobs? I fear for their futures because too many of them are not taking the steps that other immigrants have. You've lived in Dallas, you've seen the neighborhoods where the Bud Light billboards are in Spanish...that has to change.
Is there a plus side to immigration? Sure, but there is a huge downside too. I guess the debate is over which is more important right now. The 80's are gone, and we no longer need millions of uneducated workers.
I haven't even once mentioned the drug trade (I find this to be something that the US is 50% responsible for as we don't seriously try to stop the flow of drugs into our country)...the battles once were deep in Mexico/Latin America. The war is now on our border. It's not an immigration issue, but it is still very troubling.
To answer your final question: It matters not what I would do in that case, it changes nothing. I do think that if I chose to cross the border, that I'd do everything I could to secure any sort of legal status, and regardless, I'd do everything I could to learn the language and try my best to acclimate into my new society.
To the people that want to immigrate to America the right way, and are willing to become part of our society rather than some isolated sect, I say welcome home. To those that come here illegally, and/or won't join us, I don't offer that same welcome.
To end on a light note, I haven't exactly heard Nash, or other Canadians offering to take a bunch home with them. But, that was my issue with Los Suns, which, if we're being politically correct should have been Los Sols, in the first place.
I'm good, I get your points...I agree with some, not with all...time will tell, maybe I'm being too paranoid, maybe you're being too naive. (conservative/liberal, restrictive/relaxed, whatever adjectives work for you are fine)
posted by dviking at 11:02 PM on May 11, 2010
Wait, now you're linking to sites that refer to these people as illegals?
It's in a direct quote from a conservative commentator.
They're rioting in Greece to protest the cutbacks in welfare...it will get ugly here when those checks are cut back.
We don't have welfare like that in the U.S. since Clinton's welfare reform. It required people to get work within two years and limited total aid to five years.
You've lived in Dallas, you've seen the neighborhoods where the Bud Light billboards are in Spanish...that has to change.
There's nothing wrong with Dallas becoming bilingual and some companies marketing to Spanish-speaking people. Kids will still learn English in school because they pick up language like sponges and it's the predominant language of entertainment, video games and daily life here.
The 80's are gone, and we no longer need millions of uneducated workers.
They wouldn't be here if American employers didn't need them enough to break laws to hire them.
posted by rcade at 07:49 AM on May 12, 2010
Odd that a player who is a citizen of a country that tests prosepctive citizens on their ability to speak English would complain about this law.
Don't want to be too political about this, but let him go back to Canada if he doesn't like the AZ law.