[Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law

[Wayne Price]

Let me start today, by admitting up front, my heart goes out to the  
folks that abandon everything in the home nations and set out to get  
to the US by any means they find available.
They are mostly poorer than snot in their own countries, countries  
which I should point out that are not the most enlightened in the  
world and certainly not the most prosperous,  or they
wouldn't be leaving there in the first place.

Having said that, I will ask a question that I am seriously bothered  
by and hope to get an answer to.  How do the federal and state  
immigration laws get enforced without being racist?
By far, the largest number of illegal immigrants ARE in fact  
hispanics, coming from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Philippines,  
and  Honduras.
Should the laws just be ignored and not enforced? Should we just open  
up the borders to anyone that wants to come into the United States?  
And what does that tell those folks from those countries
the have jumped through the legal immigration hoops to get here legally?








On Apr 25, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Saundra Lund wrote:

> In part, Keely wrote:
> “I'm really disappointed in the tone of much of the discussion  
> here.  While it is true that I have much more liberal views on  
> immigration, and particularly illegal immigration, than most of you,  
> the point of my initial post is that the Arizona bill signed into  
> law by Gov. Brewer is a civil-rights, human dignity horror . . .  
> Finally, I'd ask each one of you who think we need to get tough on  
> "illegals" how hungry your kids would have to get, or how threatened  
> your wife would have to be, before you'd do something like cross a  
> border without papers to feed or protect them.  Then I'd ask you to  
> consider that you probably won't ever have to face that situation,  
> and perhaps extend some understanding to those who have.”
>
> Of course, there are a lot of other valid points in Keely’s posts on  
> this topic, but I parts I’ve excerpted are particularly powerful to  
> me.
>
> Keely, I’ve been trying to come up with a response to AZ’s lunacy  
> and blatant disrespect for our Constitution, but I’ve been  
> absolutely, totally, and completely gobsmacked by it.
>
> About the only comments I can make are that there’s a foul wind  
> blowing in this country, and it’s been blowing for quite awhile  
> now.  It chills me to the bone and it terrifies me to my core.   
> We’ve seen/heard/read – even here – justifications and excuses for  
> the racism that’s dramatically increased and become more “socially  
> acceptable” since 9/11.
>
> While I understand that illegal immigration is a valid issue, I  
> don’t think legally institutionalizing racism is the way any just or  
> intelligent government would deal with it.  Of course, anti- 
> intellectualism is running rampant among those in this country who  
> have reason to fear the effects of all the red meat they’ve been  
> throwing out for years now.
>
> We see this in the gutting of education, which is an attempt  to  
> dumb us down to their moronic levels . . . to keep us fat, stupid,  
> and quiet.
>
> We also see this in the teabaggers at Friendship Square and  
> elsewhere who hold up signs proclaiming that “Millions of Americans  
> doesn’t equal a fringe movement” or some other stupid platitude when  
> the reality is they’ve been quite content for the millions of  
> Americans without health care to escape consideration, or millions  
> of American women to be discriminated against, or for millions of  
> LGBT Americans to be denied equal protection, or for millions of  
> real American children to be beaten or started or raped or  
> neglected . . . or for millions of Americans of color to become the  
> targets of legal racism.
>
> My only hope is that perhaps this will be the bridge too far . . .  
> that this will be what wakes up real Americans who genuinely love  
> this country and what it was truly founded on who have been silent  
> in complacency and refused to see the unconstitutional direction the  
> wingnuts are hell-bent & determined to force upon us.
>
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people  
> to do nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2010 through  
> life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or  
> reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written  
> permission of the author.*****
>
>
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com 
> ] On Behalf Of keely emerinemix
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:52 PM
> To: Chris Price; godshatter at yahoo.com
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
>
> I'm really disappointed in the tone of much of the discussion here.   
> While it is true that I have much more liberal views on immigration,  
> and particularly illegal immigration, than most of you, the point of  
> my initial post is that the Arizona bill signed into law by Gov.  
> Brewer is a civil-rights, human dignity horror.
>
> I think that's the thing we all ought to agree on.  Regardless of  
> what people would propose to solve the issues presented by illegal  
> immigration, I'd like to believe that every one of us would  
> recognize bad law when we see it, and would condemn it as such  
> immediately.  After all, if there were a bill that required that all  
> gay people be rounded up and deported -- that is, all people  
> presumed to be gay by whatever criteria the cops are told to  
> consider "probable cause" -- I think it would be wrong to respond by  
> discussing, say, domestic partnerships or other issues involving the  
> GLBT community.  We would, I hope, vehemently condemn a despicable  
> law, regardless of our views on other issues involving the targets  
> of it.  Let's discuss the issue of undocumented border crossers, but  
> let's remember that the topic immediately at hand is a markedly un- 
> American (and un-Christian) bill that ought to provoke our fiercest  
> response.  This isn't one of many reasonable solutions to  
> immigration problems.  Let's not discuss it as though it were.
>
> Before we discuss the "problem" of illegal immigration, shouldn't we  
> take a huge step back and look clearly at what this law does?  Does  
> it concern any of you that under the guise of addressing a  
> legitimate issue, the State has determined that physical,  
> linguistic, cultural and other ethnically-based criteria can be used  
> to make people produce certain documents, regardless of whether or  
> not the subject has done anything to attract the attention of law  
> enforcement?  Can you reasonably suggest that there is somehow a non- 
> racial/ethnic aspect to this law?  Is this really what you want law  
> enforcement to occupy itself with?
>
> And does it bother you at all that if you're an Anglo person in the  
> U.S., you're not going to be asked to produce your I.D. and birth  
> certificate or other residency/naturalization/citizenship papers  
> just because a cop tells you to, using immigration as the reason for  
> his/her demand?  Are you at all concerned that my sister-in-law's  
> family, or my dear friend Hilda, could be forced to produce  
> documentation that shows their legal residency, just because their  
> skin color, last names, or accents appear "Mexican" -- even though  
> they're American citizens?  This is a hateful and unconstitutional  
> law that every single American -- and particularly our libertarian  
> freedom advocates -- ought to greet with horror, and if it continues  
> unchallenged, we won't be able to blame "illegals" for sullying the  
> values and laws of the land.  We'll have Arizona's and other state  
> legislatures to thank for that instead.
>
> And to promote reasonable measures to address the issue, I'd suggest  
> the following -- but only after making it clear that unreasonable,  
> unjust, and un-Constitutional approaches don't merit discussion as  
> if they were somehow something good people can disagree on.
>
> 1.  Grant immediate amnesty to any immigrant employed here for more  
> than three consecutive years, and include their working or non- 
> working spouses and their children, foreign-born or American-born.   
> This ought to be a priority for the "family values" set.
>
> 2.  Tax them as we do all other workers, after they pay a fine --  
> say, $1,000 per family for every year in the country without  
> papers.  The fiscal conservatives ought to love this.
>
> 3.  Make it more easy for immigrants to enter the country legally.   
> It's currently damned near impossible, even for highly skilled  
> workers, and agricultural industries need a steady number of low- 
> skilled people to harvest crops, regardless of how they get here.   
> (Notice that even the most conservative farmers, dairy owners, and  
> other ag-industry owners aren't on the anti-immigrant bandwagon?)   
> This should please those conservatives and all others like them who  
> eat, as well as those who think that people risk their lives to  
> cross over because, dang, it's kind of a hassle to go through legal  
> channels.
>
> 4.  Once those immigrants are granted amnesty -- permanent resident- 
> alien status, with a tax break, perhaps, upon earning citizenship --  
> the borders should be patrolled humanely, constitutionally, and  
> legally, and stiff penalties for crossing illegally should then be  
> enacted.  This should satisfy the law-and-order crowd, although I'd  
> remind them and anyone else who clamors for the prosecution of  
> employers who hire undocumented workers that the Federal I-9  
> employment form MUST, by law, be accepted by an employer IF it looks  
> genuine.  I've been through U.S. Immigration and Naturalization  
> Service training on I-9s twice, and I know I could be fooled.   
> Employers don't have the luxury, thank God, of examining an I-9 that  
> looks fine and then declining to hire the presenter anyway because  
> statistics say it's PROBABLY not genuine anyway.   That's illegal,  
> too.  If an I-9 looks real, it has to be accepted.  Period.
>
> Finally, I'd ask each one of you who think we need to get tough on  
> "illegals" how hungry your kids would have to get, or how threatened  
> your wife would have to be, before you'd do something like cross a  
> border without papers to feed or protect them.  Then I'd ask you to  
> consider that you probably won't ever have to face that situation,  
> and perhaps extend some understanding to those who have.
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
> From: bear at moscow.com
> To: godshatter at yahoo.com
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:10:15 -0700
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
>
> Paul,
>
> I agree that this is an issue that there are no simple answers to.  
> When you said "what we are now doing which is  holding illegal  
> immigration to be a status that should be demonized", shouldn't it be?
> I am NOT talking about those in this country legally, but those in  
> the country illegally.  Those folks that have jumped through the  
> hoops have paid their dues so to speak and should
> be welcomed and should be held up as great examples. Those however  
> that have entered illegally, have in fact committed a federal crime  
> and should be prosecuted, deported and barred
> from re-entry.
>
> Now, one of the areas that does impact us locally is with the  
> certification that has to be submitted by employers to the  
> Department of  Labor to bring in foreign workers.
>
> The employer has to certify:
>
> ·         There are insufficient available, qualified, and willing  
> U.S. workers to fill the position being offered at the prevailing wage
>
> ·         Hiring a foreign worker will not adversely affect the  
> wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers
>
>
> Just think about this when it involves the University and bringing  
> in employees from outside the US. The University is saying, "There  
> are insufficient available, qualified, and willing U.S. workers to  
> fill the position being offered at the prevailing wage". Well, what  
> is that based on?  Notice there is NO mention of "best qualified",  
> just "qualified".  For instance, a position becomes available at the  
> University. Several people including US citizens, put in for the  
> position and a foreign national is given there job. Now, when the  
> University certifies to the federal government that "There are  
> insufficient available, qualified, and willing U.S. workers to fill  
> the position being offered at the prevailing wage" is it true?  And  
> is it even looked into or is the certification taken on face value  
> and no subsequent investigation as to the truth or falsehood of the  
> statement by the employer is made? And there is a pro-forma process  
> where the notification  is "posted" for two weeks outside an obscure  
> office door where the other applicants  are unlikely to ever see it  
> and be able to contest the hiring decision. And a better question  
> would be who makes the determination at the employer level that   
> "There are insufficient available, qualified, and willing U.S.  
> workers to fill the position being offered at the prevailing wage?"   
> Some clerk? The University President? Who is held responsible IF a  
> determination is made that the statement is false? What is the  
> consequence?  Currently, it doesn't appear to be any at all, so why  
> would the "system" ever change?
>
> This is just an example of large gaps in the current immigration  
> system that should be plugged. It is also one of the reasons why  
> laws like the one Arizona are passed and why there is such a strong  
> backlash against illegal immigrants. When qualified US citizens are  
> passed over for US taxpayer funded jobs to bring in a foreign  
> national, there is bound to be a backlash. And the depressed  
> economic situation adds to that backlash and frustration.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps we should convict the employers even if they didn't know  
> that they hired an illegal alien.  It might make them care about due  
> diligence when hiring someone a little bit more.  I imagine that  
> most of these people aren't being paid at executive levels, they are  
> probably being paid at much less than minimum wage.  That alone  
> should be a sign that they don't have a legal status.  I don't think  
> it's a case of employers being duped by devious immigrants, they are  
> in this with their eyes wide open.
>
> Paul
>
> lfalen wrote:
> This sounds good on the face of it. The problem is in how do you  
> known if they are an illegal alien? Will people have to produce some  
> sort of proof that they are a legal resident? These documents can   
> and are  forged. I have no problem with convecting employers if it  
> can be proven that they knowingly hired illegals. This may be hard  
> to prove.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Mike Deleve" coolerfixer at roadrunner.com
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:50:03 -0700
> To: "Wayne Price" bear at moscow.com,  "keely emerinemix"  
> kjajmix1 at msn.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
>
>
> It's incredibly easy. $100,000 mandatory fine with 1 year MANDATORY  
> time in FEDERAL PRISON for anyone employing an illegal alien.  
> Employers are taking advantage of the border jumpers, but the  
> employment is why they come.
>  ----- Original Message -----   From: Wayne Price   To: keely  
> emerinemix   Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com   Sent: Friday, April 23,  
> 2010 5:30 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law
>
>
>  Keely,
>
>
>  While I agree that this has opened a whole can of worms as far as  
> profiling, DWM, etc, etc,  What can or should be done about ILLEGAL  
> immigrants?
>
>
>  There is a process, for better or worse that allows folks that are  
> not US citizens access to the US and to jobs in the US. From what I  
> understand, the AZ law isn't going after
>  those folks at all. It is focused on the illegal immigrants.
>
>
>  Solutions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:26 PM, keely emerinemix wrote:
>
>
>    Arizona Governor Signs a Controversial Immigration Bill
>    >     > Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a bill that would require
>    > the police to ask people about their immigration status if
>    > officers have any reason to suspect that they are in the
>    > country illegally.  (NY Times, April 23, 2010)
>
>
>    This is shameful.
>
>    "Any reason to suspect" that someone is in the country illegally  
> means simply that "anyone who looks Mexican" could have their race,  
> language, ethnicity, customs become probable cause for questioning.   
> The idea of "driving while Mexican" used to be a wry, sick joke.   
> Now, it's a cornerstone for "law and order," and it reeks.
>
>    I hope our local "Libertarians" and freedom lovers join me in  
> condemning this bill with all vehemence.  Because if not, the  
> silence from their keyboards, fieldhouses, and offices would be  
> deafening, given the incessant braying recently about the State's  
> denial of rights, pronounced threats to liberty, and an alarming  
> erosion of Constitutional and family values.
>
>    Keely
>    www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>    Keely
>    www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from  
> your inbox. Get  
> started.=======================================================
>    List services made available by First Step Internet,     serving  
> the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                     http://www.fsr.net 
>                                     mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>    =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  =======================================================
>   List services made available by First Step Internet,    serving  
> the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                    http://www.fsr.net 
>                                    mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>  =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the  
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                  http://www.fsr.net 
>                                  mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts  
> with Hotmail. Get busy.
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100425/46d82a76/attachment-0001.html