[Vision2020] Racism Enshrined in Arizona Law

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 25 19:34:08 PDT 2010


Just for the record, I think that the Arizona law is at best an excuse 
for racial profiling that is already happening and at worst a step down 
the road to total fascism.

That having been said, I am interested in discussions about how to 
improve immigration laws.

Paul

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




More information about the Vision2020 mailing list