ACLU to Challenge AZ Immigration Law, Dems to Introduce Immigration Bill

At a press conference today, the ACLU and other civil rights groups will outline details of a legal challenge they will file to SB 1070, Arizona's immigration law:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center, which argue the law is unconstitutional, were expected to outline their legal strategy at the Arizona state capitol in Phoenix.

More here. Separately, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will hold a press conference at 5:45 p.m ET outlining the Democrat's immigration law overhaul, which Obama says will be tough to pass this year.

< Overnight Open Thread | Two Lawsuits Filed Against Arizona Immigration Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Patterns (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    A few days ago, there was a suggestion--first by columnist George Will & followed by a commenter on TL--that the once-again burgeoning immigration conflict was somehow unique in Arizona. Lots of discussion ensued. A similar pattern everywhere, it would seem. The BBC is telecasting the debate held with Cameron (Tory), Clegg (Liberal), and Brown (Labour.)Apparently, this is the third debate wherein audience members have raised questions about immigration. The three pointed fingers at each other with Tory Cameron moaning about the sheer numbers of immigrants, Labour Brown saying the government is following procedures & law, and Liberal Clegg emphasizing "the taxman." Around & around we go; and, people--whether ordinary citizens or scaremongering officeholders here or elsewhere wanting to be re-elected--say nasty, shrill things insofar as immigration is concerned. Predictable patterns?

    Predictable (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    A rock and a hard place for Pols. Undocumented workers can't vote, so they have no pull.  Pols can get votes by scaring potential voters about immigrants taking away jobs, and promising to keep them out. But Pols do have to pander to voters who either depend on immigrants as employees, or voters who have family or friends who want to immigrate to the US so that they can work here.

    A numbers game. The ones with the least voting power lose.


    Europe (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    has been pretty nasty about immigration for a long time now.  It's the whole "protection of culture" thing.

    Ironically, if Europe doesn't embrace immigration they're screwed.  Talk about a demographic time bomb.  They don't have neary enough young people who are natural citizens to work enough to cover the social packages promised to their older (increasingly so) citizens.  The only way to solve that problem at this point - immigration.


    Who will be doing the work in an aging populace? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    The conundrum Europe faces about the size of the workforce has been mentioned as an upcoming issue here by demographic economists, I recall. (Right now, with so many out of work, that part of the future tends to be on a shelf.) Former President Clinton spoke about the replacement problem the other day...directly asserting the regenerative effects of immigration.

    Do you understand that the (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe will men that the EU is an Islamic country by no later than 2050?

    The real question that someone needs to address is why the West has committed cultural suicide!


    OH MY GOD (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:02:54 PM EST



    Well, you might start praying that (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    they change their position regarding honor killings, female education, hanging gays and lesbians, stoning females accused of infidelity and a few other traits that are cultural norms in many Islamic countries.

    BS Meter off the wall (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by dead dancer on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    cultural norms in many Islamic countries

    Have to call BS on this PPJ

    Do Muslims in the US behave this way? Possibly a few? Kinda like all chrisitians in the US would love to hang them a gay? Possibly a few?

    Scare tactic indeed


    The subject was immigration (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:21:59 PM EST
    the example was Europe. But if you want to bring the US into the picture....

    Yes, we have examples of honor killings and genital mutilation..right here in River City.

    And no, not all Christians are perfect, but it isn't the Christians in the US and Europe that demographics say will take over the world.

    Scare tactics?

    Just the facts.

    And if your BS meter is off the wall when I write "in many Islamic countries" then I think your BS meter is sadly lacking in real world facts.


    Yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    Christians practice female genital mutilation as well, and as for killings under the banner of Christianity, that is legendary.

    Yeah we know all about the Crusades (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:29:25 PM EST
    and female genital mutilation is just such a main stream Christian thing.

    (sarcasm alert)

    How about joining us in the 21st century?


    The example was Europe in 2050 (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    Of course I expected attacks on Christians.

    And the real issue is this.

    Attacks on gays in the US and Europe is illegal.

    In Iran and some other Islamic countries it is legal.

    Do you see the difference?


    well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    in 2050 I will be 99 years old and assuming I am still around I dont expect Muslims to be my biggest problem.

    I'm not agreeing with Jim here, but (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:40:36 PM EST
    Captain that was a terrible response. So you're "Mr. Me" and don't care. Have no one in your life? No kids? Nieces nephews, friends who have children? You can do better.

    yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    I could thanks
    and if I was responding to a comment that deserved a serious response I would.

    To: jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:46:41 PM EST
    Let's see. You indicate that your concern for the EU is that it will be Muslim without addressing the contention of "cultural suicide." I'm guessing your concern about this country stems from some kind of contention about take-over by ??? and some kind of feared mixing.  It is hard to respond to that really. What do you want to talk about...your fears? I am treading a bit lightly here because I don't want to react from my gut (and scream.) Screaming hasn't solved any contentions that mirror xenophobia for hundreds of years. (Heck--helf of my background is grounded in the old Yugoslavia. A few Slovenian relatives still regard themselves as better than Croats and Serbs. We used to laugh about it...until the ethnic cleansing in Croatia in the 1990s that stemmed from Serbian fears.) Now, you are talking about your fears. Do you really think that anyone's attempts at controlling demographic movements do anything other than lead to a period of national hysteria?

    Nope (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:28:03 PM EST
    I just made a factual observation. Being 70 plus I have no personal fears, although I am concerned for the world my grand children will live in.

    The facts are simple. America has been good for the world.

    Sorry if that bothers you.


    No, I love America (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:14:54 PM EST
    And, jimakaPPJ, I say that proudly.I've seen a lot in terms of years as well. What I am so very proud of, in fact, is that the "melting pot" did so well...so many people from so many countries (and, btw, in the early Ellis Island days, the standard primarily allowed admittance if you were not a lunatic, did not carry a communicable disease such as hoof & mouth disease, and you had a place to go.) I'm so grateful to this country that the grandparents on both sides--who came here from Poland and Slovenia seeking work and a better life--were able to enter as immigrants.  They were just workers, peasants. Their sons & daughters spoke better English, raised families, served during WWII, worked extra hours or jobs to send their children to school. And, then my generation studied, worked, entered almost all the professions--lawyers, professors, doctors, steelworkers, scientists, service workers, all good honest workers. Oh yes, I'm very proud to be an American.

    The problem is that the melting pot (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:26:58 PM EST
    has quit melting. The new ideal is diversity which is a fancy way of saying one for one, not all for one and one for all.

    And I apologize for taking your comment the wrong way.


    Cultural Suicide? (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    Things change, Natural selection...

    Isn't that your reflexive apology for the Native American genocide?  


    I have never apologized for the (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:10:02 PM EST
    fact that we won. We had a better deal.

    And yes, when we run into a culture that is quicker faster smarter tougher and more aggressive we will be in trouble.

    Many think we are there now.


    LOL (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    So that is why you want to blow up all the Muslims. Just to show them who is smarter, faster, etc...

    And your race based mathematical calculations say what about your own racial identity's dwindling numbers?

    If you are a prime example of the race... well, the dodo is now extinct.. lol


    Hate much? (none / 0) (#37)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:34:49 PM EST
    Now That You Mention It (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    I haven't been involved in matchmaking for sometime, but it just occurred to me that you and ppj may be a perfect fit. Why not go over to his blog and join the party there.

    Come back and let us know how you two are getting on.


    Still trying to figure (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    out how his single payer HCR solution fits in with  this scourge of creeping "European socialism" he's so concerned about..

    One audience here and one audience at Tall Cotton?


    Catch up with what the conversation is about. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:32:12 PM EST
    Here's a hint. It wasn't about European socialism.

    I don't remember us flying airplanes into (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:34:17 PM EST
    office buildings...

    Now I know that you want to fall on your knees and apologize for the evil America, but some of us happen to think that we have been good...not perfect... but very good for the world.

    Now, go find someone else to snark. You weary me. Not for what you say or who you are but for your absolute and total ignorance about a vast number of subjects.


    No (none / 0) (#71)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:03:52 AM EST
    We just hire thugs like Saddam Hussein  to annihilate people we don't like. After folks like the Iranians get picky  about who WE selected(along with the Brits) to lead their country.

    I love my country as much as the next guy but the pretending we(Americans)are wonderful and the rest of the world(particularly the Muslim culture) is the problem is intellectually dishonest.


    Ah yes, the women's rights champions (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 08:06:09 AM EST
    are no problem.

    Women with suntans are violating Islamic law and will be arrested in Iran, the capital city's police chief was reported by The Daily Telegraph as saying Wednesday.

    In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins," he continued. "We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them


    Want some irony with your blogging?

    Iran has been named to a UN panel charged with advancing women's rights.

    BTW - I spec'd that we are not perfect. Just a heckuva a lot better than 90% of the rest of the world.


    Would that be the Native American genocide (none / 0) (#27)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    that happened for 10,000 years before Europeans came to theses shores. Opps, not supposed to mention that ALL people have fought over resources since the dawn of time... Anyway, those Native Americans were eliminated by the ones who remained and there's no recorded history, so we can pretend it didn't happen... Not saying genocide is OK, just acknowledging that struggle between people is innate and biologically ordained.

    BTW, in sheer numbers and time, the amount of violence between people of similar skin color through history far surpasses violence between races.


    oh! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:16:22 PM EST

    Not saying genocide is OK, just acknowledging that struggle between people is innate and biologically ordained.

    ok then



    No, sorry (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    to call warring tribes genocidal is to diminish the term.

    Much else is incorrect in your comment, but I'm tired.


    "Cultural suicide" (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:35:38 PM EST
    It's the domino theory all over again! Along with secularism, multiculturalism, European socialism and fluoridated drinking water..  

    When you don't produce enough children to (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    maintain the existing culture that is "cultural suicide."

    We already have at (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    least two "western cultures" here as it is: one of which wants science to follow what the Bible says, claims brain dead women are alive and was permanently traumatized by the Civil Rights act.

    And then there's the (at least one) other "culture" in this country..

    Your concern about "our culture", since it seems to assume that Islamic fundamentalism and hostility to western traditions is somehow innate and in the genes, reads more like a thinly veiled racially-based phobia laced with some of the  fearmongering narratives of the neocons and Israel first crowd; which is of course, par for the course.


    This is an example of what I mean (none / 0) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:08:06 AM EST
    by false claims of racism at TL. Here we have someone posting their opinion about a religion-based culture that is completely out of alignment with our country's laws and values, yet the kneejerk response is to call it racist.

    Your concern about "our culture", since it seems to assume that Islamic fundamentalism and hostility to western traditions is somehow innate and in the genes, reads more like a thinly veiled racially-based phobia...

    How could Islamic fundamentalism be innate or genetic? It's taught. People who follow that faith range from white to brown to black. People who disagree with that faith and its tenets and trainings also come in all skin shades. So why is criticism of those "values" racially-based phobia? Aside from the nonsensical white washing of American cultures, the poster didn't say anything racist.

    Perhaps many on the left are too steeped in white guilt to recognize the difference between culture and race/ethnicity. At some point we have to be able to analyze and criticize other cultures, especially those that advocate violence. Recognizing danger and stating it publically does not make one a neocon. More importantly, when liberals attack each other with false claims of bigotry, they not only hinder the path to solutions, they belittle and minimize REAL racism.


    I see who you are now (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    Please hold the whining to a minimum in the future.

    I see who you are now? (none / 0) (#79)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    What, like big brother watching me? Is this a blog that squashes dissent?

    My comments aren't whining. False claims of racism reduce our ability to stop REAL racism. It's a shame you don't recognize that.


    Accurate claims of racism (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    on the other hand . . .

    Stop the whining. Now.


    Racist comments on a blog (none / 0) (#81)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    should be deleted. My comment points out false claims of racism which are used to shut down discussion and dissention on this blog. That's not whining. It's supporting racism free communication.

    If you don't like my opinions, why not argue against them instead of claiming they're whining.


    "White guilt" (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    I was responding to the commentators rather OBVIOUS conflation of all muslims with the fundamentalist, "enemy of the west" variety, AND the (again) OBVIOUS suggestion that there's something innate, some instinctually antagonistic quality, which cant be modified over time, or by cultural influence -- which would suggest some racial, genetic component to the behavior of muslims, that I dont believe exists.

    Yup, given that both the Islamic (none / 0) (#85)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 27, 2010 at 07:57:09 PM EST
    and Christian religions include components that encourage people to dominate and kill others, I'd say they're both simply reflections of humanity's innate goodness as well as evil.

    Immigration problems are widespread (none / 0) (#5)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    and will likely only get worse, given the earth's unsustainable population growth. That's why I've been posting support for clarifying or modifying the 14th Amendment to limit birthright citizenship to children of legal immigrants and citizens. Most countries ban birthright citizenship because the huge burden on tax-based resources. We are the largest of only 33 other countries that grant automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors.

    Refining our birthright citizenship policy would actually enhance our country's diversity by allowing immigration policy to work as intended: selecting potential immigrants based on their individual strengths and origins, instead of their parent's subversive actions. Moreover, positive change would minimize a hot button issue the GOP uses to motivate their base.


    BS (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    This has been a hot topic for well over 100 years in the US. Particularly Mexicans... Marijuana is illegal because of the immigrant wars in the early 1900's. The propaganda pumped out by Politicians was that they were going to bring drugs to the US and make everyone crazy.

    Now it is drugs and guns, same old tactics. No wonder why they do not make drugs legal, Politicians and people like you get so much milage with the fearmongering that surrounds the drug trade.


    News sources must be just making up (none / 0) (#11)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    all this stuff about weapons smuggling, human trafficking and Mexican drug cartel violence in border states.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    And particularly what they are making up is that every hispanic in the US is likely a drug or weapon dealer.

    Ever think about the percentage of all people who look hispanic, who actually are drug or weapons dealers?

    Or to make it easier for you, ever think about the percentage of Mexican immigrants, their children, grand children, and great grandchildren, as well as visitors from Mexico, who are drug or weapons dealers?

    Bet not. But why not wholesale profile the lot so that you can feel safer?


    You're the one who makes stuff up (none / 0) (#22)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    "every hispanic in the US is likely a drug or weapon dealer"

    What nonsense!


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:11:03 PM EST
    Well how do you tell the difference? They all look the same, no?

    The Arizona idea, is to ask anyone who looks illegal, aka Hispanic heritage, for their papers. It is a law that is meant to stigmatizes a large swath of AMericans. Don't you understand that many in the US are bigoted and specifically hate Mexicans, or Hispanics in general. Racism is at the heart of the new law, so it should be no surprise that it is the root of this discussion.


    The problem is that if someone (none / 0) (#35)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    tries to put for serious proposals on the problem of illegal immigration, they are called a racist bigot at this site. If Democrats can't say they're against amnesty for illegal aliens without being attacked and kicked out of the Party, then the only ideas left are the ones that support whatever corporatist policies Obama comes up with. And he will on the immigration problem: Spend more money on federal programs, buy more equipment for the government, make middle class taxpayers pay more for people who have not ever paid into the system themselves, etc. In the end, Obama's policies create a backlash that hurts our Party and our progressive agenda. Squashing dialogue and dissent here and elsewhere will simply lead to another Massachusetts-like win by the right.

    MLM (none / 0) (#41)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:54:10 PM EST
    I don't agree with you. I actually am for amnesty and do think children matter and should not be pawns. Yes, the parents seem to use them (which is a point of yours), but it is for what they think will be a better life for their children. I don't believe a government should punish the children. These kids are (US) american - are "assimilated". I know a couple. They are like my kid and relatives and have grown up with them and have as human a right to be here as they. And I believe they have the right to apply and be awarded grants and scholarships to colleges - just like my relatives.

    That said, I recognize it is an issue and a problem. And I have to say that I admire your willingness to come to TL and attempt to debate. You've been collected and not reactionary when baited and intentionally misunderstood and called terrible names. I agree that the bill will aggravate what you call the "culture wars" in that it just inflames people into taking views that are merely a reaction to the "other side". It basically just pisses people off. Will that force the Federal government to action? Doubtful.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#49)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:51:05 PM EST
    For what it's worth, I care about children as well, which is why I have such strong opinions on how to make our country better. I just don't think it's good policy to prioritize children of people who break the law over other children whose parents didn't or can't get over the border. Hence my work with The Hunger Project that was belittled by a TL poster and called a cover for racism or bigotry.

    Sadly, Dems eat their own.


    Nice Twist (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    You post some crap about what a humanist you are, a total non-sequitur to the topic, in order to back up your support for the AZ law.

    And you accuse me of belittling your work on the Hunger Project?

    That is dishonest, as I said nothing about your work on the Hunger Project. But I am sure that for you, if there is no weeping and sanctimonious clapping after you tell us what a humanist you are, but silence, that is belittling in your mind.

    this is my belittling response to your self aggrandizing claim of working on the Hunger Project:

    OK (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    This AZ law will create more racial tension.
    A certainty
    It will likely result in profiling.


    But something needs to be done about the problems border states have as a direct result of illegal immigration
    OK, fine. But to defend unconstitutional fascist law is no answer to the problem.

    Now that is your idea of belittling.... hilarious.



    To be clear (none / 0) (#83)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:17:15 PM EST
    1. My work for The Hunger Project is not crap.
    2. I don't need sanctimonious clapping from you or anyone else.
    3. I don't support the law. I said the feds are ignoring a serious problem so states are taking action. Duh.

    There's a big difference between being against Mexican immigrants and being against illegal immigration. Mexican immigration is good for our country and good for the immigrants. Illegal immigration, especially allowing it to continue unchecked, is bad for our country. It allows the rich to take advantage of a suppressed underclass, and results in numerous other problems from crime to draining of public resources.

    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:08:51 PM EST
    The problem is that your arguments are not in the least bit compelling, and make little sense, to many here.  

    That may be true to many here, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    but that is certainly no measure of their validity...

    Validity? (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:32:43 PM EST
    Well let's look at the premise here.

    There is a lot of violence, and drugs, in Arizona that can be attributed to Mexican undocumented workers.

    Therefore we should ask everyone who looks like one of the drug dealers, for their papers, and if they do not have papers they will be arrested.

    Since all the drug and weapon dealers are Mexican, all people who look Mexican are suspects.

    And furthermore, in order to stop having people who do bad things to America, and to US citizens, their children who are born here should not be given automatic citizenship as dictated by the 14th amendment.

    I do not think that the premise is valid.

    If the premise is this:

    There are many people in Arizona who do not like Mexicans, for various reasons and those people believe that their population needs to be culled before they become a majority in the State.

    Those people are unhappy and their concerns should be addressed. The new law addresses their concerns.

    Well that is a valid premise, as disgusting as it is.


    You're making stuff up again (none / 0) (#50)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    Don't reduce my argument to your baseless racist statements.

    OK (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 07:16:06 PM EST
    We will use your baseless racist statements instead:

    So you don't think the drug related crime is a problem in Arizona? You don't agree that the crime there is exacerbated by gun dealers who happen to be Mexican citizens? Hmm.....


    The taxpayers want to be able to go to the grocery store without getting mugged. They want their kids to go to school without drug related violence. Most people don't support racial profiling, they just want a solution to the problems in their communities.
    You guys act like this is all about picking on Hispanics. It's not. It's about a severe crime problem that happens to have been caused (in this case) by an influx of Mexican drug and gun dealers.

    This AZ law is problematic, but the federal government is not properly dealing with the problem caused by a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.



    My link goes to MKS (none / 0) (#82)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    who was also criticizing me:
     "(your work with The Hunger Project) was irrelevant here until you brought it up as cover for expressing some really ethnically charged concepts....You use your charity work as a defense to a claim you have expressed racist views."

    Perhaps you should study what racism is. When someone says they are fine with Hispanic/Mexican immigration, but they are not OK with illegal immigration, that is not racism.

    Recognizing that specific violent crimes in border states are associated with Mexican drug and gun smugglers is not racist. It's a simple fact. We could pretend that the Mexican smugglers are really not from Mexico, would that be more PC?

    And you also think this is racist?  

     "The taxpayers want to be able to go to the grocery store without getting mugged. They want their kids to go to school without drug related violence. Most people don't support racial profiling, they just want a solution to the problems in their communities."

    Not unless you assume that Hispanics are criminals, which of course they're not. Not any more than any other race/ethnicity. Perhaps you should think about your own assumptions.

    To: MyLeftMind (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    Please consider: The Fourteenth Amendment position you urge involves more than clarification or refinement. The language of the Amendment is quite clear--and, any clarification would require a new Amendment. If you think that the present situation is difficult, imagine what even the suggestion of tossing the language of the Amendment would cause? And--for argument's sake--think about the traps/pitfalls of any subjective language about "selecting...based on their individual strengths and origins." The regulatory standard for "individual strengths" would be difficult to agree upon and even more difficult to enforce.

    Actually (none / 0) (#10)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    I should have said that we should continue to utilize the currently accepted immigration methods (country of origin, criminal status, etc), but simply modify the birthright citizenship to exclude children of illegal aliens.

    There's no question that changing the 14th Amendment would be a huge undertaking. But the end result would be good for our country.


    Isolationism never works (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    There's no question that changing the 14th Amendment would be a huge undertaking. But the end result would be good for our country.

    I don't see how going back to 19th century isolationism helps this country with 21st century problems.  Closing the borders -- whether through walls or legislative enactments -- simply seeks to create a U.S. island in an ever more integrated world.  Such measures won't protect our national wealth or our national security as modern threats originate and operate mostly outside our borders.  China doesn't have to send a single chinese person or product to the U.S. to reduce us to third-world status.

    Rather than look backward to old "solutions" (that never really worked anyway), it's time to look forward and seek solutions that recognize that even impermeable borders are meaningless "protection" in this day and age.


    Not isolationism (none / 0) (#36)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    Did you even read my post? Immigration = good, illegal immigration = bad.

    Are you proposing open borders? If so, that's a whole `nuther subject. If we're going to have immigration limits, they shouldn't be bypassed by traveling here to have a baby.


    Nice (none / 0) (#70)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    Attack and then attack again while trying to force me to defend what you clearly regard as a ridiculous position that, regardless of what I might think of it, I didn't take.

    What's that about being unable to seriously discuss this issue because of name calling?

    Pot, meet kettle.


    most countries (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CST on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:46:58 PM EST
    also do not have freedom of speech (even western ones).

    Of course that, along with birthright citizenship, is one of the things that I think make us better, not worse, than those places.

    "Most countries" do not have the same fundamental relationship to immigration as we do.  It's the fabric of what makes this country what it is.  And from my personal perspective, it's what makes us great.

    The intention of immigration policy has never been about the potential strengths of immigrants.  Don't believe me?  Read the statue of liberty.  Pretty sure it doesn't say "give us your skilled, educated and wealthy".


    Our immigrant heritage is (none / 0) (#15)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    one of the principal strengths of our nation. The multicultural mix from hundreds of years of immigration has resulted in a healthy, diverse population. We don't lose that diversity by selectively limiting immigration, we enhance it.

    The 14th Amendment was designed to clarify that children of freed slaves were citizens. It was not designed to entice foreigners to have a child on American soil to bypass normal immigration law. The writers of the 14th Amendment could not possibly have foreseen a global environment where a quick flight from Asia to California ("maternity tourism") or a hike from border countries to the US to have a baby on US soil would entitle that child to benefits their foreign parents have never paid for. The birthright citizenship policy is easily abused, and creates conflict in states where taxpayers can be forced to pay for the foreign mother's medical costs for the birth, and the child's complete upbringing for 18 years with Medicaid, Section 8 housing, Social Security, foster care and even free college. (In some states, the foster care money is paid to the grandparents of this "instant citizen.") This isn't an issue of racism, it's an economic issue. Some estimates put the number of "anchor babies" born here in 2008 at 400,000! Surely the designers of the 14th Amendment didn't envision a problem of that scale.

    Birthright citizenship is still a good idea even in this day and age, but limiting it to children of citizens and legal immigrants would eliminate the "anchor baby" dynamic, and would limit the GOP's use of this issue to enrage their base. Aside from issues of racism, the idea that someone can break the law to come here to have a baby, and the public is stuck raising their kid, or even that their kid can access benefits even if raised back in their parents' country of origin (eg: , college admission priority and funding).

    Refining the birthright citizenship policy would enhance our country's diversity by allowing immigration policy to work as intended: selecting potential immigrants based on their individual strengths and origins, instead of their parent's subversive actions. More importantly, it minimizes a hot button issue the GOP uses to motivate their base. (repost)


    Uh, the statue of liberty was given to (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:03:03 PM EST
    us by France and the quotation has zilch to do with immigration law.

    An influx of unskilled workers was fine when we had an expanding industrial base that needed unskilled workers and lots of land to absorb farmers.

    Now we do not need millions of unskilled workers for our industrial base nor do we have unsettled land.

    A secondary fact of importance is that the previous waves of immigrants were separated  by distance and it was difficult to keep the ties to the old country. Plus, the culture was driven by "be American," not "Diversity is Good."

    Today we have native language radio and TV, many newspapers, low cost telecommunication and rapid/low cost travel.

    Assimilation is impeded.

    Millions of Americans find that not good. You may disagree but that doesn't make them evil or bad nor does it make you good.


    The earth's unsustainable population growth (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:53:48 PM EST
    Is the earth's - which means it will eventually have an effect upon everyone living on this planet.  

    Refining our birthright citizenship policy would actually...
    ...keep the world's population pressure away from us for a while, and future generations can deal with the world we ignored...when it is desperate for the resources we have.  It's just a much bigger, more-extreme version of what is happening between Mexico and the US now.  Eventually, the pressure will pierce whatever border we can create.

    My preference is for more-reasonable immigration rules/quotas - the typical wait for a Mexican hovers around 10 years now, when a similarly-situated European waits about 2 years.  Plus Foreign Policy that doesn't amount to economic colonialism that gives poor nations a blast of growth that ends shortly after sucking their resources out.

    I wish I could find the link to a legal brief by the US Dept. of Justice which makes a very good case that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause only clarifies a right that already existed under common law, and that repeal of the 14th Amendment would not, by itself, eliminate jus soli in the US.

    If the 14th Amendment is repealed, does the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision stand?


    You hit upon why I have a problem with (none / 0) (#72)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:11:03 AM EST
    immigration crackdowns. The immigration policy we have in place is heavily slanted and convoluted. I have several folks who I know who have immigrated here legally that have shared with me howcomplicated and expensive it is for them to become American citizens.

    Digby (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:42:11 PM EST

    John Cole makes an interesting observation:

    For some perspective on how f*cking crazy Republicans have come, ten years ago this month, Republicans were pitching an absolute fit about allowing Elian Gonzalez to go back to Cuba, demanding he be made an American citizen because... his mother almost walked across the border. Ten years later, they want to kick out Hispanic citizens because... their mothers walked across the border.

    Well, that was different, of course. First of all God had sent dolphins to make him a Young Republican. And just as important, he came from a terrible communist country where people aren't free to pursue their dreams which is completely different than coming from a country where everyone is free to starve.


    Well, it is important (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:17:30 PM EST
    for Harry Reid.  After all if he isn't re-elected he won't be in the Senate anymore.

    Ya gotta feel for the guy.

    if you mean (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    the gov.  I was told she was not elected but appointed or something when Janet left to join the administration.

    I said the same thing.


    Harry Reid is from NEVADA (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    not Arizona; Jim Gibbons is the governor of Nevada.

    Reid's likely opponent for the Senate is Jan Lowden, who made the silly comments about bartering for medical care with chickens.

    Jan Brewer became the governor of Arizona when Janet Napolitano became the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.


    what (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:38:38 AM EST
    would we do with out YOU

    all those dry heat states look alike to me.


    Get your "Do I Look `Illegal'" Tshirt (none / 0) (#13)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    The economy of border states like Arizona, (none / 0) (#46)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    New Mexico, large parts of Texas, are, and have been forever, dependent on the very, very cheap labor undocumented workers provide. Without that cheap labor, it seems to me, many Southwesterners would have to live quite a bit less large than they are use to.

    It's been more than 30 years since I've lived in the Southwest -- what has changed to make people now so willing to forego the advantages offered by, and the lifestyle they've enjoyed because of, cheap, illegal labor?

    politics (none / 0) (#62)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:40:15 PM EST
    Unemployment is 10%, and underemployment 16%.  It is higher among citizen hispanics and blacks who vote.  Are they really going to be angry at laws that keep out more cheap undocumented aliens who are undercutting them/taking away jobs?  
    My brother lives in Northern Virginia and he said that the recession isn't too bad there but that it is noticeable that much higher percentage of convenience store employees are white than was true a couple of years ago.

    Legal opinion please (none / 0) (#64)
    by abdiel on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:19:19 PM EST
    is this a slam-dunk case of codifying racial profiling?

    If so, I think all the talk about immigration policy is a red herring. It feels like the argument against Arizona's right to enforce its borders and stop providing a de facto reward to illegal immigrants is a much tougher sell.

    Has the democrats' plan been released? (none / 0) (#65)
    by EL seattle on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:38:11 PM EST
    I didn't see a link to the "leaked" material on the CNN site (but I could have missed it).  Maybe the whole official plan/proposal has been posted somewhere by now?