Like with every other major issue in the United States, there are pros and cons to the new Arizona immigration law. On the pros side, almost everyone (including me) agrees that something needs to be done about the out-of-control USA/Mexico border situation. Also on the pros side, Americans need only look at what is happening right now in Mexico where drug gangs are killing citizens and police alike in a bid to control delivery of illegal drugs to this country. No America citizen wants that violence to spread into this country. However, I do not feel that this law is the answer.
On the cons side of the new Arizona immigration law is the very foundation of what has made the United States of America great for more than 200 years. Those rights include American citizens not being hassled or detained by police based on either racial profiling or some other heavy handed government notion. Most white Americans do not worry about this problem, because they will be assumed American citizens based on the color of their skin. However, Americans of Mexican decent can and do worry about this new Arizona immigration law and that makes it a big con for them.
A central principle to supporters is the enforcement of sovereign law. They argue that illegal immigrants are criminals, having broken US immigration laws, so they should be found, jailed, and deported. As Stan Sudero wrote in the Oakland Tribune, "The issue is not ethnic origin, it is criminal trespass. […] The illegal immigrant has chosen to violate our country's laws simply to exploit our free and generous society. […] Mexico would never tolerate such behavior from a foreign national in its own territory." To proponents of Arizona’s law, the matter is simple. It’s a question of whether politicians have the will to enforce US law.
The story, however, is more complicated than that. Many ask, how does the nation or Arizona arrest, imprison, and/or deport over 12 million - or in the case of Arizona 460,000 – illegal immigrants? New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg says, "The idea of deporting these 11 or 12 million people – about as many as live in the entire state of Pennsylvania – is pure fantasy. Even if we wanted to, it would be physically impossible to carry out. If we attempted it – and it would be perhaps the largest round-up and deportation in world history – the social and economic consequences would be devastating." For those that accept this conclusion, Arizona’s fight is unwinnable, and the only remaining options are harm reduction, integration, and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Opponents of the law level a number of moral arguments on this front. They ask, what kind of society are we trying to create? One rooted in exclusion, punishment, and fear, or inclusion, forgiveness, and civic cohesion? Michael Gerson puts it this way in an April 28th Washington Post op-ed: "This law creates a suspect class, based in part on ethnicity, considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny -- but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command 'Your papers, please,' however politely delivered." President Obama seems to agree, arguing, "now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed." This kind of an environment, to those fighting Arizona’s law, is inconsistent with American ideals of dignity and privacy, and creates an intolerable cloud of suspicion between neighbors, co-workers, police officers, and government officials.
The reality is, that illegal aliens are mostly of Hispanic decent (creating an incentive to rely on racial profiling) and that there is some record of police officers displaying racism and/or anti-illegal immigrant sentiments. Officers very well may feel that the ends (deporting illegal immigrants) justify the means (using shaky pretexts to stop Hispanics and ask for their documentation). And, there is no denying that racial profiling of African Americans occurs in many communities across the United States. Why should we deny concerns of it occurring under Arizona’s new law?
In conclusion, I do believe that our borders need to be secured, but I lean more towards creating a path to citizenship for illegal Mexican immigrants versus using the proposed Arizona immigration law which I believe will inevitably lead to racial profiling and a general intolerance of anyone who looks Hispanic.
3 comments:
100% Beautifully written. You brought about both pros and cons and are clearly educated on the subject matter. I'm glad you write on topics of great depth instead of just the fluff.
Extremely well written. Our family lives in a very insulated environment as far as having nice hospitals to go to, wonderful public and private schools at our finger tips. We don't realize that it is a jungle out there for a large part of this country. Mexicans clogging the school systems and hospitals is a HUGE problem and we are just about bankrupt trying to give millions of them free this and that. It has taken a horrendous toll on middle class America. I think we all need to spend a week in New York, Arizona, California and see life as it really is. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could take in an illegal immigrant into our family to give them the best of everything? I would love to do that. What about 5 or 6 of them? What about 20? Sooner or later you have to draw the line because no one can affort to feed millions. There has to be a shred of reason involved and not just "We ought to be kind to EVERYONE. Yes, there is a limit. Just like deciding how many children in a family one can handle to feed, clothe, educate, and love. It cannot be limitless, because then everyone suffers.
Post a Comment