Obama criticizes proposed Arizona law on immigration

[myp]

President Obama criticized a proposed law in Arizona that would make it a crime to be in the state for illegal immigrants and would require authorities to question illegal aliens. Arizona has had a major problem with illegal immigrants crossing over the border and the drug cartel war spillover has made some cities very unsafe.

full story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...2110136576160.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Thoughts?

Edit: Looks like Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona ignored the President's comments and signed the pending bill into law.

 

[David]

President Obama criticized a proposed law in Arizona that would make it a crime to be in the state for illegal immigrants and would require authorities to question illegal aliens. Arizona has had a major problem with illegal immigrants crossing over the border and the drug cartel war spillover has made some cities very unsafe.

full story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...2110136576160.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Thoughts?

Edit: Looks like Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona ignored the President's comments and signed the pending bill into law.

Okay, socialist here. I'm as left as can be without going communist. My opinion? Bravo, Arizona, bravo. If they can keep abuse down (ethnic profiling for example) then this is 1 of the best ideas I've seen. Illegal immigrants, being illegal, won't have papers. They have no way out if busted, as close to a sealed border as you can get without a stupid wall.

And now that I've satisfied my craving to rant like a rightest, immigration laws need to be made fairer. Making laws so harsh that just crossing illegally is cheeper, faster, more economical and more convenient is just counter productive. If the crime wins out in risk-reward assessments all of the time, you'll have a major crime problem on your hands in short order.

 

[deanhills]

I really don't see the big deal in people being asked to keep their identification papers on them. For example, in Europe, Europeans need identification to be able to travel from one country to the other. Quite a number of countries are upgrading their ID papers into ID cards, with a photo in the card, and that can be electronically scanned. For me that makes great sense.

 

[myp]

I have not read the actual bill and there is a lot of misinformation out there (with one side saying the bill calls for racial profiling and the other saying it strictly prohibits it,) so until I get a chance to read some more about it I am not "taking sides," but I find it ironic that some of the people who are furious over this policy and are comparing it to the Nazis, etc. support a National ID card. How exactly is that different?

 

[David]

I have not read the actual bill and there is a lot of misinformation out there (with one side saying the bill calls for racial profiling and the other saying it strictly prohibits it,) so until I get a chance to read some more about it I am not "taking sides," but I find it ironic that some of the people who are furious over this policy and are comparing it to the Nazis, etc. support a National ID card. How exactly is that different?

It's not. People are confusing an effort to stop illegal immigration as an attempt to stop immigration. If more people realized a valid DL would end any questions of legality, I think the fuss would die down fast.

 

[Dirk]

I really don't see the big deal in people being asked to keep their identification papers on them. For example, in Europe, Europeans need identification to be able to travel from one country to the other. Quite a number of countries are upgrading their ID papers into ID cards, with a photo in the card, and that can be electronically scanned. For me that makes great sense.

No we don't! There are open borders between all EU member states and no border control between EU member states except in the case of the UK.

This is one instance in which I am in support of EU policy. Also, I am very much against ID cards and the database state, because I consider them threatening to civil liberties.

One more thing, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned. I'm a bit concerned that this will lead to racial profiling - stopping people because they "look" foreign. I should think ethnic minorities may find themselves victimised.

I've already said I disagree with the concept of treating immigration as a "problem", but let's drop it because I get very touchy on the issue.

 

[deanhills]

No we don't! There are open borders between all EU member states and no border control between EU member states except in the case of the UK.

This is one instance in which I am in support of EU policy. Also, I am very much against ID cards and the database state, because I consider them threatening to civil liberties.

One more thing, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned. I'm a bit concerned that this will lead to racial profiling - stopping people because they "look" foreign. I should think ethnic minorities may find themselves victimised.

I've already said I disagree with the concept of treating immigration as a "problem", but let's drop it because I get very touchy on the issue.

Looks as though this is where we completely differ. I believe that people should be clearly identified at the border posts, that the border posts should be strengthened with police and that everyone should be carrying an ID card. The kind of ID cards they have these days would make life simpler and much easier in every respect. With regard to your point about ethnic minorities, I am definitely against them being victimized, but can't see how absence of ID cards would discourage people from victimizing them at border controls. Racial profiling would be a problem with or without ID cards. If there is a problem, it probably needs to be addressed in a different way.

 

[Dirk]

The latter point was in relation to the law in question.

 

[deanhills]

The latter point was in relation to the law in question.

The latter point in your or my postings? Not sure what you are referring to or what you mean?

 

[Dirk]

The latter point in your or my postings? Not sure what you are referring to or what you mean?

Mine. The point on racial profiling was about the Arizona law. I suggested Obama may have a point in criticising it.

One more thing, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned. I'm a bit concerned that this will lead to racial profiling - stopping people because they "look" foreign. I should think ethnic minorities may find themselves victimised.

I read it back, and I think you presumed it was a continuation of the point of ID cards. I didn't phrase it or specify very well that it was addressing the law in Arizona.

 

[deanhills]

Mine. The point on racial profiling was about the Arizona law. I suggested Obama may have a point in criticising it.

I just can't see the reason for making this something about racial profiling. Arizona wishes to protect its citizens from people who are taking their jobs, and using their services. Surely they have a right to do that?

I also think it is wrong for Obama to interfere. The US is a Federal Government, and the States should have the right to govern themselves without any interference from the President. I wonder however whether this is not just a simple case of bi-partisan politics, and it is more about Obama the Democrat than Obama the President speaking?

 

[Dirk]

I just can't see the reason for making this something about racial profiling. Arizona wishes to protect its citizens from people who are taking their jobs, and using their services. Surely they have a right to do that?

Well, when you're talking about illegal immigrants in Arizona, they won't be looking for Canadians, if you get my drift.

Also, remember, economics 101: markets are not static, they are fluid. There are probably more jobs in Arizona, thanks to illegal immigrants, rather than fewer.

I'm not saying I'm forbidding it, I'm saying it's stupid.

I also think it is wrong for Obama to interfere. The US is a Federal Government, and the States should have the right to govern themselves without any interference from the President.

Freedom of speech? Personally, I'd want to be free to say what I like, regardless of my position in society. If I want to criticise the law, I can. If Obama wants to criticise the law, as far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to. If anyone wants to criticise Obama or myself, go ahead.

 

[deanhills]

Well, when you're talking about illegal immigrants in Arizona, they won't be looking for Canadians, if you get my drift.

Why would they be looking for anyone? When people have ID cards, employers can ask people for their ID cards to ensure that they are legal citizens of Arizona, before they employ them. The ID cards can also be connected up with social services to assist legal immigrants. You are attaching all negatives to it, when there are many positives to it as well. When people who are illegal immigrants are using social services to which they are not entitled to, that is the equivalent of stealing. Why should tax payers have to pay for their services? Especially when there are serious economic problems and State Governments are short of cash?

Also, remember, economics 101: markets are not static, they are fluid. There are probably more jobs in Arizona, thanks to illegal immigrants, rather than fewer.

And the quality of those jobs? Guaranteed they are lowly paid jobs where the employers can have their employees with their backs against the wall as those employees would not have anywhere else to go so can be forced to work long hours at low wages. All the employer has to do is to threaten it will report the employee to the authorities. It is also an excuse for employers to get away with not providing its "illegal" employees with benefits and pay raises. An ID card system will prevent that situation from occurring.

I'm not saying I'm forbidding it, I'm saying it's stupid.

Nothing stupid about it at all. Or are you saying the rest of the world is stupid, as most of the countries are using ID cards. I find it totally dumb that the US should screen all visitors in the most thorough and intrusive ways at the airports, yet when it gets to state borders, then these may be relaxed? No wonder it is so easy for criminals to migrate from one state to the other! That makes no sense at all.

 

[Dirk]

Haha, you think I'm talking about your ID card system! :giggle:

 

[deanhills]

Haha, you think I'm talking about your ID card system! :giggle:

Dirk, you are obviously trolling now. And that is not allowed. We have already had this discussion before. Out of consideration for others can you please write coherent posts that everyone can understand? If you do detect a misunderstanding it would be very helpful if you could explain what that misunderstanding is about and not in a one-liner, but with sufficient sentences so that it can be absolutely clear to the other person what you mean and what you are referring to.

I don't understand why you are referring to "my" ID card system. You were the one who brought it up in the discussion:

This is one instance in which I am in support of EU policy. Also, I am very much against ID cards and the database state, because I consider them threatening to civil liberties.

 

[Dirk]

I don't understand why you are referring to "my" ID card system. You were the one who brought it up in the discussion:

Um... yeeeees... in response to this, which I even quoted in that post:

I really don't see the big deal in people being asked to keep their identification papers on them. For example, in Europe, Europeans need identification to be able to travel from one country to the other. Quite a number of countries are upgrading their ID papers into ID cards, with a photo in the card, and that can be electronically scanned. For me that makes great sense.

I say "your" ID card system, because you were the one, on this thread, suggesting it.

I am in no way starting an argument, just pointing out that it can be relevantly explained.

 

[Calvin]

Well, when you're talking about illegal immigrants in Arizona, they won't be looking for Canadians, if you get my drift.

Actually, the Americans cause us headaches on the border states. Canadians now need a passport to enter the USA, even if just driving in. Its ridiculous.

When Bush was getting all hysterical about catching terrorists and beefing up border security to do so, they started mandating finger printing for all foreigners coming to the USA. So then Brazil started a new program of finger printing Americans. A small taste of their own medicine and sure enough the Yanks belly ached over it. Too bad Canadians don't have a government willing to do the same thing.

Maybe if more and more countries started treating the US the way the US treats them, the US might finally get the message.

 

[Dirk]

To make clear my point, Calvin:

 

[okiebugg]

What a smelly load of you know what

Actually, the Americans cause us headaches on the border states. Canadians now need a passport to enter the USA, even if just driving in. Its ridiculous.

When Bush was getting all hysterical about catching terrorists and beefing up border security to do so, they started mandating finger printing for all foreigners coming to the USA. So then Brazil started a new program of finger printing Americans. A small taste of their own medicine and sure enough the Yanks belly ached over it. Too bad Canadians don't have a government willing to do the same thing.

Maybe if more and more countries started treating the US the way the US treats them, the US might finally get the message.

Has Canada had a terrorist attack that killed 3000 people?

Is it too much of an inconvenience to show your passport?

We have people coming thru both borders north and south that are many times identified as undesirables. Al Queda, Taliban and such. Mexican drug cartels and the like are doing the same.

How does the US treat Canada? Do you see many people going to Canada for medical treatment?

I have to show my passport to anyone in customs wherever I travel, and it isn't too much trouble for me.

Count your lucky stars that the US hasn't annexed Canada.:cry:

 

[irahat]

"Obama described the Arizona law as a product of "peoples frustrations about the border".
People are beyond frustrated, they're freaking' pissed! My gosh, this clown doesn't have a clue. People are done talking. AZ took action, and the state of UT is doing the same.