Border Crossing
July 8th, 2010 | Editorial Cartoons | 25 Comments
Tweet
Despite the annoying fact that the Federal government has been unable to craft a coherent immigration policy, it simply isn’t up to the states to design their own. there’s this little constitutional problem, which is that the Federal government is solely responsible for immigration policy. Thus, the Attorney General was quite correct in suing Arizona on constitutional grounds. I have some sympathy for the state of Arizona; fully half of illegal border crossings occur there, and Arizona bears the brunt of our national failure to deal with the issue. That said, their solution is wrong on so many grounds I won’t even go into it here.
What ties us in knots nationally is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. When we reduce the issues to jingoistic sound bites, we get nowhere. I love “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” To which I reply, “What part of illegal is illegal immigration? Illegal like mass murder, or illegal like a parking ticket? We do tend to treat those two differently. Then there’s the “amnesty” word, the one that brings the whole debate to a halt. Look, we are simply not going to deport 11 million, or 15 or 17, or whatever the number is, folks who at one time entered the country illegally. Not possible, so eliminate that as an option. Letting those who have been here for a long time, worked, kept out of trouble, paid taxes, have a path to citizenship seems appropriate to me, but the opponents can’t get the amnesty word out of their heads. A proposal is now being floated to allow a sort of limbo instead–a permanent green card allowing them to live here, but never become citizens. What a terrible idea! Remember the riots in Paris a few years ago? Permanent workers from other countries unable to fully participate in French life because they could never become citizens. Is that what we want?
Then again, even that appalling idea is better than what arizona came up with.
Topics: Arizona, border, cartoon, constitution, immigration, opinion
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
What is even more appalling is the number of other states, without the excuse of AZ’s porous border problems, that are trying to pass identical bills. Many of them northern states like MN, or MI, or OH, where the immigrant population is often seasonal agricultural workers.
I hope this law is shut down in the federal AZ suit quickly, before similar suits are needed in other states.
Well lets just open all our borders and let everybody in. It is the time of love and they all love us…
We let the bombers in , we even gave one of them money to go to college, even though he was a US born, he lied and said he was saudi so he could get free money $20,000. He is not captured he is back over seas plotting again, but we love everybody we do not want to turn anybody away just because they are drug dealers, criminals, terrorists, or just no good punks. God forbide that we ofend anybody.
God forbid we have each state taking over the responsibility of the federal government which standardizes these policies.
What would you like next, OldBt, have each state produce their own currency in response to economic problems?
OldBT, do you even ever read what Ed writes? He has already called you out for your ridiculous jingoism, and called you out for not presenting a viable (or in your case any) solution, and that’s before you even wrote anything.
Next time read the blog before spewing republican talking points.
Also, do you care about the constitution, or is “offending someone” what you call violating basic rights? Way to protect America buddy.
Personally, i think we ought to mandate at the Federal Level that states pass mandatory euthanasia laws for everyone who is above, say 65, and is found guilty of violating any criminal law, including traffic laws, especially driving too slow in the passing lane, or failing to properly signal before turning, or backing up unsafely. If we need to get rid of illegal folk, fine, and we can also take care of a big part of our alleged Social Security problems at the same time.
What’s good for the illegal goose is good for the (old) illegal gander.
I do not believe the constitution any where says anything about letting in drug dealers, thugs, criminals or those that want to do this country harm. This is not about Republicans and Democrats boys. This is about protecting this country from those that want to destroy it from within and from the outside. In case you have not noticed we have been attacked by a certain group of people from the outside and inside this country. Your thinking would have had us not fighting world war II because the attack on Pearl Harbor was just a mistake. You probably do not believe in the holocost either. I know you will change the subject but this is the subject, and the old saying , IF it looks like a duck , quacks like a duck it must be a duck Fits along our borders.
Don’t be silly Oldbt. What you are suggesting is not that we determine a duck by how it walks, quacks, swims. You are suggesting we can tell if a duck is an American duck or a duck from the other side of a man-made comparatively arbitrary border. When you can demonstrate how walking, swimming or quacking can reliably do that, you will have a point. Until then – your point just proved the argument for the other side, and you didn’t appear to notice.
While I am opposed to the AZ law, I am frustrated by our country’s inability to solve this problem. In 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act wasd signed into law.
In brief the act supposedly:
– required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously
– made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization)
– granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982
Here we are nearly 25 years later and we now have an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants. So, if legislation is passed that basically re-does what we did in 1986, what changes? What stops there from being another 25 million in the next 20+ years?
The bottom line is that most of these folks would not be here if there were not jobs. While it is already illegal to hire illegals, it still happens and in huge numbers. The argument is made that US Citizens won’t do the work that illegals will. What is really meant by that is that US Citizens won’t do the work for what the illegals are willing to do it for. I understand it is hard, back breaking work but we have people doing hard back breaking work in this country. They just don’t do it for minimum wage (actually some of them do, but not all). I believe we have a process for a business to prove that they can’t get US citizens to fill a job and then be able to approval get legal non-us citizens to do it.
I don’t blame people from all over the world for wanting to come to this country but it just seems there has to be limits. We’ve tripled our population in the last 100 years to 300+ million. Are we going to be a population of 1+ billion like China and India?
A wall will not do the trick. They will then just tunnel or find some other way. It seems to me that the only solution is to somehow actually deal with the employers and one or two show raids a year won’t do. We have to realize that the price of things will go up. But we may be able to make a dent in that 10% unemployment rate we have.
Agreed! The Most affective solution is to get Tough on Employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants so that it is no longer profitable to hire them. If they can’t get jobs then most of them will go home on their own which will leave only the Criminals and the “Legal” immigrants and the criminals will not have as many places to hide.
We also need some protections for companies that are now forced to compete with unfair overseas wages.
BT–have you actually ever read the US Constitution? I suspect not, and, if you claim to have done so, have you ever had your reading comprehension level checked to see if it is above the 10th grade level?
It amazes me how many of the American Loudmouth and Ignorant class try to justify their respective hates, fears, resentments and prejudices on the basis of something that is–or isn’t–in the Constitution.
I don’t know if you are actually old (above 65) or not, or if that’s just another fantasy of yours. But, if you are 65 or older, I hope you refuse to accept Medicare benefits and certainly must assume that you don’t accept your Social security check, since neither of those things is mentioned in the US Constitution.
I am definitely fearful for my country, and view that it is under imminent and constant threat from domestic terrorists–such as the Tea-Partiers and self-absorbed, self-righteous gerbils like you.
wacobloke, You have picked the right internet name. You sir must have a reading comp problem. I feel sorry for you, but to answer your question . YES I have read and studied the US Constitution. which is something that I recommend to you sir. AND an Anger management calss along with it. You need to stay on subject not get personel. I also suggest that if you only want one view expressed and echoed you move to Russia. Have a nice day.
BT–Are you 65 or older? If so, do you accept Medicare and your Social security checks?
By the way BT–it is impossible to get “personal” when we all use fictitious (or less than full) names.
If you don’t like being called out for being the one-note, belligerent, self-ratifying repetitive rightwing ass that you so often are on this site, don’t read it and try to participate.
And, may I assume your comment was meant as an insult to Wacoans in general?
Not all of us use fictitious names.
I do have to say, though, guys, this is a prime example of why we don’t get the problem solved. Both sides go off track and don’t stay focused on the issue.
P.S. Wacobloke – it is impossible to have any kind of logical debate with BT, period. I’m actually starting to believe he is a shill.
[...] © Ed Stein [...]
You might want to check out the events that took place on this date in history (July 12th) in Arizona back in 1917, the vigilante Bisbee Deportation, for a little context there on who has done what to whom. The violence and lawlessness is not entirely on the side of the Mexicans, or Mexican Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bisbee/primarysources/photographs/index.html
Look very very closely at the role big business and economics plays in all this; it carries over clearly into the events of the 21st century.
Good job Ed (if I may be so familiar as to use your first name) – I’m so very glad I found your work here!
Jerry is a smart person that is also a thinking man that explains his ideas in a rational way. I thought that was what this was all about an exchange of ideas and a little expansion of ideas. But WACO takes this a little personal. I have never called him a name or questioned his sanity or age. His maturity level speaks for itself. So if all you want is to see your own ideas praised, I am in the wrong place and I will leave you alone to glory in your selves. As you must be the second coming. Good Day
BT–Lemme see, consigning a US citizen to “Russia” (shades of the 1950′s–oooh!, oooh!), comparing someone to the Messiah.
Nope, nothing “personal” there, right?
But, do you accept Medicare and Social Security payments?
What part of illegal do you not understand?
It is not rhetoric. It is not a soundbite. You simply do not understand.
These people are criminals, their first act in this country was to break the law. Every penny they get by being here is stolen. Do you understand? Any of this getting through to you? Illegal, get it? As in not legal. As in criminal scum.
“Criminal Scum”? Give me a break. So, you’re saying that anyone who has broken the law is “criminal scum”? You’ve never gone over the speed limit? Ever? You’ve never broken a single law?
It’s also not a fact that being here illegally makes “every penny they get stolen”. What nonsense!
As someone famously said “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
I understand why they are here. The same reason our ancestors came. Degrading them to scum is like degrading the poor to scum because they are poor. We do have to solve this problem but let’s not demonize these folks.
Without this papers-please-law, the Obama administration has been deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants. So while the feds may have not been perfect, even far from perfect, the notion that this law was necesseary is bogus. And while we are on the subject of criminality — politifact just busted the notion that Phoenix is the number 2 kidnapping capital in the world wide open – it isn’t even close. It isn’t even clearly the number 2 city for kidnapping in the U.S. And overall crime rates have gone down steadily, so the claims that this is essential because of high crime is a false one.
Not only are the boycotts – the same boycotts that proved so effective when racist Arizona failed to make MLK’s day a holiday, then did, then rescinded it and then had to pass it again -those same kind of boycotts over the papers-please laws are hurting AZ. But more significant is what it is going to do to the actual AZ economy if all of those people leave suddenly. They are productive, and they spend that money. If that activity goes away………so does a significant part of the AZ economy. The ‘up’ side of the activity appears to more than offset the negatives.
This is truly a case of be careful what you wish for, in AZ. They probably won’t like it even if they could get it.
[...] His cartoons and commentary are always well done and on point. This post on the immigration issue is a great example of Ed’s wisdom. We need way more Ed Stein and way less Glenn [...]
[...] © Ed Stein Again, Ed Stein has excellent commentary to go along with his excellent comic: Despite the annoying fact that the Federal government has been unable to craft a coherent immigration policy, it simply isn’t up to the states to design their own. there’s this little constitutional problem, which is that the Federal government is solely responsible for immigration policy. Thus, the Attorney General was quite correct in suing Arizona on constitutional grounds. I have some sympathy for the state of Arizona; fully half of illegal border crossings occur there, and Arizona bears the brunt of our national failure to deal with the issue. That said, their solution is wrong on so many grounds I won’t even go into it here. [...]
thanks a lot for sharing this excellent post. Please hold up this approach weblog as ensure it is an example of my preferred blog in my reader, with the help of thanks