Cheryl / May 3, 2010 10:51 AM

Back in the 30s, people were picked up off the streets in LA. It didn't matter if they were Mexicans here illegally, or native Americans of Mexican descent, or Cubans or Puerto Ricans. They were brown, and they were shipped off the Mexico.
I see no reason to think that won't happen again.

flange / May 3, 2010 11:13 AM

i would love to bomb arizona into the stone age. unfortunately, you can't bomb something forward in time.

madachode / May 3, 2010 11:13 AM

There is a right way of doing things and a wrong way. It is against the law to be in this country illegally. My parents immigrated legally along with millions of others. If here illegally then in jail you go while waiting deportation, its as simple as that.

madachode / May 3, 2010 11:15 AM

flange, have you ever been to AZ and witness the problem with illegal immigration?

mctsonic / May 3, 2010 11:21 AM

Leviticus 19:33-34

When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Brown hair - check - Brown eyes - check - Brown skin - check - Odd clothes - check - Talks funny - check - No papers - check

Jesus would be arrested in Arizona

eee / May 3, 2010 11:25 AM

I think immigration reform is greatly needed, and not just in Arizona. However, the way Arizona plans to go about it is terribly wrong, IMO. How to do it better, I don't know. But there has to be a better way than the "I don't like the way you look" route they're going now.

madachode / May 3, 2010 11:35 AM

What about when that alien commits crimes?
If you are here illegally then you should leave, bottom line.

Dennis Fritz / May 3, 2010 1:05 PM

The utter impossibility of effecting the kind of border control nativists demand hit me between the eyes when I spent a year living in Laredo, Texas. Does the Close-The-Border crowd have the faintest idea what their vision of Fortress America would require?

It would require stopping, and searching, every single car, every single truck and every single container entering the US from Mexico. It would mean interdicting every single Mexican air flight into the US and tracking every passanger (although seldom mentioned, plenty of so-called "illegals" are people who entered the US on tourist visas and never left). It would mean laying out, and guarding, a virtual Maginot Line across almost 2000 miles of open desert. The costs of sustaining such an operation, in terms of money, manpower and equipment, would run into the biillions. Probably into the tens of billions.

Meanwhile, all that endless stopping and searching would cripple US-Mexico trade. That would suck additional billions out of both the US and Mexicans economies and drive even more people to try and corss the border illegally. And for those who want to round up and deport the ilelgal aliens already here? Now we're talking about locating, apprehending, and deporting a population of 12-15 million individuals spread out over a discontinuous land mass spanning some 10 million square miles. Yeah. Good luck with that.

It will not happen. It will not happen because it cannot happen.

Listening to people rant about closing the US-Mexico border is like listening to born-again christians bicker about whether or not a person can lose their salvation. It is nothing but babble, because the whole argument is built on a fantasy. If the US-Mexico border is to remain pourous enough to facilitate trade--which everyone knows is beneficial--then it will remain pourous to allow illegal crossings and smuggling. There is just no way around it. Yes, the US-Mexico border leaks like a seive. Borders between rich and poor countries always do. They always have. And they always will. Grow up and deal with it.

Jim / May 3, 2010 1:14 PM

The immigration reform issue goes well beyond sending illegal immigrants back.

One of the points I rarely see discussed is the large role illegal immigrants play in our economy.

When Anne Richards was the governor of Texas, she did a study on the cost of illegal immigrants on the state versus the benefits reaped. The benefits outweighed the costs. Granted, that was in the mid-90s; however immigrants and immigration issues in the US are not a recent phenomenon and a study of history will show that this has played out many times in the past in our country.

Regardless of what side of the immigration reform debate on is on, there are many facets that need to be addressed.

David / May 3, 2010 1:53 PM

The border in Arizona is a national border; therefore, the only body with any authority to police and enforce it is the federal government. Any attempt at usurpation of this prerogative can and should be treated as a threat to our national security.

For those who say that the situation in Arizona is uniquely intolerable, I'd point out that there are ample legal and political ways to change our national border policy. Arizona's go-it-alone idea ensures a patchwork, rather than concerted, approach to enforcing immigration policy, with each state creating and enforcing laws as they see fit, federal policy be damned.

Ultimately I think this law won't survive a court challenge. But the attitudes of the cowards and racists who enacted it remain, and must be fought on every possible front.

I won't argue that we as a nation need to have a conversation about immigration. But by focusing solely on the problems in Arizona, we're ensuring that only the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.

flange / May 3, 2010 2:07 PM

madachode, if you're the official troll of this thread, i've been there myself. good luck.

note that this wasn't the only offensive or racist law passed by that state recently. arizona also made it illegal for teachers to teach english if they have an accent. it's now illegal for barack obama to appear on the '12 ballot unless he produces his birth certificate. it's illegal to work to create human-animal hybrids (the arizona legislature hasn't caught up on that whole genetics thing). and ethnic studies programs in public schools were outlawed.

(in the last case, note that a democratic legislator managed to work an amendment into the bill being discussed to allow the holocaust to be discussed. it would otherwise have been banned, considered to be promoting "ethnic resentment.")

thus: bomb them up into the stone age.

Brubeck / May 3, 2010 2:36 PM

This new law is just another ripple in what I've seen transpire over the last year-and-a-half: A black man ascends to the Oval Office, and portions of our country just outright loses it's fucking mind. That's all this is to me.

Arizona has lots and lots of old white people, and they don't like the President. Case closed in my book.

Boy Who Cried Wolf / May 3, 2010 4:56 PM

Kids, this is why people don't take you very seriously.

If you are a legal immigrant, it is your responsibility to keep supporting documentation on your person at all times.

"Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all
times."

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf

Page 8. Go look for yourself.

This has been the law for 70+ years. FDR, your patron saint of progressivism is the person who signed it into law. Its a shame Mr. Constitutional Scholar & Post-Racial President doesn't think before declaring our laws misguided, because his statements, in turn misguide so many others.

Seriously, you guys have been pulling the race card out for the last two years so often, nobody takes it seriously anymore.

Dennis Fritz / May 3, 2010 7:40 PM

Here's a term that needs to be be retired: "playing the race card."

Basically, no one is allowed to talk openly and honestly about racism anymore. The minute he or she tires, some idiot pops up and says, "stop playing the race card!"

Shut up.

Racism is real. And it is no minor thing. Stop living in your color-blind fantasy world, already.

Please / May 3, 2010 8:59 PM

Yeah, there is a whole industry built on propogating racism here, there, and everywhere. Its big business. I mean, how else to keep minorities voting for democrats? Its good old plantation politics.

Dennis, have you gone out and gotten that $100K reward for proof of the n-word being yelled at the black caucus congressman?

Oh no? Go figure. No one else has either - 'cause it was fake. All those cameras rolling and mic's turned on and not one has any evidence - even Jesse Jackson Jr. was filming their walk through the crowd. (Of course, none of the congressman want to talk about it now.)

But of course, talking about fraudulant claims of racism isnt' open and honest discussion on racism, is it? Open and honest only fall into certain categories that you decide, and if they don't, its...

Shut up.

Its a joke and people have realised who are honest brokers and who are dishonest brokers.

Dennis Fritz / May 4, 2010 12:36 AM

Please, what are talking about? I've heard Tea Partiers use such language here in Chicago. They've done it in front of me. If you don't think these people are all about whitenationalism, I don't know what planet you're living on.

Please / May 4, 2010 8:29 AM

Sure Dennis, you're almost believable.

Just like in your post above, if you were really concerned about US-Mexico trade, you'd surely mention something about congress' and Obama's policy of not allowing trucks driven by Mexicans in the US (surely you jest that the teamsters are a special interest group!)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102015890

See, the teamsters said the Mexican trucks weren't safe, but there was no evidence backing that up. Is that part of your racism is real? Is the teamsters-backed policy a racist policy?

Oh and it gets better, in retaliation, Mexico introduced tarifs on approximately $2.4 billion worth of US goods.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739445919172781.html

So there is an example of your racism is real, in action, and led by the democrat party and their beholden union interest.

madachode / May 4, 2010 8:33 AM

Since when is it racisit when a state who has the right to protect their borders and citizens, require all to carry documention deemed by federal law to prove that you actually belong in this country? As for those that say that states can't go it alone when it comes to border security, bs. This country is made up by states that came together to form the United States. States have the freedom to act and do things without barack obama's approval. Being in this country illegally is against that LAW period. Many others have immigrated the legal way here I suggest that the lazy people who want to circumvent our laws should stay out of our country.

Please / May 4, 2010 9:03 AM

And just in case you have an interest in learning the real history of the democrat party in regards to civil rights and racism, here are some highlights:

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919.

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose.

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

Please / May 4, 2010 9:13 AM

...and of course, who can forget that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, had these nice views:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…."

Lovely company you keep.

jonk / May 4, 2010 9:27 AM

as capital has no borders, why should people?

to chode, i would disagree with the claim that there is anything "lazy" about risking a move to a country illegally.

of course chode is correct in stating that there is the blunt reality of laws proclaiming certain places off-limits to certain people. the question becomes one about why these laws exist. this, i believe, should return us to the question of capital having open borders while labor has "closed" borders. "closed", of course, references the acknowledged reliance on and historical state tolerance of "illegal" labor (because it benefits certain business interests).

i'll close with a point of solidarity - i am sure i am with everyone here in saying that i have no interest in learning norwegian to go about my daily business

David / May 4, 2010 9:47 AM

Oh lord.

Here we have a guy whose entire condemnation of a party rests in a mistake so obvious a ten-year old could see right through it. The Democrat Party doesn't even remotely resemble the kind of Dixiecrat racism of the fifties and earlier. Lincoln was a Republican, and he fought and died to assert the prerogative of Federal power over state's rights. Does that sound like a modern-day Republican to you? Me neither.

And for the people here who don't see racism, you're absolutely right. There is no overt racism here; nobody's gonna get money from Andy Breitbart. Racism these days is covert. It's coded in language about state's rights, and border protection, and socialism.

Illegal immigration is a fact of life. It always will be, as long as America provide the kinds of opportunities that ambitious people's home countries lack.

Any guess about the largest illegal immigrant population in MY neighborhood? It's the Polish. Nobody ever talks about deporting them back to Poland.

Don't give me a mealy-mouthed defense of a clearly unconstitutional law. For everybody talking about people needing to carry papers, I'd like to honestly ask you if you could produce verification of your birth in this country, realizing that Social Security cards and drivers licenses can and are faked on a regular basis.

We shouldn't have to prove we're Americans. It's up to the cowards and xenophobes to prove we're NOT.

Cheryl / May 4, 2010 10:26 AM

Democratic Party. Not the Democrat Party. That's what the wingnuts call it, with an emphasis on the last syllable. I think it was Limbaugh who popularized that. Or the chubby crybaby on tv, what's his name?

Please / May 4, 2010 11:10 AM

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden

Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
-- Barack Obama

"I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race."
- Barack Obama

Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton

"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
-- Senator Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities"
-- Van Jones

"Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take pictures with black children than feed them."
-- Donna Brazile, democrat political strategist

"Jews — that's J-E-W-S." -- Democratic state representative Bill McKinney on why his daughter Cynthia lost in 2002

yep, the tune hasn't changed, just the players.

Ramsin / May 4, 2010 12:15 PM

This isn't a conversation worth entering, but Please, know that nobody takes you seriously except people who already agree with you when you say "Democrat Party". It's isn't called that. That the name of the party--on their legal documentation, tax filings, everywhere--is Democratic Party. You don't get to pick what they're called because Frank Luntz said.

Why do you think black and Latino people are so stupid that they join the Democratic Party even though Democrats are all so racist (based on your handful of quotes)? Because you realize of course that the GOP is essentially devoid of any people of color in a single leadership position. This hyper-defensive "plantation politics" canard only works if you believe two things: (a) all people of color who have leadership roles or are members of the Democratic Party are Toms; and (b) black and Latino voters are so stupid that they even though Democrats are racist, they vote for them.

I'm glad you think that the almost exclusively white Republican Party knows what's best for all the poor, misled brown and black people.

Now, this thread was SUPPOSED to be about the AZ bill, not your tired to the point of exhaustion talking points about how the Democrats are the secretly racist party, because the nearly all-white GOP is colorblind.

It infuriates me when partisan troglodytes make me defend the Democrats, who I can barely stand.

Mike / May 4, 2010 12:40 PM

God, even ten years ago, the dishonest, simple-minded copy-and-paste b.s. blathered online by people like Please was becoming trite. Now it's just comical. Welcome to the "World Wide Web" Please.

Please / May 4, 2010 1:17 PM

Let's make a deal, I'll call them the Democratic party when they start honoring that term. If you haven't noticed, they don't have much respect for the elected representation lately.
- Burris (appointed)
- Cohen (Pushed out even though he won primary)
- Stroger (Appointed)
- Giannoulias (just waiting for him to be replaced)
- Employee Free Choice Act (oh the irony!)

Why do you guys hold elections, anyway?

See, every previous poster has framed the AZ law in terms of racism, which the democrat party is openly advertising even though the law is a carbon copy of existing federal law. So I don't think it is off topic to discuss racism and that same democrat party. You know the same party that has labeled anything and everything that is opposed to its agenda as racist?

The funny thing is that you take such offense at being labelled a racist. You now know how the majority of America feels, and come November, when you are asking yourself "What happened?", think back to that feeling.

Ramsin / May 4, 2010 2:36 PM

Please, it's good to know you believe all minority voters who vote for Democrats are too stupid for their own good and that they should listen to a nearly all white party, because the white race knows what is best for everybody.

If only those minorities were as smart as you, they would know what's best for them--but I guess that's the white man's burden, right? To civilize us brown savages? Please, give us more guidance. What else is best for us?

madachode / May 4, 2010 2:49 PM

Ramsin,
maybe please is right, you should open your eyes, look at the past pertaining to the democratic party and see how they have morphed into something that feeds upon feeble minds.

madachode / May 4, 2010 2:53 PM

I don't know how this errupted into a republican democrat spat but the bottom line is that being in this country illegally is against the law. The law states that people must produce ID's that state that they are here legally . Some einstien made acomment about fake documents, etc. , don't stretch the truth, if your doc is fake or any reason to beleive that you don't belong here then those should be tossed out of here on their heads only to be taught a lesson, and that is if you want to live here do it legally.

Mike / May 4, 2010 3:16 PM

Now the creepy anti-gay troll is sharing his views on immigration policy. Fantastic.

David / May 4, 2010 3:26 PM

I made that comment, Mr. Chode, and shame on you for presuming my last name is Einstein. I'll put up with your anti-semitic claptrap no longer!

[I kid.]

While I can appreciate your stark perspective, in which people are either "illegal" or not, I don't think it's anywhere near realistic. Rigid enforcement of EVERY law isn't just impossible, it takes away law enforcement resources which could be put to better use than rounding up and deporting nonviolent people simply because they're "illegal."

Our government isn't here to "teach lessons." It's here to balance the competing interests of all Americans. And I for one believe there are FAR more important things to do with our time and resources.

Please / May 4, 2010 4:01 PM

Ramsin,

Why don't you tackle the issue I mentioned above? The issue where congress and Obama have decided to outlaw Mexican truck drivers on freight hauls?

Again, is that racist? Or is it nativist? Or is it Protectionist?

Why'd the teamsters union and the current democrat leadership back a bill that is so obviously based on skin color? We don't outlaw Canadian truck drivers, do we?

...and for those open borders naivetes, this is a good example of how you'll get played by unions, again and again.

Funny to think how many SEIU signs are out at those rallies isn't it?

jonk / May 4, 2010 4:07 PM

i now remember why i stopped participating in these sometimes fun GB chats - people like Please and chode. GB ought to adopt a comments policy similar to Crooked Timber - folks don't have a right to participate, they must earn it through civil - and rational - exchange.

Cheryl / May 4, 2010 4:45 PM

"Why don't you tackle the issue I mentioned above? The issue where congress and Obama have decided to outlaw Mexican truck drivers on freight hauls?"

Do you have any documentation? I just performed a search and can't find anything about what you are talking about. I seem to remember something similar that came up during the NAFTA debates, but I don't know what happened then either.

shechemist / May 4, 2010 4:51 PM

The AZ law is bogus and shouldn't pass court challenge.

Something needs to be fix with immigration law. I work with some who is here legally, brought her baby, who is now a teenager, and the teenager is now undocumented. Undocumented and has no legal means of getting a visa unless she is sent back to a country she doesn't remember to live for years until her paperwork/visa lotto comes through.

talk about a clusterfuck.

SR / May 5, 2010 7:36 AM

If the law isn't meant to have a racial component to it, where are the hefty fines / jail times for employers who hire undocumented workers? It's complete bullshit to criminalize workers (who ultimately are being exploited) and to look away from the businesses (and indeed entire industries) that profit from this labor.

j / May 5, 2010 9:52 AM

The problem I have with it is that there are a whole lot of Mexican-Americans living (and just visiting) Arizona who are going to get hassled for no reason except the color of their skin. How on earth are they going to enforce this without racial profiling?

I was under the impression that states can't make people show ID to vote. So how can you force American citizens to show proof of citizenship just to be somewhere in this country?

If I lived in Arizona and suddenly had to start carrying around my birth certificate just to prove that I belonged in this country I'd be pissed off.

Maureen / May 5, 2010 10:46 AM

We're doing the E-Verify thing at work. I have a co-worker who is a naturalized American citizen. Guess what document E-Verify won't take as proof of citizenship? Her document from the government stating she's a US citizen.

Please / May 5, 2010 2:16 PM

This thing just keeps getting funnier.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/obama-new-jersey-gulf-oil-spill.html

Obama's protocol:
"The team will identify a few employees to talk with the president, check their backgrounds for immigration status and child support delinquencies, brief the company execs on protocol, arrange for top-notch sound equipment and lighting..."

Start up the racism machine, people, because you are being fooled yet again.