Mexico has received supporters from other nations in Latin America and parts of the world against Arizona's new immigration law that, unless blocked by the courts, will go into effect next Thursday. A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week that will allow Uruguay, Panama, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Cuba, Turkey, Senegal, Micronesia and Ghana to join in the lawsuit. The support comes at the end of the three-day Third World Conference of Parliamentary Presidents, which ended Wednesday in Geneva, Switzerland.
Mexico has contended ever since the bill was signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, that the law is nothing more than racial profiling and a violation of civil rights since the major illegal immigrant population in both Arizona and the United States are Hispanic or Latino and the law would be targeting them as a group of people.
The law, SB 1070, authorizes law enforcement officers at all levels during the performance of their normal duties to inquire about a person's citizenship if there is reasonable suspicion that they might be in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally if caught within the state of Arizona.
What is it about the United States' southern border that has other nations involved with our country's politics? It can not only be that the new law is racial profiling, or violating a person's civil rights. What is involved in the big picture that the public is not being made aware of and is turning our nation into an international political battleground?
Each international opponents of Arizona’s law has a personal stake in what will occur at our southern borders. The United States government should be placing its citizens and the union as a top priority and insure that we have effective national security by protecting our southern border against illegals.
The south eastern most border of our country is like a revolving door for Cuban nationals to enter illegally. There is a long history there with Cuba's citizens trying to escape their country tyranny, but what was once easy is now becoming harder since 9/11 as national security is continuously changing and improving on enforcement. Cuba has an established community in the state of Florida known as "Little Cuba." The only other possible route for Cubans to enter the United States illegally would be at our Southern border neighboring Mexico.
Mexico has an immigration reform that is way more stringent than any imposed in the United States, especially when they are dealing with illegals at their southern border with harsh punishment, do not allow foreigners to get involved in their government’s business, and that includes protesting or voicing out their objections. Every level of law enforcement and the military are required to enforce immigration laws.
By their laws, they keep records on every tourist and foreigners that enter Mexico, as well as detailed records on its citizens. The immigration laws they have seems to work well for them. Perhaps it might be that they leave the actual policing of their Northern border to its northern neighbor, the United States. Getting into Mexico illegally is much harder than leaving it illegally. This is partially due to the work of the United States Border Patrol.
The Mexico - United States border is known to be the gateway to freedom to not only Mexicans that cross illegally, but for their southern neighbors that successfully get into Mexico and make their way to north. In the movie “Red Dawn” starring Patrick Swayze, Cubans and Mexicans crossed the border illegally, and strategically positioned themselves around the country. Then one day along with the Russians, for the first time, the world went to war on the North Ame3rican continent
From the very start in April, when Governor Jan Brewer signed off on SB 1070, Arizona has been attacked by organizations, municipalities, nations, celebrities and even their own federal government. Economically, organizations and municipalities have boycotted Arizona and tourism has been hurt with warnings to avoid Arizona because of this law.
The majority of the Americans polled support the action taken by Arizona, but in the past months, the politicians that represent them has denounced Arizona’s immigration law citing that it conflicts with federal law, would disrupt immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status. There are a minor number of lawmakers that are starting to show support for Arizona as well.
In this war of World versus Arizona, big brother can not be depended on for support. It will have to come from the people it protects.
Showing posts with label illegals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegals. Show all posts
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Federal Government Issues Quiet Warning To States
Article first published as Is DOJ Immigration Lawsuit a Warning to the States on Blogcritics.
When the Justice Department (DOJ) filed its lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law was it a warning to other states thinking about implementing similar laws, that immigration is their venue, and not the states? That matter of nationality is also a federal responsibility?
With the number of lawsuits filed with the federal courts, the DOJ did not need to file a suit of their own. The law opponents may think that by the government suing Arizona adds strength to their cause just because they are the federal government, which may be true, but there was really no need to sue for the same things that are all ready headed to federal court to be decided on.
The government in their claim says they do not want the states to come up with their own solution to immigration issues, and that immigration and nationally laws and policy are in their purview and is not delegated to the states. That federal law takes precedence is these matters. Getting an injunction to prevent Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect on July 29, 2010 would be considered a victory. This alone would say that there is a reasonable doubt as to how far a state can involve itself in federal matters or change precedence.
By consensus, the majority of the nation is behind Arizona and applauds their actions since there is no real federal law enforcement taking place. The Arizona law authorizes law enforcement officers in the course of performing their normal duties to question suspects about their citizenry if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The law also targets employers who knowingly employ illegals and seek out illegals to perform work for them.
It is the belief of the law’s opponents that this law is just a legal route to racial profiling and violation of civil rights because the majority of illegals in the nation are of Hispanic descent. The law’s wording does not specify any one group of people falls under this statute, just illegals, which cover all illegals no matter their race, creed, religion or nationality.
Prior to proposing any legislation regarding immigration, those states that are considering imposing laws similar to Arizona’s should wait and observe how this pans out. If the decision is in Arizona’s favor, seeing how they go about implementing it, how it takes shape and how it helps the problem would be the best course for other states to follow before implementing one of its own. The question of economics also should be taken into consideration since such laws normally bring constitutional challenges in court by organizations that advocate for civil rights, and in this case, boycotts could be very harmful.
If this is indeed a warning from the federal government to the states thinking about implementing laws similar to Arizona’s, the United States government, Obama and his crew, need to come up with a workable plan to protect our borders instead of just accepting responsibility for its failure to do so.
When the Justice Department (DOJ) filed its lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law was it a warning to other states thinking about implementing similar laws, that immigration is their venue, and not the states? That matter of nationality is also a federal responsibility?
With the number of lawsuits filed with the federal courts, the DOJ did not need to file a suit of their own. The law opponents may think that by the government suing Arizona adds strength to their cause just because they are the federal government, which may be true, but there was really no need to sue for the same things that are all ready headed to federal court to be decided on.
The government in their claim says they do not want the states to come up with their own solution to immigration issues, and that immigration and nationally laws and policy are in their purview and is not delegated to the states. That federal law takes precedence is these matters. Getting an injunction to prevent Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect on July 29, 2010 would be considered a victory. This alone would say that there is a reasonable doubt as to how far a state can involve itself in federal matters or change precedence.
By consensus, the majority of the nation is behind Arizona and applauds their actions since there is no real federal law enforcement taking place. The Arizona law authorizes law enforcement officers in the course of performing their normal duties to question suspects about their citizenry if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The law also targets employers who knowingly employ illegals and seek out illegals to perform work for them.
It is the belief of the law’s opponents that this law is just a legal route to racial profiling and violation of civil rights because the majority of illegals in the nation are of Hispanic descent. The law’s wording does not specify any one group of people falls under this statute, just illegals, which cover all illegals no matter their race, creed, religion or nationality.
Prior to proposing any legislation regarding immigration, those states that are considering imposing laws similar to Arizona’s should wait and observe how this pans out. If the decision is in Arizona’s favor, seeing how they go about implementing it, how it takes shape and how it helps the problem would be the best course for other states to follow before implementing one of its own. The question of economics also should be taken into consideration since such laws normally bring constitutional challenges in court by organizations that advocate for civil rights, and in this case, boycotts could be very harmful.
If this is indeed a warning from the federal government to the states thinking about implementing laws similar to Arizona’s, the United States government, Obama and his crew, need to come up with a workable plan to protect our borders instead of just accepting responsibility for its failure to do so.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
History Revisited: The Hispanic Emancipation
Doesn't the immigration issue today remind you of the years the Afro-American people had to fight for their rights to be called an American citizen? The biggest difference being that the Afro-Americans were brought here from abroad, but the Hispanics came here willingly, walking across the border. The Afro-American had no rights, no basic citizen benefits. The Hispanic, however, is receiving state benefits, gainful employment, and they have a voice we did not have.
They have the nation divided, and they are screaming loudly. Much like the North and South during the Civil War, somebody wants to be free. In this case some are saying, "deport the illegals", while the other side is saying, "it is cruel and inhuman to single out one race and send them away from a land proud to be a Democracy." A land built on immigrants. Actually, this country was built on the blood of a people that did not choose to be here. Today, however, they are proud of their people's contributions to the society of a great nation that once look down upon them.
Is this where we have come to, revisiting our past, but with different players, but no bloodshed? Yet. Between immigration laws and the health reform, we are a nation torn.
My opinion is to send the illegals back to Mexico, the ones that are not willing to comply with the laws of this land, and become legal. The ones that cross the border day and night putting our border patrol in harm's way. The ones that have violence in their past, or since they have been here.
This is one issue that is going to linger for years, just like the civil rights movement. Since we are unable to avoid it, maybe this one will get resolved to the people's satisfaction.
They have the nation divided, and they are screaming loudly. Much like the North and South during the Civil War, somebody wants to be free. In this case some are saying, "deport the illegals", while the other side is saying, "it is cruel and inhuman to single out one race and send them away from a land proud to be a Democracy." A land built on immigrants. Actually, this country was built on the blood of a people that did not choose to be here. Today, however, they are proud of their people's contributions to the society of a great nation that once look down upon them.
Is this where we have come to, revisiting our past, but with different players, but no bloodshed? Yet. Between immigration laws and the health reform, we are a nation torn.
My opinion is to send the illegals back to Mexico, the ones that are not willing to comply with the laws of this land, and become legal. The ones that cross the border day and night putting our border patrol in harm's way. The ones that have violence in their past, or since they have been here.
This is one issue that is going to linger for years, just like the civil rights movement. Since we are unable to avoid it, maybe this one will get resolved to the people's satisfaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
