I don't see any problem with this new law. Normally you would want the police to check if someone has any outstanding warrants before they are released from jail, and this law just sounds like an extension of that policy. Let's face it if an immigrant is in this country illegally they're breaking the law and if that doesn't make them a criminal then I don't know what does. Since it only applies to people already in custody, it will only apply to immigrants who have committed a crime serious enough to warrant being locked up in the first place; not the kind of people we would normally want in our country anyways. I don't see the police using this law as an excuse to abduct people of the street either. They don't have the manpower for one thing and frankly the police already have enough leeway they can trump a charge without relying on immigration laws.

Another slant on the immigration issue:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opini ... ef=general

I'm not at the point where I'm ready to support Arizona's law. It seemed to me reasonable in view of the situation, so I'm not going to close down on it. What Rich makes is a political argument. He doesn't say a thing about the bill itself, just that being in favor of it will put one on the side of rabidly anti-Obama activists, who are the most vocal suporters of the bill in Arizona. No doubt he's right about this, but his piece also shows why politics has so little real principle in it. Even if an idea has merit, political types will insist that guilt by association is the most important consideration. If they want it, it can't be any good and you must oppose it. Rich is a good political writer, though, and he focusses effectively on the foot-in-the-door aspect of Arizona's bill. Lots of other states, many of which don't have nearly Arizona's level of illegal immigration, want to pass a similar law. That only raises the question, though, of whether it matters essentially that a state has relatively few illegal immigrants. If it's against the law to reside illegally, whether there are 1,000 doing that or 500,000 doesn't make much difference.

The independent power of the 50 states is held to be an advantage of the U. S. system. I wonder sometimes if it is. On a matter of large national concern, the federal government is ceding responsibility for action to the states by not acting. Do Canadian provinces have as much independence? I suppose Quebec has demonstrated a good deal of it over the years.

I'm leaning in favor of the Arizona law. Illegal residents are, well, illegal. What Arizona is doing is simply trying to enforce existing laws.

George Will makes some good points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02741.html

I'm now leaning against Arizona's law, not that I have any say-so. I listened to some of the opponents, who don't seem to speak very directly to what they fear will happen if the law takes effect in 90 days. But reading between their words, it seems that they fear immediate deportation for anyone found to be residing illegally. This is why they say it's a mistake to have such a law before immigration reform happens, because immigration reform for them means a way to allow illegal immigrants to "go to the back of the line" while remaining in the country. Many illegals have children who are citizens.

What is the point of knowing a person's immigration status except to be able to deport? If the immigrant has committed a serious crime, then, yes, deport. But I'm not in favor of sending millions of illegals back. Aside from being impossible practically, the situation that caused the flood of immigrants over the southern borders was something we were, and are, complicit in. The jobs they came for were jobs that U.S. employers were willing to give them and not ask questions. There was a demand on our side that the immigrants filled.

I think that deportation is exactly the answer, and whenever possible stiff fines for those who abet them. Companies that hire them without checking make it that much harder for those of companies that re compliant. Hiring someone used to be a fairly simple process, but it is now complex and requires a lot of paperwork, that we have to PAY someone to handle, just to prove compliance because some are unwilling to follow the laws...It's another cost of everything we buy....

I fully disagree with this new law. I almost vomited when I heard about it all the way across the pond. I am completely biased. Well I guess we're all subjective. Anyway, the thing that gets me about this law is that it's judging based on LOOKS. I would not be pulled over as I do not look Mexican, Guatemalan, El Salvadorian, or any other kind of Latin American. But what if my neighbor or anyone else does? Plenty have been legal citizens in the U.S. for a lot longer than I've been alive. Why should they be harassed because of the way they look? With such a large percentage of Arizona being Hispanic would that mean they all would have to be checked?

Yes, illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Great, they get caught, deport them. I understand many people feel threatened by the amount of immigrants that have come into the country, but the system has blame to share.

While an Australian mate of mine only took a few months to become a U.S. citizen, I know a woman older than 80 who has only been able to get a green card. It's a difficult process and it tests people's patience. Do they stay in a failed state? Or do they try and support their families? I would get the Hell out of there and do what I thought was best. But this is all besides the point. I think I'm going to stop now as I'm too angry to really be objective.

I think that the law is supposed to be that they have to stop you for some other infraction first... I think that it will become subject to probable cause. I am not so blind as to think that there won't be any abuses, but then the press can take those abuses and blow them out of proportion, like they do for pretty much everything and that will start to eventually make people afraid to get caught profiling or behaving like a bigot.

Not so sure at all about the idea of multiculturalism DWill. I think we have seen many examples of it not working very well. Yugoslavia of course was a terrible mess, China is not doing very well with Tibet or other regions with minorities, even peaceful Belgium is struggling to stay together. The list goes on.

In Canada, a lot of energy has been expended over the years to hold Quebec within the country. I think this stems from the demands that are a natural reaction of people who are in a minority within a large majority, in order to preserve their culture. There has been discord at the federal level because Quebec has enough seats in parliament to extract some leverage, but not enough to hold real power. Feeling a little less secure, Quebecers tend more to vote as a bloc, whereas English Canada tends to splinter along a wider political spectrum, sometimes creating an awkward imbalance.

I’m not sure if Canadian provinces have more powers currently than US states, but certainly they have increased their autonomy a lot over the years. A lot of pressure here has come from Quebec, which has moved away from the rest of the country in some significant ways. We have a national public pension plan, the CPP. Quebec has opted out and has its own, the QPP. We have a national public radio and TV network, the CBC. Again, Quebec is separate, with its own network. There are many other examples. One of the most significant laws passed was the one that made French the official language of Quebec, and it proscribed language use in detail, right down to the size and placement allowed for English signs in shops, for example.

This has had a certain upside, as it eliminated some discrimination that had existed previously against the French minority. It also had a downside, as the business community fled Quebec in droves at the height of these controversies. Many major companies moved their head offices from Montreal to Toronto, which subsequently experienced a boom, and is now the largest city and main business center for the country. Montreal sagged for some time, although now it is doing somewhat better.

Alberta is another province that has been at odds with the federal government. It happens to sit on top of most of the oil wealth in the country, a happenstance of geography that provincial governments there have been convinced should translate into favors for local residents.

My feeling is this sort of regionalism is not healthy or productive. Where to draw the line, for one thing? If most of the oil wealth in Alberta is in the northern half, does that mean the southerners should be turned away, or grudgingly given their dole? It can get pretty silly. And it can be very disuniting.

Hard to say of course how things will play out with the Latino population in the US. It is increasing in size, and seems to be a significant political force. My thought is that usually this sort of thing works our ok, as long as there is a basic acceptance of the original culture on the part of the minority, and a reasonable feeling of acceptance on the part of the majority. Kids loathe feeling different, and tend to integrate much more easily; second or third generations can look much different. I think that Europe is struggling more with these issues, because in regard to a sizable portion of the Muslim population there, neither of the above two factors is in place.