Box Turtle Bulletin

First of all, some gay people are also Latino. I am somewhat offended by the implication of this article that the LGBT community does not include members of other minorities.

I am also upset by the apparent insensitivity toward the plight of those discriminated against for other reasons than orientation. A very common criticism that I heard from black acquaintances after the passage of Prop 8 was that they could not get passionate about gay rights issues when LGBT organizations showed no inclination to fight discrimination in other areas. This reaction seems to validate their point. I am pleased that HRC at least appears to have learned something from the Prop 8 debacle.

Furthermore, my partner is a Mexican who has lived in this country for most of his life but does not have US citizenship. Because immigration laws unfairly discriminate against LGBT couples, we are at much greater risk of being harmed by movements such as that in Arizona. I wish that more people appreciated just how badly gay people are being harmed by current immigration laws and anti-immigrant sentiment. In my opinion this is just as much a gay rights issue as the struggle for marriage equality.

jake

HRC is quite right. It is also right that we support trade unions. My unions (3, plus 1 professional association) stand by us in New York, let’s try to help them in AZ. It’s a dreadful law representing the worst aspects of US xenophobia.

Glad to see all the comments siding with the HRC. Businesses run by GLBT members should be understanding of the HRC decision, not whining about loss of dollars. The boycott is because of an extremely discriminatory law passed by AZ, and if they weren’t putting their bottom dollar over the value of human rights, they’d see that.

And it’s absolutely the same people who deny gay rights that are creating the racist policies and laws like this.

Also I was unaware the HRC was only a gay rights group. I thought it stood for “human rights” of which our Hispanic and brown looking american friends belong (those racially targeted by the new law).

I find this post incredibly insensitive and myopic.

Mike Camardelle

For once, I’m siding with the HRC. While I’ve blasted them recently for basically turning their backs on the LGBT community as far as taking ‘progress’ to the next level, they are on target with promoting, directly or indirectly, a boycott on AZ. It’s a ‘Human Rights’ issue, not a LGBT one. The unlawful profiling that this SB-1070 encourages is a direct violation of ethical code.

I’m against illegal immigrants as much as anyone. I just don’t think this law in AZ is the right way to go about handling the situation. We have Mexican men framing and bricking our home. They are working their butts off from morning to night. ALL are documented. ALL are drug-tested by our contractor. ALL are the most polite individuals I’ve ever met. There’s a certain enjoyment trying to communicate with the couple who struggle with English and I struggle with Spanish.

The stereotyping by the AZ governor is absurd and about as racist as our governor here in MS. It’s so sad to think that all of this is a product of right-wing, ultra-conservatives driving the Tea Party movement. When President Obama was elected, I thought for once we’d bridged the span of our past civil rights history. All that has happened is a nation more divided than ever, which is extremely saddening.

Swampfox

Can someone craft a law that will stop the illegal immigration across the Mexican-Arizona border and not step on someone’s toes? Can King Solomon step forward on this one?

andrew

I guess my question is how many Latino groups are standing up for LGBT interests to the same extent? I hate to put it in those terms, but I’m a little tired of being “old faithful” — whether in expected party loyalty, “coalition” loyalty, or just being the guy family looks to.

The HRC seems to be better at advocating against this legislation than they are for LGBT issues, frankly, and I’ve concluded that they are the tool of the Democratic party to placate the gay community, rather than the non-partisan advocacy group they claim to be — which is why I no longer donate.

Lastly, my opposition to the law in Arizona isn’t to “stand in solidarity with my Latino brothers” or over questions of “human rights”, but with both the pragmatic effects of the law, and with the blatant violation of 4th Amendment principles (which apply to everyone).

Justin

This article pretends that there are no undocumented gay or lesbian people. It is offensive that the gay community would even consider not standing up for our more vulnerable members.

Timothy (TRiG)

Solidarity is good. Right is right; wrong is wrong. This law is wrong; the HRC is right. It’s as simple as that.

TRiG.

Chris McCoy

This recent University of Washington Tea Party poll shows that the same people who overwhelmingly support Arizona’s anti-immigration law (88% support) are also overwhelmingly anti-gay (only 18% support SSM – 82% oppose).

Neon Genesis

“It is always fascinating when gay organizations put the interests of outside members of a coalition ahead of the interests of gay individuals and organizations. I wonder if those coalition partners would do the same?”

Since when is it wrong for the LGBT community to care about other minorities besides ourselves? Frankly it sounds like these gay businesses are demanding they be given special privileges to avoid being effected by the boycott. It’s ok to hurt straight people’s businesses with a boycott, but not gay people’s who are for an unlawful bill?

Eric in Oakland

@Swampfox,

If you consider violating basic rights and freedoms as a mere “step on someone’s toes” then perhaps you would consider a Soviet style ban on relocation as a proper solution. In for a penny, in for a pound…

TonyJazz

Ben,

HRC is an organization whose focus is on gay rights issues. Yes, the name is a little confusing….

Of course, there are other organizations with a broader focus: Human Rights Watch, ACLU, etc….

Mark

“We have Mexican men framing and bricking our home. They are working their butts off from morning to night. ALL are documented. ALL are drug-tested by our contractor. ALL are the most polite individuals Iâ€™ve ever met.”

Great, then they realize that U.S. law already requires them to carry their green card at all times and they will have no problems with the police. And anyone else will have no problems with the police if they carry their proof of legal status with them when in public as most already do. I have no problem showing the police my I.D. Why should you? Unless you are here illegally.

“Not the least of which is the impulse to blindly lash out at people who are different”

Ridiculous. This is about enforcing our immigration laws.

Mark

“And itâ€™s absolutely the same people who deny gay rights that are creating the racist policies and laws like this.”

Then Mexico must be racist, as they have some of the strictist immigration laws on the books of any country.

Jim Burroway

Of course, there is no law requiring Americans to carry identity cards with them everywhere they go. So what do you do if you’re out jogging without your wallet in your brown American skin and get picked up in one of Sherrif Arpaio’s infamous sweeps? What do you do if you carpool to your construction site and leave your wallet at home because you’re not going to need it?

Every argument in support of this law supposes that only illegals will be stopped by police and hauled off to detention if they don’t have I.D. on them. We’ve already had cases where legal immigrants and citizens were detained by Phoenix sherrif deputies because they can’t prove they belong here — and that was before the law was passed.

This law is racist, proposed by bigots. Gov. Brewer recently said that “most” undocumented immigrants were carrying drugs, a charge that is hogwash. In her latest tirade, she claimed that there have been beheaded bodies found in the desert, a claim that has law enforcement scratching their heads.

This is the SAME brand of hysteria that drives anti-gay politics. But I guess as long as that hysteria is directed toward someone else, well that’s just fine and dandy in some quarters.

Chris McCoy

Mark said:

Ridiculous. This is about enforcing our immigration laws.

If SB1070 came close to doing anything about illegal immigration, I would agree with you.

This law does not stop anyone from crossing the US border illegally.

Please point me to the section in SB1070 that stops people from crossing the border.

Swampfox said:

Can someone craft a law that will stop the illegal immigration across the Mexican-Arizona border and not step on someoneâ€™s toes? Can King Solomon step forward on this one?

This statement implies that all opponents of SB1070 are in favor of unrestrained/unmonitored cross-border activity. This is not the case.

This law (SB1070) is not a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. This law is racial profiling aimed at Hispanics.

Chris McCoy

Mark said:

Then Mexico must be racist, as they have some of the strictist immigration laws on the books of any country.

If little Jimmy jumps off the bridge, must we also?

Mexico also uses Guilty untill Proven Innocent system of law.

But then, SB1070 effectively makes all Hispanics Guilty of illegal immigration untill Proven Innocent.

Timothy Kincaid

As I have said in the past, I am not sure that this law is a good decision. (Okay, read that again… I’m not defending the law so don’t accuse me of that)

Now having gotten that on record, I think that some of the comments here are not about the merits of this law at all. Instead of discussing exactly what provisions are objectionable and what would be a reasonable approach, it seems that we have lapsed into group-think and efforts to shut down communication.

Rather then discuss what is a reasonable approach to enforcement of immigration laws, this discussion seems to consist solely of accusations of racism, bigotry, and evil.

But that is neither productive nor reasonable. To assert that everyone who does not actively oppose this bill is a racist is preposterous. To claim that the sole motivation for the legislation is anti-Mexican bigotry is simply not a believable claim.

Most of those who oppose this bill have been quick to assert that they believe in enforcing the immigration laws. I’m not sure I believe that.

If you are in favor of enforcement, then let’s discuss what you would support.

I think it is reasonable to assume that all drivers in Arizona must have a valid drivers license. So a provision that checks the legal status of a driver who is stopped for traffic reasons but who does not have a license would seem not to be racist – rather, it would seem obvious.

Can you support that?

Secondly, as a provision for citizenship, one is required to display an ability to read, write and speak ordinary English. There are some exceptions (the elderly and the infirm), but in general can we agree that if someone is neither elderly nor infirm but yet they cannot speak even the most limited and basic of English, that they are overwhelmingly not likely to be a US Citizen.

This isn’t to say that this is a good way of measuring Citizenship. Obviously not everyone who speaks English is a citizen. But virtually all of those who cannot are not citizens.

We also know that current Federal law requires that those who are in the country legally – but not citizens – to carry with them at all times proof of their legal status.

So it is not completely unreasonable to expect that those who are not elderly or infirm and who do not speak even the slightest bit of English may be asked from time to time to show their green card just as visitors to every other nation on the planet have to prove their right to be there from time to time.

Can we agree on that?

And considering that the IRS has systems in place by which the legal right to work in this country can be fairly easily checked, it is reasonable to assume that employers who have hundreds of illegal immigrants on the payroll are flouting the law for their own personal gain. And as the gain can be considerable, the penalty should also be of sufficient size as to truly discourage this practice (for example, losing your right to operate as a business for three months comes to mind – but, if not that, then something substantial).

Can we agree that crackdowns on corporate scofflaws should be common and severe?

Can we agree on any enforcement provisions? Because if you disagree with every enforcement technique, then assertions of support for policy ring awfully hollow.

And, while I’m on the subject, I want to address the accusations of racism.

We don’t want racism as an immigration policy. I’m sure you don’t, and I know that I certainly don’t.

But it is not racism to insist that those who immigrate to this nation be diverse and from a broad range of cultures. To say, “no, we will not let 90% of all immigrants be from one country” is not racism. In fact, to insist that La Raza be allowed without exception – but others not be allowed – is racism.

To enforce immigration rules against Slovakia and Estonia and Moldova but not enforce them against Mexico IS racism. And when it’s a matter of Latino interest groups pushing for unfettered immigration from Mexico while not for Eastern Europe then it is insidious racism.

So for those of you seeking to shut off differing opinions by claims of racism, you may wish to consider who is making their decisions based solely on race and who is not. And if you want to call me a racist, you loose all credibility with me.

Yes, we do need to revisit our immigration policies. Because if more immigrants are needed to the country then it’s stupid to have such limiting restrictions. And if we need guest workers, then it should be formalized.

The era of ‘make laws which are unreasonable but just don’t enforce them’ has to come to an end. We need honesty, reasonableness, but also an expectation that the laws will be honored by citizens, families, employers, landlords, and police. If they are respectable decisions that are in the best interest of this nation, then we can respect them.

But I’m not on board with the demonization of either immigrants or of Americans.

And not to jump to a knee-jerk opposition to a bill that does not seem to many legal Americans to be unfair or unreasonable does not make the Greater Phoenix Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce deficient in any way. And to expect them to give up their livelihood does not make one honorable in any way.

Neon Genesis

“But it is not racism to insist that those who immigrate to this nation be diverse and from a broad range of cultures. To say, â€œno, we will not let 90% of all immigrants be from one countryâ€ is not racism.”

Likewise claiming that boycotting a business that happens to be owned by someone who is gay for a reason that has nothing to do with their sexuality is not persecution.

“But Iâ€™m not on board with the demonization of either immigrants or of Americans.”

Likewise we would appreciate it if you didn’t demonize anyone who boycotts Arizona as being homophobic.

Timothy Kincaid

Nope, sorry Neon Genesis, but you don’t get to put words in my mouth.

I didn’t claim that any one was “persecuted” or that anyone was “homophobic”. I did not say it, I did not insinuate it, and I did not suggest it. Now if you have anything to say about what I actually did say, then please do so.

This thread has spent far too much time in accusation and far too little in substantive conversation.

I like how it took you a multi paragraph essay to try to waltz around the issue that AZ is possibly the most racist government in the US and this law is just more evidence.

HRC made the right decision, the law is racist, made by racists, and does nothing to address illegal immigration.

I won’t shed a single tear for any business in AZ that loses money from this boycott, be they GLBT owned or otherwise, because by choosing to do business in AZ, they pay taxes and have the most amount of say in what the government does, and they share culpability and deserve some of the harm until it’s changed. That’s how the glorious “free market” and “invisible hand” is supposed to work, isn’t it?

Box turtle bulletin is great when it focuses on bringing to light gay issues, but whenever it veers political it’s depressingly myopic and right wing.

Neon Genesis

“Nope, sorry Neon Genesis, but you donâ€™t get to put words in my mouth.

I didnâ€™t claim that any one was â€œpersecutedâ€ or that anyone was â€œhomophobicâ€. I did not say it, I did not insinuate it, and I did not suggest it. Now if you have anything to say about what I actually did say, then please do so. ”

You accused the HRC of putting other issues ahead of gay issues by supporting the Arizona ban. Please correct me if I’m wrong but this gives the impression that you think anyone who supports the Arizona ban doesn’t care about gay issues and that gay people should never be boycotted if they support unjust laws ever.

Neon Genesis

Typo, *who supports the Arizona boycott*

Timothy Kincaid

Neon Genesis,

Please correct me if Iâ€™m wrong

You are wrong.

Neon Genesis

I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning but would appreciate further clarification as to what you meant then when you said this “It is always fascinating when gay organizations put the interests of outside members of a coalition ahead of the interests of gay individuals and organizations. I wonder if those coalition partners would do the same?

Jason D

A question left unaddressed throughout any discussion on this issue.

Illegal immigrants.

I order for something to be illegal, there would have to be a law against it, yes?

Given that there are thousands of illegal immigrants in this country, the laws dealing immigration must be
a) useless
b) not enforced properly

This new Arizona law, on top of it’s obvious license to racially profile our citizens does not solve either situation. If we’re not enforcing the laws already on the books, what is one more? If those laws aren’t effective –this law neither strengthens nor fixes that ineffectiveness.

Timothy, your driver’s license check during a stop makes sense, however this:

“This isnâ€™t to say that this is a good way of measuring Citizenship. Obviously not everyone who speaks English is a citizen. But virtually all of those who cannot are not citizens.”

Doesn’t.

With bilingual forms, subtitles, and ethnic specific neighborhoods someone can indeed move to this country, learn enough english to pass the citizenship test, but forget it at some time afterwards. I used to be somewhat fluent in japanese, haven’t needed to use it in years, and now I can barely remember a few random phrases.

They also don’t specifically state what disabilities qualify just that they may be mental, learning, or physical. So someone could very well be 25 and have a learning disability exemption for English and look perfectly fine. Would you be able to identify a speech impendiment in a language you don’t speak? What about deaf immigrants? Would an officer be able to recognize “No really, I’m a citizen” in sign language?

The IRS has stated that illegal immigrants actually DO pay into social security, bizarre that they’re not using that to crack down—-but I absolutely agree that businesses should be scrutinized. Many of the manual labor fields that attract illegal immigrants have safety and other checks run by government agencies, why not make citizenship part of that check? I absolutely think this would be the best angle to fight illegal immigration. After all, if there are no jobs for illegals, they won’t be as enticed to cross that border, now will they?

Chris McCoy

Timothy Kincaid said:

I think it is reasonable to assume that all drivers in Arizona must have a valid drivers license. So a provision that checks the legal status of a driver who is stopped for traffic reasons but who does not have a license would seem not to be racist â€“ rather, it would seem obvious.

Can you support that?

Only if it is enforced at every traffic stop, for every person regardless of race. The problem with SB1070 is the poorly worded and not-at-all defined “reasonable suspicion” clause which effectively gives racist law enforcement officers a blank check. As Jim Burroway has several times noted, law enforcement in Arizona are many times guilty of selective, race-based enforcement of the law.

Secondly, as a provision for citizenship, one is required to display an ability to read, write and speak ordinary English. There are some exceptions (the elderly and the infirm), but in general can we agree that if someone is neither elderly nor infirm but yet they cannot speak even the most limited and basic of English, that they are overwhelmingly not likely to be a US Citizen.

This isnâ€™t to say that this is a good way of measuring Citizenship. Obviously not everyone who speaks English is a citizen. But virtually all of those who cannot are not citizens.

The Supreme Court outlawed literacy tests as a determination for voting eligibility decades ago. I am sure a similar literacy test would likewise be considered racially motivated, and therefore against the law.

And considering that the IRS has systems in place by which the legal right to work in this country can be fairly easily checked, it is reasonable to assume that employers who have hundreds of illegal immigrants on the payroll are flouting the law for their own personal gain. And as the gain can be considerable, the penalty should also be of sufficient size as to truly discourage this practice (for example, losing your right to operate as a business for three months comes to mind â€“ but, if not that, then something substantial).

Can we agree that crackdowns on corporate scofflaws should be common and severe?

I agree with this. I think e-Verify should be Federal Law, and not an opt-in situation. I think all businesses, should be subject to random periodic screenings by law enforcement, in addition to anonymous tips from citizens.

I think this is the real avenue to combat illegal immigration. If there is no Demand for illegal workers, the supply will dry up.

But it is not racism to insist that those who immigrate to this nation be diverse and from a broad range of cultures. To say, â€œno, we will not let 90% of all immigrants be from one countryâ€ is not racism. In fact, to insist that La Raza be allowed without exception â€“ but others not be allowed â€“ is racism.

To enforce immigration rules against Slovakia and Estonia and Moldova but not enforce them against Mexico IS racism. And when itâ€™s a matter of Latino interest groups pushing for unfettered immigration from Mexico while not for Eastern Europe then it is insidious racism.

I think we should eliminate immigration quotas entirely. For two centuries people came to our great nation for any reason, and the only question they were asked when they got here was “How do you spell your name?” I am tired of the draw-bridge syndrome in this nation – where what was good enough for our ancestors isn’t good enough for you.

And not to jump to a knee-jerk opposition to a bill that does not seem to many legal Americans to be unfair or unreasonable does not make the Greater Phoenix Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce deficient in any way. And to expect them to give up their livelihood does not make one honorable in any way.

In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Timothy Kincaid

Jason,

Thank you for actually addressing what I said.

Your point about speaking Japanese is well taken, but I dare say that if you lived in Japan you would have retained your remedial skills.

We can look for the tiny exceptions for why some very few people might not speak English, but I’m sure you will agree that the case holds true for virtually everyone.

Your idea to have citizenship (or legal status) be part of safety checks is an example of looking for a solution (hint, hint, legislators). But employers don’t do it because they’d rather keep costs low, sell more, and make a higher profit.

I agree that crackdowns on employers (and landlords) would eliminate the vast majority of all non-crime related illegal entry. (Ummm… Hello, politicians of either stripe??)

And it isn’t just Mega-Corporations or Big Agriculture that is making enforcement difficult.

About the third time that ‘Joe the Discount Construction Guy’ was fined $50,000 for using guys at Home Depot instead of skilled American labor, he might decide that there really are Americans who “are willing to do the job” provided he pays them a wage they can live on. Especially with this economy.

And if Mrs. McMansion found that fines for hiring a maid who isn’t legal cost her a new Lexis this year, she might be willing to go with someone who really isn’t willing to take verbal abuse or work bizarre hours.

For some reason those who do the illegal hiring don’t seem to suffer the social cost of a vastly increased under-skilled economically-disadvantaged population. The ER in their neighborhood didn’t close. Their neighbors didn’t suddenly become ten single men living in a two bedroom apartment. Their streets don’t have cars without smog checks or mufflers. Their schools don’t struggle with language and culture barriers and an influx of children dependent on school subsidy programs for everything.

Hiring under the table saves them a lot and costs them nothing. Perhaps it should.

Timothy Kincaid

Given that there are thousands of illegal immigrants in this country, the laws dealing immigration must be
a) useless
b) not enforced properly

c) a lot of both

Timothy Kincaid

Chris,

Only if it is enforced at every traffic stop, for every person regardless of race.

I’m good with that.

I am sure a similar literacy test would likewise be considered racially motivated, and therefore against the law.

I didn’t mention literacy tests not did I say anything that suggested literacy tests. The language I used, (“required to display an ability to read, write and speak ordinary English”) was taken from the Department of State website.

I’m talking about those folks who speak only Romanian or only Swahili or only Spanish or only French and no English. That is a pretty clear clue that they aren’t citizens.

I think we should eliminate immigration quotas entirely. For two centuries people came to our great nation for any reason, and the only question they were asked when they got here was â€œHow do you spell your name?â€ I am tired of the draw-bridge syndrome in this nation â€“ where what was good enough for our ancestors isnâ€™t good enough for you.

Here we can have disagreement.

When my ancestors got here (the ones who had not been here for 10,000 years) they did not have a safety net designed to protect the less fortunate. We have a better, more caring society today.

But we can’t really care for the entire world’s poor. I don’t think we could absorb all of those who would like to be covered by such a safety net.

Sadly, I think that having no limitations at all would require that the safety-net we currently provide be eliminated for everyone. Or, that we go completely broke.

Jim Burroway

Only if it is enforced at every traffic stop, for every person regardless of race.

That’s fine with me. However, what about Arpaio’s famous sweeps where he picks up abuelitos walking to the corner market without ID. That’s a very real occurrence here in the barrios.

Iâ€™m talking about those folks who speak only Romanian or only Swahili or only Spanish or only French and no English. That is a pretty clear clue that they arenâ€™t citizens.

Not necessarily. Many of those abuelitos don’t speak English, and they were born and raised here, making them US citizens. Not to mention the fact that Arizona has tons of Tohondo O’odam, Pascua Yaqui, Apache, Hopi, Navaho, and many others who are more American than any of us here who still only speak their mother tongue. An ability so speak English is not a reliable indicator, especially in the locales that some in local law enforcement like to target.

Let me be clear. My complaint is not against what inconveniences may befall those who are here illegally. It is the suspicion of being unAmerican that is directed toward American Citizens that I think we all ought to find deeply offensive, as well as the burden that some of us (but not me, of course; I’m white) must go through to prove we belong here even though there is no legal requirement that we carry ID everywhere we go.

The only way to make this work is to have a national ID card with a legal requirement that we must carry it with us at all times, whether we are driving or not. Anyone want to sign up for that?

Chris McCoy

Tim Kincaid said:

I didnâ€™t mention literacy tests not did I say anything that suggested literacy tests. The language I used, (â€œrequired to display an ability to read, write and speak ordinary Englishâ€) was taken from the Department of State website.

What is a literacy test if it is not a test to determine the ability to “read, write and speak” a specific language?

Our country has no official language. I disagree with the belief that people should be required to speak English to live in the US. I feel that English-only arguments are racially biased. It implies that non-English speakers are less than English speakers.

I agree that speaking English is beneficial, but I disagree that it should it be required. One of my disappointments in our National Education system is the lack of a foreign language requirement for all high school graduates. We require all immigrants to learn a 2nd language, English, but we can’t even require the same of our own citizens? Besides, many of the limmigrants (my landlord, and my gardener, for example) I know speak English better than many of my own relatives.

When my ancestors got here (the ones who had not been here for 10,000 years) they did not have a safety net designed to protect the less fortunate. We have a better, more caring society today.

But we canâ€™t really care for the entire worldâ€™s poor. I donâ€™t think we could absorb all of those who would like to be covered by such a safety net.

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Timothy Kincaid

Not necessarily. Many of those abuelitos donâ€™t speak English, and they were born and raised here, making them US citizens. Not to mention the fact that Arizona has tons of Tohondo Oâ€™odam, Pascua Yaqui, Apache, Hopi, Navaho, and many others who are more American than any of us here who still only speak their mother tongue. An ability so speak English is not a reliable indicator, especially in the locales that some in local law enforcement like to target.

Thanks for the clarification. Here in Los Angeles, it is a fairly reliable indicator. We don’t have any indigenous peoples who speak their own language.

The only way to make this work is to have a national ID card with a legal requirement that we must carry it with us at all times, whether we are driving or not. Anyone want to sign up for that?

It sounds to me like you are saying that there is only one way to enforce immigration and that no one wants to sign up for that one way. So it’s hard for me to see much support for enforcing immigration policies in that statement.

People are looking for solutions. And they will come up with answers, whether or not we like the answers they come up with.

But if the only counter proposal on the table is “NO!” then their solutions will be the solutions that are used.

Timothy Kincaid

Chris,

You can believe anything you like about language requirements. English is a requirement to become a naturalized citizen. It seems to me that your real objection is not with the way in which immigration policy is administered, but that there is an immigration policy at all.

About that we will just have to disagree.

And by the way, all of my ancestors were here before that poem was ever written. It’s a lovely sentiment, but we can’t pay for it.

Emily K

And by the way, all of my ancestors were here before that poem was ever written. Itâ€™s a lovely sentiment, but we canâ€™t pay for it.

Thank god you’re one of the “purebred” Americans who were here before all those dirty irish, jews, russians, and mexicans got here! ..not to mention anyone ELSE who isn’t protestant.

Timothy Kincaid

Emily,

You crack me up. My family heritage is a Mutt. I don’t know of any russians or mexicans, but I have both Irish and Jewish ancestors among my American family.

Others include English, Welsh, Dutch, Cherokee, Alsatian, Scottish, and I’m sure a lot else. I don’t know my mother’s ethnic mix that well, she was a secretive woman and the historical records for poor people in Arkansas are not particularly good – especially if you were native.

(now your backwards way of calling me a bigot didn’t play out so well, did it?)

Emily K

Since nearly all of what you mentioned falls into one small section of Northern Europe (where the hair is fair and skin even fairer), I believe it is your use of your ancestry to release you from your bigoted remark falls apart.

Which makes you a WASP. a WASP who, since their ancestors arrived at the dawn of this great nation, doesn’t need to “pay for” the mistake of having the poem tacked on to the statue of “liberty.”

Neon Genesis

“Can we agree on that?”

Governor Brewer stated that she doesn’t know how to tell what an illegal immigrant. If this bill is supposed to target people who look suspiciously illegal, we should have a plan in place to determine who is illegal. Can we agree on that?

Republicans have stated we can tell who looks illegal by the clothes they wear. It is absurd to be suspect someone based on the mere fact that they don’t dress “American.” Can we agree on that?

Russell Pearce, the main sponsor of the Arizona immigration law, has also previously sent out racist emails from a white supremacist group. If a politician is trying to convince people that a draconian immigration law that presumes everyone who doesn’t look obviously American is an illegal citizen has no racism involved, it is a bad idea to send out racist emails that deny the Jewish Holocaust to the politician’s supporters. Can we agree on that?

Neon Genesis

Typo, *what an illegal immigrant looks like

Emily K

I don’t know what to do about illegal immigration. All I know is saying things like “my ancestors got here before the poem on the statue of liberty, so i shouldn’t have to pay for it [it being its invitation to people seeking to become American]” does not help one’s cause, or lend them credibility.

Mark

“This law is racial profiling aimed at Hispanics.”

False, the law prohibits racial profiling. The police just can’t stop someone because they look Hispanic. However, if the police make a lawful stop or arrest they can ask for proof of legal residency. Oh, the horror! This is not Nazi Germany, folks, but the way it works in most Western countries.

Mark

But let’s just suppose that the police, in disregard of the law, just stop anyone who looks Hispanic and demand identification. Well, I don’t know about you, but I carry I.D. every time I go out in public. So, if you have proper I.D. this will be nothing more than a couple of minutes of inconvenience.

Neon Genesis