Consider also this story:
I’ve got nothing, and it’s open thread time, so let’s talk about my Mother. She’s 74 years old, brown (US citizen from Mexican parents), and tough as nails. She spends her winters in a small town near Tucson, a few miles from where she grew up.
Since the Arizona immigration law passed, I’ve been thinking about what’s going to happen the first time she’s pulled over and asked for her papers. The results of my thought experiment aren’t pretty. To say that she’ll be unintimidated by the local cops is a gross understatement. My concern is for the officer who pulls her over, as well as the police department and town that she’ll sue. Life gets a little dull for the retired, and the family joke is that Mom has a titanium grudge carrier, so I expect she’ll do her part to bankrupt her local municipality, and enjoy doing it.
Mom’s a proud Goldwater Republican. She was happy with Reagan, voted for Bush II in 2000 (but not in ‘04), and has long been active in the local Republican party. But I can say with absolute certainty that she will not vote for a Republican, for any office, ever again. She’s the proudest person I know—proud of her family, her achievements in life, and her Mexican heritage. And, whatever else this new law is, it is profoundly disrespectful. I don’t know if this law will kill the Republican party in Arizona, but I can assure you that they’re already dead to her.
Sometimes, democracy sucks. But sometimes, when democracy sucks, it swings back around later and punches the suckers in the face. And that's a good feeling.
I do not support Arizona's law.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it is difficult to imagine any law - whether at the Federal or State level - which is designed to keep out people who are in the country illegally or to catch people who are illegally in the country, assuming that either such goal is a legitimate one could be effective without singling out Latinos. After all, there are millions of Latino immigrants who are not in the country illegally so, quite naturally, efforts at law enforcement will disproportionately impact on them. So, there is an inevitable clash in all of this, unless the law is designed, as previous efforts have been, merely to paper over the issue.
I would favor some form of amnesty for most illegal immigrants, the aim being to avoid the creation (or, as things now stand, expansion) of a conceptual underclass of people with no actual rights. But, I can imagine perfectly decent, non-racist people taking the view that the government should act to expel all people illegally in the country. That is not my view but, as I say, such is certainly a legitimate position to hold and does not make one a racist.
Which leads me to the tactics which our side of the political spectrum is now taking, which is, to me, a long term political disaster for our country and, frankly, pretty disgusting. The base tactic is to call any law directed to kicking out illegal immigrant "racist." The same tactic is thrown at the so-called loony toons in the Tea-Party movement. This approach from our side of the political ledger is no different, in my book, than Republican tactics that call opposition to Bush's policy unpatriotic. There is no basis for debate, if your opponent is a racist or unpatriotic, yet there are legitimate reasons to disagree with each parties views.
Now, addressing the law in Arizona. As I said, I do not favor it. I do not, however, think it is the greats travesty against justice that is asserted to be. Rather, my opposition to is is based on my view that (a) the country should, to the extent possible, have a pretty open immigration policy and (b) on the view that the Federal government needs to address the issue one way or the other.
That's an impressive bit of concern-trolling over a post that never once said the word "racist".
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI did not accuse you of anything or suggest anything about your views - about which I know little. I was, instead, explaining my concerns with the direction in which the debate has taken in the media. Any examination of the coverage of the issue is filled with allegations of racism. Do you deny that?
There's a huge difference between a law that has a disproportionate effect on a particular racial group, and a law that explicitly says the use of race is limited only to the extent prohibited by the state and federal constitutions (note: SB 1070 does not require compliance with Congressional statutes regarding racial profiling).
ReplyDeleteAn immigration policy that favors family reunification over skills and education, has the effect of favoring ethnic groups like Mexicans and other Latinos who are already a huge part of the U.S. population and whose immigrants disproportionately work unskilled jobs, over ethnic groups like South Asians who are a small part of the population and who are more likely to be skilled and educated immigrants. That doesn't make family reunification policy racist or inherently biased against South Asians.
In contrast, an immigration policy that says "being from a country with a large Muslim population can't be the sole reason for refusing an applicant, but so long as there's some additional reason, it can be the bulk of the consideration"... yeah, that's actually racist and biased against South Asians.
See the difference?
PG,
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is whether the government has the right to enforce its immigration policies. I say it does, whether or not the law impacts one group disproportionately. That is different, mind you, from saying that I favor the approach taken, which I do not.
So far as immigration policy is concerned, there are legitimate reasons to refuse immigration for any group. One could say, quite legitimately, we want no one at all from Saudi Arabia because that country has a disproportionate number of people who hate us. Or, one could say that exposure to Americans will cure that hatred, in which case allowing immigrants from that country might be preferred. But, I do not see the issue as being racist unless it is really based on race hatred. And, so far as Constitutional law is concerned - and correct me if I am wrong -, the government can exclude people for any (including a bad) reason or even no reason.
In the case of immigrants from Latin America, the current problem is that such immigration is not regulated by any rational means. There is existing law, enforced rather sporadically to the point of really not being enforced much at all. There are, at the same time, business interests which want to take advantage of the fact that illegal immigrants are illegal and, hence, not in a position to turn to the government for help. There are advocacy groups who want to have more Latinos in the country for a whole host of reasons, some admirable and some grossly political.
I do not see race being the big issue in this. I see Democrats attempting to graft race onto an issue which people have a perfect right, without having a racist bone, to side either way. That is politics at its worst, akin to the Bushites who call opponents to Bush unpatriotic.
As for the Arizona law - a law I do not favor -, it may prove problematic or not so far as its Constitutionality. It may prove politically troublesome for Republicans or not. I do not, however, see the law as racist and, as I see it, there is no good way to enforce a law which is being violated in large measure by people in one group without that group being, in some way, singled out. That, however, is not enough to scream racism, unless one wants to contribute to the undermining of our democracy.
N. Friedman,
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is whether the government has the right to enforce its immigration policies.
Uh, why is that the issue? Did David say it was the issue in his post? Where did I say that any method of enforcing federal immigration law is racist?
And if your response is that I didn't say that, to whom are you speaking here? You've denied that you were actually responding to David's post. You don't seem to be responding to my comment either. You apparently have some unspecified democracy-underminer in your head to whom your comments are directed. Perhaps you should leave a comment on that person's blog so there won't be these confusions.
No one here has said that controlling entry into the United States is inherently racist. So please quit with the strawmen.
I do not, however, see the law as racist
You seriously don't see the Arizona law as racist when it allows officers to take race into consideration when deciding whom to stop and demand identification from -- in a country where citizens are not obligated to carry ID?
Good grief, what would you consider to be a racist method of enforcing immigration law? So long as it isn't based on what you perceive as "race hatred," apparently for you anything goes.
PG,
ReplyDeleteYou write: "You seriously don't see the Arizona law as racist...?"
Answer: No, I do not. Here is the bill's language in issue:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
On its face, the law is not racist although it is certainly race conscious. Being race conscious differs from being racist, at least under US law and common sense. Racism involves some manner of real discrimination. This law does not discriminate but, instead, says that race cannot be the sole means to determine whether a person is violating immigration law.
Again: there is no means, if the goal is to catch violators, most of whom in Arizona are Latino, of the immigration law, without targeting Latinos. That is not enough to make the law racist. That is a fact that you fail to consider.
And again: I think it is a bad law. I believe in as open an immigration policy as possible - albeit one that is grounded in law and not in the refusal to enforce law. So, I would grant amnesty to the immigrants and set up a more rational means going forward to protect the border and permit substantial legal immigration. But, I recognize the legitimacy of those who argue in favor deporting people who have immigrating illegally. And, I do not see how one can pursue that perfectly legitimate aim - one I do not agree with but, nonetheless understand as legitimate - without directly targeting Latinos. And, since Latinos are the major violator of the law, I do not see how it is racist to target the law towards those who are breaking the law.
Of course it isn't racist, N. Friedman. In fact, to make things easier for law enforcement officials, I suggest that Arizona pass a law that makes it easier for officers to target Latinos, since some Latinos, of course, pass as white, and since Latinos are most likely to be in violation of illegal immigration laws in Arizona. How about some kind of patch that Latinos would wear on their clothing?
ReplyDeleteN. Friedman, how about the fact that our society didn't care about the "open borders" until it became apparent a lot of minorities were coming through them? The old immigration policy was good enough for Europeans, yet now it's a problem?
ReplyDeleteYou can break it down into non-racial terms, but that doesn't change the picture when we two and two together.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteWhile not racist as written, the law may turn out to be racist as enforced. It depends on how it is enforced. Either way, I do not support the Arizona law.
Joe,
You have your facts wrong. Polling shows that most people do not object to immigration per se including immigration by Latinos; rather, polling shows that most people object to immigration outside of the means provided by the law.
Moreover, the law has, for the better part of a century, included quotas, based on a variety of criteria.
Again: none of you has the slightest notion that people have the right to have the laws of the land enforced. That does not make people racist. And, as I noted, there is no possible way to enforce the immigration laws without, at this point, targeting Latinos. This is, I think, entirely the fault of the US government for bad immigration policies and not, as was a proposed some years back, giving amnesty to immigrants who are not in compliance with the laws.
Okay, let me amend: For some reason no one got too worked up over this supposed need for strict enforcement until we were dealing with a lot of minorities.
ReplyDeleteAnd I could design a poll question to get people to agree to just about anything, so I'm hardly shocked if I learn most respondents do not self-describe as racist when asked point-blank.
joe,
ReplyDeleteYou write: "For some reason no one got too worked up over this supposed need for strict enforcement until we were dealing with a lot of minorities."
Are there other instances where more than 11 million people or more have broken the immigration laws to enter the country? Not that I know of but I shall await your explanation.
Again: the polling shows that people, even in Arizona, favor a nearly open immigration policy. The objection here is, according to polling, to the means of entry into the country that violates the law.
Your comments suggest that you have contemptuous views both of the law and of those who would enforce it.
My view, by contrast, is that there are better ways to deal with illegal immigrants - amnesty. But, I acknowledge that the immigration is illegal - something that you seem not quite to understand -, that people can take opposing views about how to deal with those who break the law and that to take steps to force out those here illegally is not racist. Rather, I think that racism is charged as a cover to advance a political agenda.
Now, I have had opportunity to discuss this with my secretary, who is not a racist but who, unlike, me believes that the illegal immigrants should all be deported. Her objection is personal but, knowing her for ten years, not racist as that is contrary to her entire way of thinking.
She objects to the fact that, in our state, there are advantages afforded to illegal immigrants that she, who is here legally, is denied but would benefit from. And, she objects to having to pay extra money towards such benefits - even if it is, in reality, a very small amount of money - when she, who had, until recently, a husband who is a creep, can now hardly afford to raise her two children.
She, who would otherwise be a natural liberal, has come, by virtue of policies which place her natural generosity toward others at direct odds with her family's needs, has come to hate liberals. And, she thinks that the law should be designed to help people, but only people who are by some semblance of logic in compliance with the law. I, for one, have no good answer to her concerns. Do you? I doubt it.
Frankly, I think you are living in an ivory tower. If you want to find out why the left has difficulty attracting people who, by logic, should support the left, consider what happens when leftist policy places those of the working class at a disadvantage, in this case, to people who have broken the law.
While, as I said, I favor an amnesty program, I think it is worth reading what at least one law professor - writing in the New York Times - think. Read this. And, on the race issue, he states:
ReplyDeleteActually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
Is he mistaken about the impact? I am not sure but I think he is certainly correct when he indicates that, as worded, the law is certainly not racist.
Being race conscious differs from being racist, at least under US law and common sense. Racism involves some manner of real discrimination.
ReplyDeleteYes, and choosing partly on the basis of race who will be required to prove legal residency -- thus providing grounds for police harassment of particular people -- is "real discrimination." Evidently you don't consider any racial profiling by law enforcement to be racist, because hey, it's just "common sense" that we should be doing the airport security cavity search on every person with a name that sounds Middle Eastern or South Asian, and waving the Jose Padillas and Richard Reids on through.
Also, U.S. law has recently declared race consciousness, even in the cause of racial integration, to be forbidden except where it would be remedying past wrongs. See Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 ("What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? ... For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way 'to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,' is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.")
Again: there is no means, if the goal is to catch violators, most of whom in Arizona are Latino, of the immigration law, without targeting Latinos. That is not enough to make the law racist. That is a fact that you fail to consider.
No, it's not a fact. It's only a 'fact' if you lack the imagination to think beyond "most violators belong to group X, therefore I shall harass group X." I have more imagination than you do. For example, if I'm interested in catching violators of immigration law in Arizona, rather than thinking Latino=illegal immigrant as you do (which will lead you to harass a ton of legally-resident Latinos, thus engendering bad feeling among that group toward law enforcement), I'm going to focus my attention on what draws the illegal immigrants in the first place. In any community with a critical mass of illegal immigrants, certain employers are known for their laxness in ensuring that job applicants are eligible to work in the U.S. Have a trained law enforcement official oversee the hiring procedures among those employers; make that his "beat." If it becomes impossible to secure paying work in a community, and that community already forbids state aid, illegal immigrants won't come there.
Moreover, the law has, for the better part of a century, included quotas, based on a variety of criteria.
ReplyDeleteSweet Jesus. You don't think something actually called "The Chinese Exclusion Act" was racist?
there are advantages afforded to illegal immigrants that she, who is here legally, is denied but would benefit from.
This should be fascinating. In your state, what advantages are afforded to illegal immigrants but denied to all legal residents? Or is her beef with the fact that her income rises to a level that makes her ineligible for certain benefits, but there are illegal immigrants poor enough to be eligible? If the latter (she's angry that people poorer than herself are getting assistance), I don't think I'm going to take your assessment of her "natural generosity" as accurate.
the polling shows that people, even in Arizona, favor a nearly open immigration policy.
Which polls are these? Here again your ambiguous phrasing leaves unclear what you mean, now by "nearly open immigration policy."
A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of many occurrences from my youth when my father (a frequent speeder) would be driving me, my sisters, cousins and family friends in a minivan on Interstate 59, a known alien-smuggling (and for that matter, drug-smuggling) corridor. Being under 16, none of us passengers would have ID. My father gets grumpy when he's pulled over and might well be deemed to be "acting evasively," in that some conservatives appear to believe that not answering every idle inquiry of a cop constitutes obstruction.
Assuming that the cop is clever enough to realize that my father's name isn't a traditional Latino one, however, we're unlikely to get be suspected of being illegal immigrants. (If the cop isn't that clever, we're probably going to be mistaken for Latino, a common error to make about South Asians in Texas.) So long as the cop isn't using race as the sole consideration in whom to suspect, it's perfectly OK under this law for him to use race in his assessments.
PG,
ReplyDeleteAGAIN, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE ARIZONA LAW. My argument is with the reasoning advanced to oppose the law, which I think does great harm to our democracy, by falsely raising race as an issue, just as the Bushites falsely raised patriotism as an issue.
1. The case you cite involves using race as the "tie-breaking" factor in determining admission. That is, in fact, racist and not merely race conscious. So, I disagree with your characterization of the case and, in fact, the case supports my understanding of the law. After all, the Arizona law does make race to be the decisive factor. It does exactly the opposite, requiring the police to have other grounds.
The law provides exactly the opposite of what you claim it states. Instead of allowing police to look at someone and employ, by common sense inference, that a person in Arizona who appears to look like he or she comes from Latin America is more likely be in the country illegally (i.e. because there are large numbers of such people known to be in Arizona), the law says there must be some other basis. Which is to say, the law is directed to causing the police to have real bases to apply the law rather than a mere suspicion, based on a rational inference about who the likely law breakers are.
Any law in Arizona which did not include the additional requirement would be an open invitation to target Latinos for being Latino, as opposed to a factor, among others, that would, whatever is in the law, already be in the minds of any police officer.
Or, is your view that, in Arizona, there are large numbers of non-Latino groups who are illegally present? Which is to say, you have the situation exactly backwards.
2. You assert another means to find illegals. Your method also involves targeting Latinos. And, whether or not stated in whatever law you draft, your police officers would come to suspect the employer by, at least in part, the appearance of those working at the employer's plant. Which is to say, your approach is, by your definition of racism, more racist than the approach adopted in Arizona because your law has not check on police drawing reasonable inferences.
3. I did not claim that laws to exclude people are or are not racist. What I said is that the law has allowed entry of some but not others for the better part of a century.
As for the Chinese, I think the rationale was racist. I do not, by contrast, think that is the case at present with 11 million people who have broken our immigration laws, laws that already permit immigration from Latin America.
4. Among the advantages to illegal immigrants: lower tuition at state colleges, easier access to welfare payments. That is in her state.
5. Polling data: Those conducted by Rasmussen.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteDelete, from my last comment: "After all, the Arizona law does make race to be the decisive factor."
Substitute the following:
After all, the Arizona law does NOT make race to be the decisive factor.
Actually, all the Arizona law says is that race can't be the "sole[]" factor. It says nothing whatsoever about it being the decisive factor. Race wasn't the "sole" factor in the Seattle & Louisville cases either (at the very least, it was subservient to familial unity), though in many cases it may well have decisive. But so long as the officer can come up with a credible non-racial pre-text to buttress his reason for suspicion, the terms of the Arizona law also would seem to countenance race being the "decisive" factor. The law doesn't even seem to require that the non-racial reason be, on its own, sufficient to support the suspicion of illegal status.
ReplyDelete4. Among the advantages to illegal immigrants: lower tuition at state colleges [citation needed] , easier access to welfare payments. That is in her state. [citation needed]
5. Polling data: Those conducted by Rasmussen. [Jesus, we're on the internet, provide a hyperlink -- citation needed]
David,
ReplyDeleteOn your first point: I think the purpose of the law is to prevent police from using race as a definitive factor. It would not be a pretext, it seems to me, unless there were a large number of non-Latinos in Arizona who are also breaking the immigration law. Or, do you actually think that police, federal or state, can enforce the immigration law against illegal immigrants in Arizona without intentionally targeting Latinos? You and I both know that such would be a fantasy so that, if the government wants not to act as a racist force, it must add something to the law to focus the police not only on what they will, by the nature of the circumstance, tend otherwise to focus upon.
I stand slightly corrected. State laws provide in a number of states, contrary to Federal law, for in-state rates for illegal immigrants, according to my secretary. She sends her kids to a state school where that is the case but which is not her home state - so she pays more than someone illegally in the country. See what the Finaid website states states.
So far as illegal immigrants receiving welfare, according to pro-immigration groups, such is the case. In fact:
A 2007 analysis of welfare data by researchers at the Urban Institute reveals that less than 1 percent of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5 percent of households headed by native-born U.S. citizens.
According to Factcheck.org: "It also estimates the total federal net cost of households headed by illegal immigrants at under $10.4 billion."
Here is what Rasmussen himself says - and it took me a while to find his explanation, most especially because he posts in different political outlets than I read. See here and then here. Note: what he writes shows, if his data are correct - and he is generally considered a very high quality poller -, that race is not likely what is at issue here.
I misread what Factcheck.org states. It actually states:
ReplyDeleteSo, how much do illegal immigrants cost federal, state and local governments in the U.S.? Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists. The Urban Institute put the net national cost at $1.9 billion in 1992; a Rice University professor, whose work the Urban Institute criticized, said it was $19.3 billion in 1993. More recently, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years in an attempt to answer this question. CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." CBO said "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."
Where liberals are missing the boat here is that we are failing to consider that, to a person who can barely make ends meet, the fact that this is something that needs to be calculated means that money is going to people not entitled to it.
Now, that is not - to repeat ad infinitum - my view. It is, however, the view of a great many people who should be, by their circumstances, liberal but are alienated by the Federal government's unwillingness to grant amnesty or otherwise act.
She sends her kids to a state school where that is the case but which is not her home state - so she pays more than someone illegally in the country.
ReplyDeleteYour secretary thinks she should be entitled to pay in-state tuition rates for a state in which she is not a resident and thus does not support the state's universities as a taxpayer? (as illegal immigrants who reside in the state do through sales and other state and local taxes)
Seriously, you're not making your case for her as a delightful addition to the liberal side. I think we can do without folks who have an overactive sense of entitlement based on being born in the United States.
total federal net cost of households headed by illegal immigrants at under $10.4 billion
Households headed by illegal immigrants often contain legal residents, including U.S. born children of the illegal immigrants. Your own source points this out repeatedly. So if your secretary thinks that U.S. citizen children, who have the misfortune to be born to illegal immigrants, therefore ought to be denied benefits... "sins of the father" types really are much more at home in the GOP, no matter how much "natural generosity" they may have.
Your method also involves targeting Latinos. And, whether or not stated in whatever law you draft, your police officers would come to suspect the employer by, at least in part, the appearance of those working at the employer's plant.
No, it doesn't involve targeting Latinos. If Latinos happen to be the ones taking the jobs with those employers, they will be more affected. Despite my extensive comments on the subject, you still don't seem to understand the distinction between targeting based on race and a policy that disproportionately affects a particular race. If the Arizona law forbade using race as a factor in determining which people will be required to prove legal residence -- if it said that when called upon to justify the demand, the officer must be able to present only non-racial justifications -- I would have less of an issue with the law. It would still leave room for ethnicity-proxies like "I heard them speaking Spanish," but at least it wouldn't be explicitly permitting race to be a consideration.
Rasmussen's issue polls frequently reveal in themselves how poorly the questions are phrased. For example:
Do you favor or oppose the new immigration law signed by the Governor last week?
64% Favor
Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?
55% Favor
How do you end up with 64% favoring the law, but only 55% favoring its central enforcement provision, unless you're asking the question in such a way that people don't know what the law actually contains?
PG,
ReplyDeleteSo, you think that people illegally in the country should get the benefit of a reduced rate, over a person in the country legally? Are you joking? On what imaginable basis is a person illegally in the country entitled to any benefit, much less cheaper tuition than a citizen? Please explain that one without alienating poor working class Americans. I would love to read it.
I am not a polling authority but I do note that Rasmussen is widely believed to be among the best pollster in the business. And, his polls are generally well respected, both by Democrats and Republicans. As I said, I am going by what he says. You raise some questions that, to me, show a disrespect for someone who knows more about polling on his fingertips than either of us. And, frankly, my area of law frequently requires the taking of polls so, unlike you, I know enough not to assert my expertise over a renowned expert on the subject.
So, you think that people illegally in the country should get the benefit of a reduced rate, over a person in the country legally? Are you joking? On what imaginable basis is a person illegally in the country entitled to any benefit, much less cheaper tuition than a citizen? Please explain that one without alienating poor working class Americans. I would love to read it.
ReplyDeleteSo you think that people who don't live in the state should get the benefit of a reduced rate, over a person who lives in the state? Are you joking? On what imaginable basis is a person who doesn't live in the state entitled to any benefit, much less cheaper tuition than someone who does? Please explain that one without alienating poor working-class Americans whose taxes actually fund state universities. I would love to read it.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteI am not arguing that out of state people should get in state tuition. I am arguing that people with no right to be in a state to start with have no right to get in-state tuition. Such people are no different than common house thieves, when they seek public benefits.
I think you are living in an ivory tower - and not just literally -, asserting elitist formula that has no regard for average people living in accordance with the law of the land. It is, in reality, spitting in the face of average people who have difficulty making ends meet. Not to understand that such is your position astounds me.
Yet again: I DO NOT FAVOR THE ARIZONA LAW. I FAVOR GRANTING AMNESTY AND I BELIEVE IN NEAR OPEN BORDERS, BUT WITHIN THE RULE OF LAW.
I'm not sure a single comment here has alleged you're a secret supporter of the Arizona law, so perhaps you can stop shrieking the point at us?
ReplyDeleteAlso, upon reread, the Arizona language is worse than I had given it credit for:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
So basically, it says you can't solely use race as a factor -- except if the constitution allows it. In which case, go wild. This language basically instructs Arizona police to use race to the greatest legally-allowable degree, which, they imply, is in most cases anything short of "sole" reliance (but certainly countenances it as a "predominant" or "decisive" factor). To act like it's some magnificent restriction on racial targeting (which, as PG notes, is quite distinct from racially disproportionate impact) is fanciful.
Most states don't give in-state tuition to people who aren't in the country legally. Those same students aren't eligible for financial aid, either, which makes education cost prohibitive for many students who are here illegally (many of whom where brought here by their parents at very young ages and don't actually speak their "native" languages well enough to "go home" for their education).
ReplyDeleteAnd the illegal immigrants aren't eligible for a benefit that legal immigrants aren't eligible for. They just happen to live in one of the few states that still defines residency as, well, residency. They get the same benefit in that regard as all other state residents.
Regardless, I don't see why your secretary, if things are so tight, doesn't have her kids go to the in-state school in her own state. Problem solved. To somehow make her problem something caused by the presence of illegal immigrants is quite a stretch.
(And yes, I understand that you don't favor the Arizona law and do favor amnesty, but you're the one who brought up the example of your secretary, so you can't expect everyone to refrain from pointing out it makes no sense. I could give much better examples of legitimate reasons to be upset about illegal immigration.)
David,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your interpretation of the law. However, anything is possible and, as I said, the big issue is how the law will be enforced. As noted on this page, the Constitution does not permit race to be used for much of anything so, I think, your comment is disingenuous.
I have repeated my general views about immigration because the implication of a lot of the posters is that I am taking a position which is consistent with supporting the Arizona law. So, I want my views to be understood and not deliberately manipulated as might otherwise occur. Which is to say, While I do not support the Arizona law, I think one can support the Arizona law without being a racist and I do not think the law is racist. On the other hand, I think that any law designed to enforce the immigration laws against illegal immigrants will, if we are talking about Arizona, by necessity single out Latinos. I think it is unavoidable but that does not mean it is racist.
chingona,
You are certainly correct that states do not properly provide financial aid to illegal immigrants. That is why there should either be an amnesty or such people should leave the country. The absence of legality is breeding ground for undermining our democracy and needs to be fixed, preferably by an amnesty.
However, your contention that my secretary should send her son instate is ill considered. One: you wrongly assume that all states charge the same for tuition - which is not the case - such that it may be cheaper for her son out of state than instate. Two: you assume that her son could simply pick the instate school, when, in fact, he needs to apply and get admitted (which is not automatic). Three: you still forget that people illegally in the country have no right to be in a school in this country. Such people are no different from thieves since, in fact, instate tuition is subsidized in most, if not all, states at least by the state but also, most likely, by the Federal government. So, people are paying for people illegally in school are stealing from the general public.
Actually, all the Arizona law says is that race can't be the "sole[]" factor.
ReplyDeleteI love how all these conservatives love to talk about how the 60s are over and we should rightly be a colorblind society when it means getting rid of affirmative action.
But when it comes to policing, suddenly they want us to profile away... look up what shade of brown best corresponds to the crime and round 'em all up.
In other words, it's a big "fuck you, got mine" from when it comes to race relations.
Uh, they do have a right to be in school. It's well established that schools cannot refuse admission based on immigration status.
ReplyDeleteAnd they do pay for schools - either directly as property owners or indirectly as renters subsidizing the landlord's property tax - same as everyone else who rents.
If a state has a law that allows any resident, regardless of immigration status, to qualify for in-state tuition, then any illegal immigrants who pay in-state tuition in that state are neither breaking the law by going to school nor getting a "benefit" that legal immigrants or citizens don't get. The example is stupid. I'm sorry, but it's just stupid. And you brought it up.
If you want to talk about a legitimate beef with illegal immigrants, talk to a contractor who pays his guys a living wage and wins a third of the bids he did five years ago because the competitors are hiring illegal immigrants and paying them $10/hour. Don't talk about someone who sent their kid to a college in a state that allows illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition and who is pissed that she doesn't get in-state tuition, even though she's out-of-state. Especially if it's STILL cheaper than the in-state tuition in her own state.
I am not a polling authority but I do note that Rasmussen is widely believed to be among the best pollster in the business.
ReplyDeleteRasmussen is widely believed to be among the best pollsters in the business for election results, because he's good at selecting for people who are true "likely voters." He's just as widely believed to be poor at issue polling, which requires much more sophistication than the "Push 1 for Candidate X. Push 2 for Candidate Y" method that's so great for his famous automated election polls.
Also, I used to bloody work in political polling (Cooper & Secrest) before I went to law school, so please drop the assertions of authority. I know exactly how push-polling works and have successfully used it on many people to get them to change their preferences. How you phrase questions and the order you put them in makes a tremendous difference in the results you get. And the results in that Rasmussen Arizona poll regarding immigration show how poorly the questions were done.
chingona,
ReplyDeleteYour argument is what, exactly? That it is ok for people to enter the country illegally and act as if they are citizens? Is that really your view?
My view, to reiterate, is that the country has laws about immigrating. When we do not respect fundamental laws - in this case, laws about what it means to be a citizen - by enforcing them, we undermine the country by making a mockery of the rule of law. And, immigration law are among the most fundamental laws that a country has.
You say that a state cannot turn someone out of school - actually elementary and high school, not college - for being illegally in the country. Obviously, the federal government can enforce the immigration laws and force the person out of the country even if a basic education is permitted. Again, if we are going to grant amnesty, I am fine with educating everyone. If we take a middle ground and make such people illegal but then make believe, as you seem to advocate, they are instead legal, then I think it is a travesty, that makes us liberals look indecent.
The only good solution to all of this is to grant amnesty. As you assert, people have acted as if they are citizens, paying taxes and being good people. I have no problem with such people being in the country, but believe that, absent their being within the law, either they must be given amnesty or deported. And, I think amnesty is the better solution.
As for Joe, I am not a conservative. I am a liberal. However, I believe in the rule of law including fundamental laws such as immigration law.
Your argument is what, exactly? That it is ok for people to enter the country illegally and act as if they are citizens? Is that really your view?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you'd like to quote some part of my comment in which I said that.
Of course, you've treated this entire thread as just a space to spout your opinions with no regard for what anyone else is actually saying, so I don't know why you'd change now.
And lastly, if a state does not ask about immigration status of applicants to state colleges, then how is applying to a college and enrolling if accepted "acting like a citizen"?
I think it is particularly ironic that 60% of NF's posts have involved screaming not to attribute to him a position nobody has said he holds; after which he immediately turns around and ... accuses someone of holding a position they do not, in fact, hold.
ReplyDeleteN. Friedman, don't worry, I didn't have you in mind when I was slamming "all these conservatives"... usually that is the blanket term I use for Fox and their talk radio/internet allies.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThose who are quick to shout racism are usually the racist.
ReplyDeletechingona,
ReplyDeleteI believe that I did address your position. For your information, my comment was directed at this portion of your comment:
"If a state has a law that allows any resident, regardless of immigration status, to qualify for in-state tuition, then any illegal immigrants who pay in-state tuition in that state are neither breaking the law by going to school nor getting a 'benefit' that legal immigrants or citizens don't get."
I do not see this as a real argument.
Evidently the Arizona legislature is aware that the current language of the law is going to allow for racial profiling, since they're now amending it.
ReplyDelete