If I’m not already, pretty soon I’m going to start sounding like a broken record. In Arizona there exists a 3,500 state funded (read: taxpayer funded) wildlife reserve that has been label “off limits” to US citizens due to the increase of violence in that area. To nobody’s surprise, the violence is a direct result of the drug and human trafficking aspects of illegal immigration.
Roughly 3,500 acres of taxpayer-funded government land in Arizona have been closed to U.S. citizens since 2006 due to safety concerns fueled by drug and human smuggling along the Mexican border, according to a statement posted on the website for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
The section of land — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre refuge — has been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when “there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking,” according to the statement released Wednesday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The closed area extends north from the international border for roughly three-quarters of a mile; a notice of the area’s closure has been posted on the refuge’s website since 2006. The remainder of the refuge remains open to the public for recreational activities.
For the past four years, the government of Arizona has been using resources, not to enforce the existing laws on those that would choose to break them, but to restrict the actions of those to whom the law need not apply. In other words: it’s become easier to section off a piece of land from law abiding citizens than to enforce our laws on people entering the country illegally.
A huge step forward in cleaning up this mess would have been Gov. Jan Brewer’s enforcement of the already existing immigration law bill. However slowing change would have been brought along, it still would have been a step in the right direction. Sadly, the Obama administration is planning on suing Arizona over it’s immigration bill.
The Obama administration plans to file suit
challenging Arizona’s immigration law, officials told Fox News on Friday.The confirmation comes after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with a TV station in Ecuador earlier this month that the administration would challenge the law in court, though officials had long said the issue was under review.
Administration officials initially would not confirm Clinton’s statement. But an official told Fox News on Friday that while the review is still underway, the decision has already been made that a Department of Justice suit will be filed. The administration at this point is just building its case.
I for one can’t wait for November to get here. As every poll I’m seeing is predicting, I look forward to crippling this single party government and having the new majority stonewall any further action on behalf of the ‘bully’ occupying the White House.
June 25, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Once again, you can tell me to stop if you wish. This is cut and pasted from a Facebook discussion I was having with a former teacher. In a nutshell, it’s this – the lawsuit and the land aside, you imply here that the AZ law can and will help stop drug violence and trafficking. It can’t, at least not in the long run.
I’ve also some studies on hand that challenge (well, modify, really) the idea that the AZ law will reduce crime by targeting illegal immigrants. I’ll post the link if you want, but it’s long and dense, and took me three readings before I was paying enough attention to see it all. In a nutshell, it states that the group responsible for crime associated with illegal immigrants is most likely the US-born children of the immigrants, i.e. legal citizens, and they have scores of prison stats to back that up.
June 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm
It seems your arguments are self defeating. If past illegal immigrants were stopped at the border and sent home, they never would have had their baby’s here as citizens, and that couldn’t have eliminated much of the problem you mentioned; the crime groups responsible for much of the damage? Further still, there are a lot of laws in America that do benefit the populous as a whole that can’t stop violence and trafficking. Does that mean we should disband those laws as well?
When dealing with the issue as an abstract, it is easy to state that one law won’t cover the gambit of the behavior’s negative effects because it won’t. But when specifics are applied to scenarios, this falls apart. For instance, both the Mexican President, and President Obama blame the United States for the amount of guns smuggled into Mexico, yet neither of these men feel people should be stopped at the border to discover an immigrants intent in our country. Reason would suggests that if people were stopped from coming into the country illegally, the act of illegeally smugling weapons into Mexico would at least lessen.
In your opinion, what should be the proposed first step in dealing with the illegal immigration issue?
And again I have to state, because in the end this is all that matters, the people of Arizona have the right to govern themselves. They’ve elected an official who is taking action on their behalf, and he approval ratings, in her state, are through the roof. She is doing what she was elected to do. Are you saying the majority of the population of Arizona is wrong in wanting their borders controlled?
June 30, 2010 at 5:38 am
So I’ve got a better idea – I tried to respond and be brief, and of course it didn’t work. So I’ll post twice – once to answer your most important question, and once with all the piddling nonsense that pretty much amounts to me saying, “no, no, no, blah, blah, blah.”
Here’s your question:
First and foremost, the biggest thing: identify the problem. What is the specific problem(s) caused by what is essentially a mass migration into the United States?
And this is where it gets really depressing. Most people assume they know, but it’s very, very difficult to prove and properly define, with good sources. Take the final quote from the Minuteman whose video you posted a while back:
I’ll give the sources if you wish (and I’m willing to bet that not all of them are completely fair), but here’s what I’d say – I’ve evidence that the crime is coming from LEGAL citizens of the United States. The social services you speak of are sapped more by legal US citizens on welfare who pay no taxes, sir; and besides, how can they be stealing jobs and taking welfare at the same time? Evidence that they’re overflowing schools and hospitals is scant, and given that most illegal immigrants who stay here an extended time DO pay taxes (ironically enough, in some cases, into systems which will, like social security, never benefit them), I bet you can’t tell me just how much of a drain they are, and how much money should be spent to eradicate them before eradicating becomes more expensive than letting them work.
I think this guy, and the woman in the video who screamed, “get educated, bitch!” are pretty much the same person. Neither one has gone or is going into heavy enough detail to even properly define the problem.
And now for a display of astonishing arrogance: here’s what I think the problem is.
1) Cartels. One reason people are running from Mexico because Mexico is really, really scary. I won’t go into too much detail except to say that they are billionaire sociopaths intent on controlling what is their last great marketplace – illegal drugs in the US. As long as they exist, Mexico will be unsafe, and hordes of illegal Mexicans will be running away. A fence will stop some of them; it will do squat to the Cartels. All we could do would be to, essentially, legalize a number of drugs – not a great solution, but the only one that doesn’t involve either ignoring or facing off militarily against a group with a bottomless checkbook.
2) INS, or now USCIS, is a giant, wheezing bureaucracy, just like most bureaucracies. Getting through is very difficult unless you know the right people (I can back this up with case studies, all people I know trying to get spouses through). It is not a do-able process if you don’t know the right people.
All this information I’m getting, I’m pulling from the USCIS website: if you aren’t marrying a US citizen (the easiest way in), the next best way is to have a special skill, like a Ph.D, MD, or a business degree. If you’re from Mexico and have a Ph.D, you can expect to wait a decade before we even LOOK at your application. And we might not say yes. Odds are not in your favor if you want to come here legally from Mexico. They’re much higher that you’ll die if you live in a town near the border, or near Cartel violence.
The following is from one of those case studies I mentioned – old college housemate of mine, and his German wife of four years:
I’m a fan. But eventually we’re going to have to realize that we have to make a cut-off point. You could argue that the cut-off point is already here, and though I’d ask for stats, I could see that. But I can’t abide hiding the fact that we don’t want to admit to ourselves that we’re making the final decision about that point by calling all border-crossers “lawbreakers.” Technically, they are…but in the same sense that if breathing oxygen were technically illegal, I would be a lawbreaker. An extreme example, yes, but the reality is closer to that example than it is to an example of someone breaking into someone’s home.
3) Racism. Really…sort of. Maybe more like “draw-up sides-ism.”
Hear me out – I’d argue that most people around the world are pretty damn racist, and that Americans, at least, are working on it (I bet no other country in the world could go from owning a race as slaves to having a member of that race be its leader in less than 200 years). But we are – and to make it worse, many people associated with immigration, and many immigrants themselves, deserve it.
(See, I’m really just trying to make everyone mad.)
Are La Raza extremists idiots for wanting to give Texas back to Mexico? Yes – just give Mexico back to the Aztecs, stupid, and you’ve got a deal. We wax apoplectic about people speaking Spanish, forgetting that America doesn’t, now or ever, have a national language. And in the original version of this paragraph, I went on and on and on…so I’ll skip to the end. The AZ law was amended precisely because the original version ALLOWED for some degree of racial profiling, and did not state that a crime had to be committed for an officer to ask for papers.
“Solely” is stuck through in the amended version, and “contact” is struck through and followed up with STOP, DETENTION, OR ARREST. Point is, originally, you could consider race a factor. Just not the only one.
People are racist. It aggravates existing problems. And to make it worse, when people are already drawn up in a battle with others, a problem like racism won’t ever be addressed. Both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have never addressed the fact that the AZ law was amended as they chide others for quoting the original version – I’m still not convinced that Hannity has even read the law. And I used to love them both. And, to be fair, most Leftists are idiots. Really; I believe that. But if we don’t admit racism is a problem here, and at least TRY to find out how it may be clouding the issue, we’ll never find the real issue.
This is long. It’s late. I should go to bed. I’m sorry I’m never brief.
June 30, 2010 at 5:40 am
I just took the two most relevant portions from the first, failed-and-too-long post. Only interesting point here is about your gun example.
On your example with guns – there is little doubt that the US is responsible for most of the weapons trafficking to Mexico, but that trafficking isn’t predominately done by illegals (at least not in Texas – it’s well-known how it happens here; moles go to gun shows, buy the weapons legally, and sell them across the border). This isn’t really an issue that has to do with illegals at all…and very little of those guns come back across the border. They usually stay in Mexico for the Cartels.
On whether or not the majority of Arizonans are wrong – I’m giving you as honest an answer as I can here, but you have to read the whole explanation: right now, I think so, yes. Obviously a simple majority rule doesn’t make a bit of difference as to who is right; otherwise, you should probably be Catholic or Muslim, and I’m pretty sure you’re not. But whether or not Brewer’s approval ratings are high doesn’t tell us anything really useful about whether or not the law will be effective. All it tells us is that people are happy that someone is doing SOMETHING.
(Which, incidentally, is really a giant condemnation of this and previous administrations, wherever you stand on the issue – they didn’t do much, and are now paying the price.)
I think I need a better definition of “immigrant.” So far it could be someone running drugs or guns as well as someone looking for work. Drug runners usually return to Mexico; gun runners are often citizens or people who, at the very least, have enough legal credentials to buy a gun – legally – in the United States.
July 1, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I think you missed my point about the majority of Arizonans. These people, by the laws of the land, have the right to govern themselves within the guidelines set forth by the founding documents. This includes enforcing an already existing federal law the the federal government is unwilling or unable to enforce.
Arizona has become the kidnap capital of America, Mexican gangs are building their own look out points on the border, Arizon’a police officers are being gunned down by illegal immigrants, the police force has pretty much begging from help from the feds, and they aren’t getting it, the stories go on and on. These people are, rightfully, getting angry, and their Governor, rightfully, is taking action to protect her citizens. Again, is the cure all, no. We both agree about this, but it is without a doubt a step in the right direction.
I really don’t have too much to counter your last two post, mainly because I agree with you on many of your talking points. It’s becoming apparent that we are not in disagreement about the problem, but rather how that problem should be handled.
From an isolationist (of which I freely admit that, to some extent, I am) perspective, I still feel the border should be locked down. If even for a while to collect data and statistics of the effect of locking down the border. To be honest, I don’t think the bill goes far enough. I’d like to see harsher penalties on businesses caught employing undocumented workers. Maybe then a revolution could take place? After all, it when people are forced to clean the closet, rather than come out of it, that change can take place.
People against the immigration law keep trumpeting that it won’t work, but in truth, you can’t know because nothing like this has been tried before. Not in my lifetime anyway. Even as a little boy growing up, I remember the news people talking about the ‘open border’. And you are right that this issue has been a abject failure of multiple administrations. The problem has only gotten worse over time. Perhaps when this issue began, this bill could have been the “cure all” many are hoping it is?
Looking at the issue in a broader, world-political sense, it is clear that Mexico is having a hard time. If we want to truly help them, then this needs to be done by assisting the people in weeding out the corruption in their own government. This could take many forms. As I stating in another comment, maybe get the UN involved and impose sanctions. Maybe this is a case for a military coalition to fight the cartels. If they are as dangerous as to warrant another nation to open their borders, they are dangerous enough to be deemed a world-wide threat and warrant boots on the ground.
Whatever the case may be, nobody can convince me that the solution to the problem is letting ‘illegals’ into America.
July 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I suppose I should offer an apology of sorts…your last sentence made me realize I never said that directly myself, but I agree.
I’ve got nothing much else – I think you’re right, we agree more on what the problem is and less on how it should be handled – but I don’t think I ever stated directly that a big fence is a big first step. Even my friends who’ve had trouble with INS still agree with that, although they counter with the opening up of legal immigration pathways to counter the closing of the border.
As for the Mexican government, corruption, and Cartels, that’s a whole other big post…I don’t think we can help them, really. In many areas in South and Central America, especially the hard-to-reach ones, the government really doesn’t have any say and power. It’s the drug lords who are building the schools, protecting the families, and giving the children an education. It’s all rather depressing.
July 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
I really wish we weren’t ending this discussion on a depressing note. I do feel for the people of Mexico. It could be very true that the corruption in their government has all but rendered them impotent as the over politicizing of issues has rendered ours. Though I HATE boiling down issues to an us verses them absolute, my final thought would be this: Given all the evidence weighed I’ll choose American safety (on the smallest level) over Mexican opportunity (on any level) every time.
July 7, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Not to worry – I’ve found that if I just give things time, they get more complicated.
I just finished Methland, a journalist’s look at the rise and fall and rise of methamphetamine use and distribution as it affected the town of Olwein, Iowa. The second half describes the Mexican drug trade, and the methods the top cartels use to distribute their wares throughout the US (I was under the impression that cartels in Colombia and whatnot were still a significant danger. Apparently they’re not – the Mexican cartels, in a brilliant move that was made possible by the rise of meth, basically bought them out.).
The upshot is this – I’m still against the AZ law, but now for entirely different reasons, and had I read this earlier, I may not have started debating you at all.
On the other hand, I’m having a much harder time now justifying to myself the belief that civil suits against corporations are mostly frivolous, and even harder the idea that “corporations are usually very, very evil” is just a left-wing myth.
I recommend it, but not for fun.