Christian Leader calls OK a Racial Battlefield!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Why must it be a discussion of security?  If the borders were dealt with prior to 9/11 would it have been racist to do so?  I fail to see why we can't close the borders simply because our immigration policies are being violated.  Closing the border should have more to do with enforcing immigration laws than security, thought security is now a valid concern.

Absolutely we can close the borders on immigration violations.  Any central gov't has that right, to seal their own borders.  

However, the Fed has never been terribly concerned with immigration.  They pay a lot of lip-service to it on occasion, primarily as an election tool, but they don't care.  And when people get riled up, and racists start to come out of the cracks, and ordinary people start supporting race-based laws, you've completely blown away your ability to have a majority.

What needs to happen, is that people need to recognize that we (as a country) absolutely DO have that right; the right to seal the borders and control the ports.  People also need stay on target, and recognize that a lot of things are just plain detrimental to the cause.

[cannon_fodder]

First of all, I'm not really big on the "they took 'er jobs" bandwagon.  Until the underlying problems of employers getting the workers they want and workers getting the jobs they want, I really can not blame employers nor workers for working/hiring illegal.  The legal immigration process in this country sucks and the "border security" is as big of a joke as airport security (shoes off please).

However:

1) Its not race, its status.

I don't care if you're black, white, hispanic, arab, or martian - if you papers are not in order you are here illegal.  You are an "illegal."  That is who the laws target.

Just because most illegals happen to be hispanic does not mean it is a racist law.  Most pedophiles are white, is it racist to forbid them to move near schools?  Most mafia bosses are (were?) Italian, are racketeering laws racist?

2) Crack down for security = OK, crackdown to enforce laws = not.

That's an exercise in semantics.  The exact same action under a different pretense has the same result.  Both would be disruptive to the hispanics that are here trying to work (legally or otherwise in some instances).  Why would it matter if the governor decreed these new laws were for Oklahoma's security?
- - - -

My views are well known on this issue.  I do not blame the "illegals" at all for trying to work.  I would be in favor of a near open border policy (if you have work lines up, come on it.  But you are not eligible for government benni's until you are a perm resident or on citizen track).  However, saying that its racist when the government takes new measures to enforce the existing laws is a bit of a stretch.  Perhaps its a ill-advised attempt brought on by frustration, but how is it racist?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

First of all, I'm not really big on the "they took 'er jobs" bandwagon.

Well, try stayin' off the "I must agree with iplaw to fault" bandwagon.   I've already responded. []

Part of the problem of these types of laws, they are designed to target Hispanics even if not stated.  Also, local and state are in many cases out of jurisdiction when they pass these laws.  It's the Feds job, pawning it off on states and local jurisdictions won't work.  And, if you can ever find a way to make it work, you'll never find consistency.  Every one of these ordinances and laws is in total, the sum of a failure.

[cannon_fodder]

IP and I have gotten into plenty of spats... I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Anyway, I disagree that they target hispanics.  That is the result, but I do not think it is the purpose.

Per jurisdiction, it is the exclusive domain of the federal government if they have occupied the field.  I believe there is a strong argument to be made that they have NOT occupied the field in several specific areas.  So long as the state and local laws fill the gaps, there is an argument in support.  Without serious and in depth research of the state and federal laws, I cannot say for sure (even then, I couldn't say for sure.  Complicating the problem, does a federal law occupy the field if it is not really enforced?).

and in a Union, consistency is not required.  Don't have time to get into in depth, but laws can vary by state.  parts of me wish they would more (damn you strong central government!).

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Anyway, I disagree that they target hispanics.  That is the result, but I do not think it is the purpose.

It's always difficult to tell, might have been run of the mill Klan or mildly xenophobic suburbanites.  They're all crazy, in their own way.  But as you said, the result ends up targeting Hispanics.  The effect is exactly the same as if they named Hispanics directly, as opposed to immigrants.  In effect, it makes the law race-based, even if indirectly.

Of course, I don't believe in uncontrollable free trade.  So I don't have a problem with completely sealing the borders.  I do have a problem with passing laws that resemble the race-based laws struck down 40+ years ago.

[Wingnut]

quote: If Tulsa decided to round up all Hispanics, check them for immigration papers, then let the legal citizens go, it would be racist because you infringed of the rights of US citizens by sequestering them based on race/ethnicity.  

Fill me in here...once someone becomes legal, does that mean that no one is allowed to ask them about their status?

If I migrated, legally, to a country that had a problem with illegals from my country and they were working to solve the problem, I would expect to be asked about my status, multiple times even. Should I get angry that I was asked about my status, no. If I'm legal, I have nothing to worry about, under the law.

Are we supposed to tip-toe around the issue of enforcement and asking ones status because it might upset them? If so, we're in worse shape as a country than I thought.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it as racist. Do we have a right to ask someone who can't speak english their legal status? You bet!
Should we assume all mexicans are illegal, certainly not, but we won't know unless we ask.

Question for the day: If you have 10 people, 5 are in your country legally and 5 are in the country illegally, how do you find the 5 illegal people?
A) assume they are all legal.
B) if you randomly pick one and he is offended that you suggested he could possibly be illegal,(whether illegal or not) you stop trying to determine the 5 illegal ones.
C) ask them all for the proof that the host gov't has issued them to show that they are legal.
D)_____________________________________

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
The effect is exactly the same as if they named Hispanics directly, as opposed to immigrants.  In effect, it makes the law race-based, even if indirectly.

That certainly does not make it illegal.  Thank God emotions have no weight in the eyes of the law.  Discrimination in a legal sense does not concern itself with the ends, but rather the means by which you achieve those ends.  A law that targets illegal immigrants by fairly checking the immigration status of all is constitutional, even when it affects mainly hispanics.

[cannon_fodder]

Michael, the distinction between race based and racial effect is dramatic; yet you seem to ignore it.

I gave examples above of laws that have the effect of targeting one race above others, that effect is ancillary to the purpose.  So long as the purpose of the law is not to target a race the law is just fine.  The laws you are referring to said "black people can not sit here."  That is race based.

A Mexican that is in the United States without permission is ILLEGAL because of his immigration status, NOT his race.  The law effects white, black, hispanic, asian, whatever...  comparing that to laws that directly targeted blacks in the antebellum south is a every large stretch.

To be perfectly clear, the government can, and should, pass laws that may have a greater effect on one race than others (most "white collar" crimes are committed by white people, damn racist laws).  The ACT is illegal, not the color of their skin.

[MichaelC]

We'll see.  These local and state laws are already being struck down, or are in the process of being struck down.  There are some things local and state gov'ts can do, but not everything.  

The solution, IS, and always has been, to close the borders.  If your solution is to do everything you can to screw with illegals, EXCEPT close the borders, that's your business.  And you get to accept or reject the consequences, I couldn't care less.

And when you guys are finally ready to get on the same page, and work on closing the borders, give me a ring.  I'll be with you.  Until then, this is all side-show.

[Conan71]

It's easy to scream racism when likely 90 to 95% of the illegal immigrants in this country are latino.

Would these laws be racist if 90 to 95% of the illegals in this country were immigrants from Canada?

If you are of the bent to call these racist laws, then I really don't see how you can split hairs and say that building a border wall to keep Mexicans out isn't racist.  We aren't talking about building a wall between the U.S. & Canada, so it must be racist against Mexicans, right?

Is there a Godwin's law on racism yet?

These laws aren't intent on targeting a specific ethinic group.  They are designed to target illegal aliens, of which, 90 to 95% seem to be of hispanic descent.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

It's easy to scream racism when likely 90 to 95% of the illegal immigrants in this country are latino.

Until you guys are ready drop the side show, you're open to that charge.  You can argue it, you can try and justify it, it doesn't matter, you're not going to change an opinion on whether or not you're a racist.

There is an obvious solution, where the charge of "racism" is really weak.  It's closing the borders.  Instead of taking the obvious solution, if you choose to support all these half-a$$ed, minimally intrusive measures, you're going to be open to that.  There's nothing you can do about it.

That's just stating the obvious, I haven't called anyone on this thread anything.  Not on this thread.  []

[cannon_fodder]

and Michael, I would prefer a secure border.  My stance is clear, I just object to the notion that these laws are racist.  Otherwise, I'm pretty much on board with you on this issue (I think).

[Conan71]

I don't think I've made it any secret that my first priority on dealing with illegal immigration is tight borders.

I don't see how you can say that state protecting themselves in the abscence of any help from the Feds on this is racist.

What if similar laws were enacted in say, Montana or No Dak were enacted to deal with illegal Canadian immigrants.  Would be be able to say that that's racist?

What isn't xenophobic or racist about locking Mexicans out of the country?

[MichaelC]

The Federal gov't, and every central gov't around the globe, absolutely has the right to control it's borders as best as possible.  It has nothing to do with Hispanics, race, or racism, that is a right the Federal gov't has.  It has not chosen to exercise that right.

On the racism deal as it pertains to local and state laws, perhaps you can't recognize it at racism.  That's fine, but others do.  So again, you can argue that it's not racism, you're probably not going to convince many.  The easiest way to handle it would be to drop it and do an end run toward closing the borders.

[Johnboy976]

You and I both know that while there is a great need to tighten the borders, eventually racial profiling will become a reality and dilemma for both border patrol and most cities in this country. I am not in support of the latter, so checks need to be put in place immediately, before we start accusing everyone of getting past the border illegally.