Still More Mixed Reactions to Arizona Immigration Law
"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?" That was the exact question Rassmussen Reports asked Coloradans in a poll that touched on feelings about Arizona's tough new immigration law. The answers: 55 percent are in favor; 35 percent oppose; 10 percent weren't sure. If these numbers are, in general, correct, Republican candidates for governor Scott McInnis and Dan Maes are doing the right thing for their campaigns by talking loudly about how much they like what Arizona has done. As for Boulder, that's another story. The city has joined Denver Public Schools in banning all official travel to the state, according to 9News. Boulder City Manager Jane Brautigam says that a policy such as Arizona's "is contrary to Boulder's commitment to diversity and is a violation of our community's core values." Meanwhile, Congressman Jared Polis, a Boulder Democrat, has been appointed to the House Judiciary Committee (via the Daily Camera) and says he will use the post to roll up his sleeves on the issue of immigration. In a news release, the freshman congressman states, "Replacing our broken immigration system with one that works is one of my top priorities. This country should not have millions of people living and working here illegally; we must have a functional system that restores the rule of law and allows no illegal immigration." And in rural Colorado, a "lifetime" Republican is now on the record as solidly against the Arizona law, according to The Denver Post. Yuma Town Councilman Ralph Ebert recently authored a town resolution---which passed unanimously---asking lawmakers in Washington, D.C., to "find a humane solution to the illegal immigration problem." Ebert, who lives in a farming community that relies on migrant laborers, tells the Post, "If people want to live in our community and we need the labor force and we have a strong economy, we just like to see those people have a chance to find a way to become legal."
Comments
Submitted by Benito (not verified) on Thu, 2010-05-06 12:49.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
Submitted by Flanders (not verified) on Wed, 2010-05-12 11:24.
Benito is able to lift the words JFK used on June 11, 1963 and to apply them as being his own (with some modifications). Theft without attribution comes naturally to some.
The Constitution, the definitive founding document (and not the Jeffersonian words cited in the Declaration of Independence - strange that those words are being misconstrued to cite false doctrine against the heirs to that document, isn't it?), describes the real founding principle as being to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". This document excluded Indians (regarded as "foreign nations") and "other Persons" (understood to refer to the black slaves). Congress' first law restricted naturalization to "free White persons".
It is clear that the other founding principles - "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare" - have been threatened most effectively by the influx of unassimilated immigrants and their posterity. Their advocates have long disingenuously spouted self-serving universalist principles.
Self-determination was the main principle of the founder's rebellion against British rule. It is this same principle by which the people of Arizona rebel against distant, hostile rule today. It is also this principle by which these hostile rulers explicitly aid "latinos" and "people of color" to pursue their collective best interests, regardless of the impact it has on the interests of true Americans. They openly plan how to best harm the cultural history of the majority of Americans.
