Kumozarusan's Playlist

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Thoughts on Legal vs. Illegal Immigration into the United States of America.

This Arizona immigration law escapade is getting way out of hand, especially on the opposition side. In my opinion, their rhetoric is flawed and so is their understanding of this country and it's laws, and they are confusing the differences between Civil Rights, Natural Rights and Human Rights.

I will come out and say it right now, I am not for racial profiling in anyway whatsoever, but I am for obeying the law as long as it is in effect. We cannot disobey any law any time we feel like it, one or many that we feel is/are contrary to our individual interests and desires. That would result in anarchy, and the creators of this nation, Republicans, in the true historical sense of the word (those who favor a republic), not today's modern day political party knew exactly that. And a republic is ruled by law, not by men; men only execute, establish (by means of representation by ballot), and declare the law. And anyone who has entered this country, stays here, and works here without documentation or permission by our elected officials in the government is breaking both federal and state law. Many of these protesters, legal immigrants or not, repeatedly hold up signs stating they are humans too. Nobody doubts or questions that. And as human beings we are all granted certain inalienable, natural, and human rights. But, with that being said, the following also holds true: Just because you are a human being does not give you the right to enter any country with an established national government and take up residence there any time you feel like it without the legal permission of that nation's people and their representatives. This is fact and known the world 'round. I could not imagine myself entering Japan without the Japanese government's permission, and then trying to live and work there without their knowing it or without their permission. This also cannot be expected in Korea, China, Vietnam, England, France, Hungary, Ghana, Russia, Haiti, etc. This would not be acceptable for me to do even in Canada or Mexico, the two closest boarders with the U.S. Indeed, this would not be allowed in any nation in the world, let alone the United States of America.

Take for example the nation of Hungary. Just because I am of Hungarian descent, my great grandparents being born in Hungary and having immigrated to the U.S. sometime in the late 19th or early 20th century, does not mean I am granted citizenship (and therefore entitlement to all the civil rights guaranteed to citizens of Hungary) in Hungary. On the contrary, I am not. And if I tried to enter Hungary illegally, and take up residence and work, then I would be breaking Hungarian law as well.

I also descent from certain other European nations as well, and just because my relatives were born there several hundred years ago, does not entitle me citizenship and all the civil rights that go along with it, no does it give me the right to enter those countries without their government's permission.

Another example is Japan. I lived in Japan for a total of 4 months, (separate visits, one one month visit and another 3 month visit), and each time, I entered legally with a legal U.S. passport and was required to leave to Japan after a total of 90 days, that being the total amount of time foreigners visiting on a passport are allowed to stay in Japan.

The same requirements of legal entry on a visa given by permission of the Chinese government were required of my entry into China, and with a passport on my entry to South Korea.

The United States is not a nation that is anti-immigration. Our history has shown that, especially as seen by the historic landmark Ellis Island. Now yes, there have been times in our history when certain nationalities were prohibited from immigrating, sad times indeed, and wrongful actions in my opinion. And there have been times that certain nationalities, once legally entered, were persecuted by both other immigrated nationalities and long-standing Americans as well; and as sad and regretful as those dark marks in our history may be, those persecuted all entered LEGALLY with the U.S. government's permission and were given documentation. And even those that were prohibited from immigrating would have, to be sure, immigrated LEGALLY and with out government's permission, and by nature our system of representation, by the American people's permission as well. Thus, America is not anti-immigration. Rather, we are against ILLEGAL immigration, as is ever other nation is this world. We encourage and welcome anyone who wants to immigrate to the U.S. in a legal manner, with our government's permission. America is an asylum for the oppressed people of every nation in the world, or in the words of a British Whig who was highly optimistic of America winning the War for Independence (written in 1784), Richard Price's a "place of refuge for opprest [oppressed] men in every region of the world. But we cannot tolerate the breaking of the law by illegal immigration. Entry must be done in an orderly and legal manner, with permission given by the government to those who enter, take up residence, and take up work.

When you enter the U.S. without permission, you are doing so illegally, meaning the law is being broken. And when you break the law, legal consequences follow. That is the nature of the law and government. Human beings the world 'round, no matter what their race, color, gender, or age, are entitled to certain inalienable and natural rights, given to us by our Creator, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These are what are known as natural rights, or human rights. And these must be done, especially the pursuit of happiness, within the legal bounds of democratic law, law enacted and condoned by the people (be it by the people themselves or their representatives). But these natural rights are very different from "Civil Rights", which include suffrage (the right to vote) and the like. These "civil rights" belong to legal citizens of the nation; note the root of the word "civil", "civ-/ci", based of the Latin word "civitas", meaning "city." "Civil", "Citizen", and "Civilian" all have the same root mentioned above. But these "civil rights" only apply to "legal citizens", not legal residents, nor illegal immigrants. This is the law of the United States. There are very real and distinct differences between natural rights/human rights and civil rights, civil rights belonging to the legal citizens of a specific nation where those legal citizens dwell and work. Legal citizens of Japan cannot expect to have the same civil rights as those legal citizens in America, and cannot expect to be able to exercise those civil rights held by legal American citizens upon their legal or even illegal entry into the U.S. And the same goes for Americans who want to visit other foreign nations. They can't expect to have and be able to exercise the civil rights of a certain nation upon their legal or illegal entry into that nation as a visitor or even a legal resident.

One female protester asserts the Arizona law is "racist":

"'It's racist,' said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. 'I have papers, but I want to help those who don't.'"

Laws that establish legal immigration are not racist. These laws apply to all who enter the U.S., including Mexicans from Mexico. It just so happens that the illegal immigration problem in Arizona and much of the Southwestern America is concentrated mainly among the Mexican race, due to the location of Arizona along the border with Mexico. It's natural, logical, and even inevitable that this law would apply to or be carried out mainly upon Mexicans who enter illegally into the U.S., due to the natural location of Arizona and Mexico. But rest assured this law would and should apply to any race or "human being" who entered the U.S. illegally. Therefore, this law is not "racist", and anybody that throws the word "racist" or "racism" around without any real and reputable evidence is guilty of furthering the spread of "racism" in the U.S. and in my opinion is just as guilty and despicable as those who do commit racist acts.

Another argument people make is that this law is unconstitutional. People have claimed that the states don't have the authority to legislate concerning immigration. However, with this new law in Arizona, is it not that Arizona is merely legislating that they will now enforce a law already legislated, passed, and signed into law by the federal government, or that it is now officially illegal to do something already deemed illegal by the federal government? Where are the states not given authority in the Federal Constitution to do such legislation? As far as I know, the states do indeed have the authority to enforce laws already passed by the Federal government, and if the Federal government is not doing it's own job, then who else is supposed to do it? The next level of authority in this country, or rather, the different states.

for all the many persons who have claimed this law is unconstitutional, I have yet to hear anyone of them say WHY it is so? They have never given any reason as to why they feel it is unconstitutional. It's as if they think that them just say it is magically makes it so. I looked at the Federal Constitution today, in Article I, sections 7-10, that deal with the federal legislature, and it doesn't violate anything there, nor does it violate anything under Article IV, sections 1-4, which deal with the States. It also doesn't violate anything under any of the amendments, more specifically the 14th or 15th amendments, which would be the most likely to be brought up in this case.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

So, how is it unconstitutional? In fact, the Arizona law states,

""A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."

They cannot do anything beyond what is permitted by both the Federal Constitution and Arizona State Constitution, and the Arizona Constitution, already ratified, cannot disobey the Federal Constitution.

And here's the link to the actual text of the bill passed and revised recently by Arizona's state legislature.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm

The key part of this bill is the following text, taken directly from the bill:

"A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT 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. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED, THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED."

And under every section having to do with determining one's status as an immigrant, the following phrase has been added:
"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."

I think it's pretty clear that racial profiling is prohibited by law and technically illegal by the wording in this bill. Opposition to this bill claim, despite the clear assurance in this bill that it is illegal for it to happen, that racial profiling MIGHT happen or that it will allow it to happen from the police officers in Arizona. But the law clearly states it CANNOT happen. Anybody can claim something contrary to what a piece of legislation dictates MIGHT happen from that piece of legislation. The same could be said about the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution concerning the abridgment of free speech or the free practice of religion, that the Federal gov. MIGHT breach their lawful boundaries and abridge the right to free speech and press, as well as freedom of religion. But because the law specifically states that they CANNOT do so, the people of the country can rest assured that they have the law behind them in case of infringement of that law by the government or government officials, and that victims of this infringement have the right to press charges and petition their grievances, and that the violator of that law will face legal consequences. It's the same scenario here. If any law officer or agency is guilty of racial profiling, as the opposition to this bill FEAR MIGHT happen, then they can rest assured that if it does happen to happen, then they have the law on their side and that violators of the law will face legal consequences.

In sum, I am for lawful and legal immigration, and encourage it, and believe all immigrants should have an equal opportunity to immigrate legally into the U.S. I believe the U.S. needs to make legal immigration easier and cheaper, and price should not depend on one's abilities or education. All immigrants should have the equal chance and opportunity, and equal laws and price regarding legal immigration. But, it needs to be LEGAL!


This is a long post, but I felt it needed to be said and explained.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/anger-over-arizona-law-sends-thousands-into-the-streets/19461398

No comments:

Post a Comment