Austin residents, do you support the boycott of Arizona? (live in, law)

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by mickey65

Weren't the American Indians here first before all of us? Shouldn't they be saying we are all immigrants and asking all of us for our papers??

That is why I have a problem with those who claim that their ancestors came here legally.
Mine didn't stop and ask when they came to America from Europe OR when they went west and settled in Oregon.

I understand that there are legit economic arguments for keeping illegal immigrants out of the country. While some employers do profit from the labor (which they can then pass down as lower prices), a heavy burden is then placed on the schools and other tax funded services in the area.

This is likely the main issue that lead to the Arizona law. They are overwhelmed.


I see some merit in the arguments related to fears of loosing land back to Mexico, but think that this issue is inflated by those who carry a deeper prejudice, as a way of creating fear. The inflation of this issue does create a fear that feeds prejudice.

But I suppose It could be like a reverse Alamo.
We can decide to allow large numbers of Mexican Citizens to settle on American Soil. They might then decide they don't like our laws and decide to succeed, and then ask Mexico if they can become part of Mexico.


But I tend to tune out (and lose respect for the person arguing) when they try to claim that their ancestors came legally OR call the illegals parasites (or other negative names) OR try to tell me that illegals are in anyway less moral than American Citizens.

[austin-steve]

The Austin City Council vote to boycott is pointless symbolism.

The Arizona law, in contrast, is effective symbolism as it has sparked exactly the sort of attention and discussion this topic deserves, and it effectively makes it no longer acceptable for either the Federal Government or politicians to keep kicking the can down the road.

Whether one is for or against the specific Arizona law is beside the point. The fact that the AZ law forces the government and politicians to make a decision and take action makes it a good thing. They'll (AZ) never actually have to detain anyone under the new authority as the whole thing will be tied up in legal challenges before it goes into effect anyway.

Steve

[chickenfry]

do you think the lakers will skip arizona?

[Roadking2003]

I guess since the city council has nothing else to do, they have time to spend on useless things like this. I wonder how many have actually read the AZ bill? Or are they like our US AG Eric Holder - he's never read it but that did not stop him from speaking up.

Regardless of whether or not you support AZ on this, this is not a function of city councils.

[BentBow]

Having Cherokee, Comanche and a little bit of Seminole in me, I can tell you right now, we got our asses kicked when we tried to fight them for taking our land.

I can also tell you, we kicked the other tribes of the same Indian nation asses, that tried to come on our land, more so a Navajo, trying to come on Comanche land. The Rio Grande has always been a line for American Indian tribes.


So, don't come here and say we stole it from the Indians. No, my ancestors got their asses kicked and our land was taken. Was it a fair fight? You tell me? What fight have you ever seen that was fair?

Skip Centuries and now we have the American tribe and the Mexican tribe the Honduran tribe, the Canadian tribe, so on.....

So, like always, you come on my our land, you better expect a fight, unless you let me exploit you and turn you into a sla...

[austinizer]

I strongly agree that the City of Austin should not get involved in other state's laws. The reason the City Council gave for passing this law (because it would be unsafe for City of Austin employees to travel to Arizona) is not very good. The US as a whole has tightened the paperwork required of foreign visitors over time, and I don't see any country boycotting the US for it.

As to the Arizona law itself, I don't understand why some people find it racist. If it turns out that a significant fraction of an identifyable population group in a given area is in Arizona illegally, then it's an unfortunate fact. I don't think it should be construed as Arizona targeting the members of this group, but rather, the illegal immigrants in that group.

I do feel sorry for the U.S. citizens and legal immigrants in any such identifyable population group that will be disproportionately targeted and harassed because of the large share of illegal immigrants in the group. It would be especially troubling if people legally in this country are detained and deported because of mistakes. But, U.S. citizens in Arizona have the right to vote -- if citizens feel unfairly treated by this law, I'm sure they will exert their power to have this law repealed or changed (unfortunately, legal immigrants cannot exert such voting power and will have to rely on the good judgement of U.S. citizens).

As far as the argument that we should be happy to have illegal aliens in the country to do certain jobs, the argument doesn't hold. The U.S. has legal immigration policies defined by Congress. If more foreign workers are desired for certain jobs, the Congress should give visas to those workers. There should not be a need for anyone to work in this country "undocumented," otherwise it's either a failure of federal government to provide necessary visas, or there is a good reason why the foreign worker was not able to obtain a U.S. visa.

I do understand that most of the illegal immigrants are poor and only here to have a decent job, but being poor does not give someone the prerogative to break another country's immigration laws. Sure, if they come here and the US does not enfore its laws, I'm not surprised and have no problem if they stay here. But they should not be surprised or offended if a government entity enforces the law at some point in the future. Anyone who enters the country illegally should be aware that they risk not being able to stay here permanently. I'm sure there are some - perhaps many - who are not fully aware of the consequences of illegally entering the country. Perhaps they have been misled. Many of them are children who can't make the decision to illegally enter for themselves. I think they deserve different treatment from those who knowingly break immigration laws.

[austinizer]

While we're at it, here's a problem that will make the Arizona law difficult to enforce and/or will lead to wrongful detention. As far as I can tell, there's not a practical way for someone to prove, as they go about their daily lives, that they are a U.S. citizen. Sure, you can require all non-citizens to carry proof of their lawful presence at all times (I think this federal law already exists) -- but I don't think there's a law that U.S. citizens have to carry proof of citizenship. (Does the Arizona law require this?) Many natural born U.S. citizens will only have their birth certificate as proof. So, due to this country's inadequate way of identifying a citizen, what's illegal immigrants to stop from just claiming to Arizona police that they are U.S. citizens? Of course, the legal consequence of this would be bitter for them -- a lifetime bar to (legal) entry into the U.S. if they are caught falsely claiming citizenship to a government entity.

[austinizer]

Finally, here's another problem that Arizona will face with this law -- immigration legislation is complex and there are many different legal and illegal immigration statuses (they probably did this on purpose to give immigration lawyers a job).

We already have some immigration related state laws here in the State of Texas that are not always easy to enforce. Take the relatively new law in Texas that requires legal immigrant documentation to obtain a driver's license, for example. Texas requires documentation above and beyond what the federal government requires. A (perfectly legal) immigrant co-worker of mine had to go to the DPS three times, each time with more supporting evidence, before they renewed his license.

Austin City Council, why aren't you boycotting the State of Texas for requiring proof of legal immigration for driver's licenses? Isn't it dangerous to subject City of Austin employees to such scrutiny by the State?

[homeinatx]

As far as I am concerned, this whole immigration debate is absurd. So what if the Arizona police can now find a few undocumented immigrants and deport them. Most estimates have the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S at between 11 and 12 million - most of them from Mexico and points south!! That is one of every 30 people living in the U.S. Do you want to deport them all? That would be the largest forced relocation project attempted in the history of the world. Not even Pol Pot tried that. It would be an ethnic cleansing project that would make Bosnia look like a church picnic! Is that the kind of historical company the U.S. wants to be in? It would cost trillions of dollars, particularly for border states like California and Arizona, already close to bankruptcy - one largely Democrat, one largely Republican. This is not a partisan issue. You cannot forcibly relocate 11 million people without becoming a police state that rivals Nazi Germany - the most successful example of an ethnic cleansing project! And totally destroying your social fabric! The sanctuary city policies of the big TX metropoles is one of the reasons that TX is in relatively good fiscal health! Make 'em legal. Make it fast. Encourage full buy in to the American dream! Given the hardships they have endured to get here, they are more than half way there. Get 'em paying taxes! An underground economy of 11 million people is a very bad thing for a country. Trying to deport them all is a recipe for national suicide. The Austin City Council tried to light a little match. We need full-on daylight on this issue.

[austinizer]

homeinatx,

I agree with you that the Arizona law is not a sustainable solution for controlling illegal immigration. Forced relocation of 11 to 12 million people would indeed be very costly. I think a way to urge many to return to their home countries (and deter others to come here illegally) is by removing the economic incentives that made them come here in the first place, for instance by stronger penalties for inadequate employment verification. Those that the U.S. actually wants here, they should receive appropriate visas. However, last I checked, for permanent immigration, U.S. policy is to only allow highly skilled workers and family members of U.S. citizens/permanent residents. So, many of the illegal aliens are not halfway to anywhere. In fact, if they entered without inspection (rather than with a legal visa), they are not admissible as permanent residents here. If they leave to come back with a legal visa, many will find themselves with an automatic 3 to 10 year bar on entry.

If you make 'em legal and fast, what message do you send to those from India and China who have been waiting for their visa since 2000? Those from Mexico who have been waiting since 1995? Those from the Philippines who have been waiting since 1988?

About paying taxes, many of them already do. The IRS is not nearly as forgiving as USCIS. Some are welcomed to this country upon attaining their legal status by presenting them with a big bill of past due taxes.

I don't think Nazi Germany is a fair comparison. Illegal immigrants are not an ethnic group. They are a group of people who chose to ignore U.S. immigration laws. Also, deporting people to their home country is hardly the same as taking them to concentration camps. Finally, everyone here illegally has (or is supposed to have, anyway), access to due process of the law; i.e., a hearing before an immigration judge to plead their case.