Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, this thread has really disintigrated. You guys / girls are now blathering about border patrol checkpoints. The real issue is, ordinary police officers acting as federal agents, and racial profiling, and attempting to enforce FEDERAL LAW. CBP enforces immigration laws, and states, like AZ should be enforcing local laws, speeding, illegal turns, tail lights out, etc.. What AZ government has done has overidden FEDERAL LAW.
...all non-citizens are required to carry documentation on them that says they're here legally. Holds true for Italians, Germans, Brits, as well as Mexicans and Central Americans who are non-citizens.
And it holds true for virtually everywhere in the world, IME.
I was once "kicked out of Canada" after having had my passport stamped with an entry visa because someone at the company I was visiting called Canadian Immigration on me. I had to travel (by car) to a border crossing, cross into the USA, then re-enter Canada with "official" papers in hand. It was an inconvenience, but not disastrous. Canada (and other countries) have strict laws about people entering their borders to work at jobs that Canadians are capable of filling.
Had I been in the country illegally, I feel sure I would have been more than simply inconvenienced! Luckily I had that visa stamp in my passport to prove I had entered legally in the first place.
If they are requiring non-US citizens to prove their legality, they should require all to do it, especially those who claim to be US citizens. I wonder if they ever require proof of US citizenship from someone they think might be "suspicious" but who states that they are a US citizen.
Here in the US we do not have to routinely show any kind of national identity cards, we don't have them unless you count passports and only a small percentage of people have them. If someone stops you and they don't believe you are a US citizen and you have no proof, what is to stop them from detaining you?
First of all, it would be a REAL stretch for them to not believe that I'm a US citizen.
I have several documents with me that could easily prove citizenship, and most are very easily checked out.
I was asking how is it not in Mexico's best interest to prevent an influx of Hispanics into the USA.
It would not be in Mexico's best interest because by preventing it would stop the benefits that Mexico's populace receives. You know, bringing the money back home which helps Mexico's economy. It's pretty simple. So Mexico is not going to do much to discourage it.
Are you sure about that? Has anyone ever watched
Border Wars | Video | | National Geographic Channel (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/border-wars/all/Videos/07639_00#tab-Videos/07639_00 - broken link)
Our CBP agents have their hands full. It is a very, very difficult job.
They do indeed have their hands full. They are under funded, under geared, and under staffed. BP is doing its job. The Fed is not doing its job of supporting the BP.
Funny how the illegals themselves call AZ racist for merely enforcing immigration laws.
Another article on the same site depicts how Mexican president Calderon slams AZ for the law, yet Mexico itself has some of the most stringent immigration laws ever. Mexico doesn't want illegals (Guatemalans, et al) coming through THEIR southern border, but thinks that the US should have an open border policy for any Mexicans that want to cross and work.
Major, major hypocrisy.....
You know what's at the heart of this argument, and it's this far (fingers held apart by the width of a credit card) under the surface? The difference is that the Mexican government and many of its indigenous peoples believe they have a right to the land that was ceded to the U.S. during the signage of the Treaty of Guadalupe and the Gadsden Purchase. Adolfo Lopez Mateos's Secretary of State said to Dean Rusk during the negotiation of Chamizal land between El Paso and Juarez: "Why is it that you are attempting to negotiate this small piece of land when we will overtake it demographically, anyway?" That seems to sum up the position of Mexico, with regard to the overall mechanism of re-conquering land in the Borderland. Remember that ad by Absolut Vodka that caused so much controversy a couple years ago about an "Absolut World" and showing Mexico extending back into California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and part of Colorado? I think if someone were to drive along the southern Texas cone, south of the Nueces River, you'd begin to draw conclusions. The USA gained that land by conquest, but culturally, we've never gained it. To various degrees, this holds true if you were to go east of El Paso, on the Texas side of the Rio Grande. There is very little distinction between the USA and Mexico, save for the existence of power lines, paved roads, and a post office that says "USA" in some of the larger villages. There seems to be an innate sense of entitlement to this land by people of Mexican heritage. The river, and the land border west of El Paso to San Diego does little to blur the distinction between these land masses. When you see state law enforcement attempting to enforce the will of the people who live there, which is to say, they want those who are not legal removed, and I think this is a very natural feeling, the other side pushes back because they think the land is theirs to begin with. That's why when other posters use the logic that is sound, that of we have the right to ask others to produce ID because all we are doing is ensuring that people who belong here as US citizens do, and that others don't, the Mexican people see it a different way. They think they DO have a right to be here, because Mexico was here before we were. I think that's what the crux of the entire argument boils down to. I don't agree with the Mexican position, obviously. I think one of two things has to happen: one, the USA follows suit of Arizona, and removes ALL people here illegally, or we should undo the treaties of Guadalupe and Gadsden, and allow Mexico to reclaim the land. Then the USA should enforce stringently the remaining land it has. But the latter option is merely a fantasy. It's not going to happen.
Yes, because it involves rational sense. To extend the argument, when was the last time you passed through TSA? I think our politicians are so seized up by being called names and being voted out of office, that decorum suggests an 80 year old semi-paralyzed white woman should stand an equal chance of being pulled out of the line for additional screening as a 23 year old man with dark skin and much facial hair, wearing a turbin. The fact of the matter is that someone with Hispanic features (i.e. black hair and darker skin) is going to be more suspect than someone with red hair and freckles walking down the streets of South Tucson, as someone who is here illegally. As someone who is a US citizen, I would like to ensure that everyone who is here is here legally, especially in wake of September 11th, 2001 and other minor domestic terrorist incidents. That involves, whether we like it or not, investigating people who come from nations that intend to do harm on our nation. People of Mexican heritage, in many instances, do not look dissimilar from Middle Eastern people. Additionally, whether we like it or not, someone who has physical attributes resembling a central or south American citizen has a greater likelihood of being here illegally than does someone with Northern European features (lighter skin, lighter hair tone), because our ancestors had these attributes. Again, this is common sense. I think there is such an anti-law enforcement bent in this country, that people think their liberties are being trampled upon when they are detained. Unfortunately, these are very serious times, and we are being asked to have some more of our liberty, in effect, seized, in exchange for safety.
This discussion seems to have strayed from the original question and should probably be debated over on the politics forum. The question to be answered is whether NM will see more undocumented individuals now. My guess is that it will see more "passers though" headed to opportunities in other states but probably won't see that many staying because of the lack of available construction and other immigrant-attractive jobs. They generally like to go wihere there's a shortage of local labor and I don't know that you have that so much there in NM.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
