It is being reported today that Chile and 10 other countries have signed a declaration in support of Mexico and against Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070. They consider the law to be “racist, xenophobic and anti-immigration of any kind,” according to the document.
Mexico asked other nations to sign the document, which makes one wonder if Mexico, so openly opposed to the law, accurately described it when soliciting the signatures. Was it explained that the law is the same as U.S. immigration law? Was it clearly explained that the law is intended to stop the thousands of immigrants — of all nationalities — pouring across the U.S. border in clear and knowing violation of U.S. law? Was it explained that, under the law, a person’s immigration status will be questioned only if he has already been stopped for some other violation?
The nations that signed the declaration were Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Ecuador, Guatemala, Cuba, Turkey, Panama, Bolivia, Micronesia and Senegal. I wonder what their immigration laws look like. Do they have open borders and let all comers just walk in? Do they have requirements that foreign nationals carry passports or other identification or do they turn a blind eye to all that cumbersome, annoying paperwork? Do they hand out jobs and educations and medical and social services to anyone who shows up and asks for them?
Seriously, people, until I can walk into your country any time I want, without papers of any kind or any questions being asked, and be treated exactly like one of your citizens for the rest of my life, don’t go getting all huffy about U.S. immigration laws.
6 thoughts on “Pots calling the kettle black”
I see this as a good thing. At last we have an example brought home to us of how it must feel to citizens of sovereign countries when we join our United Nations partners in condemning them for matters rightly belonging to the internal affairs of the condemned country. How does it feel to be bullied?
Although there are arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, I come down on the side of Arizona and any other state that recognizes that the states are their citizens first line of defense against destructive elements in society. Just as states have a legitimate obligation to nullify federal actions that exceed it’s constitutional authority, states also have an obligation to step in on behalf of it’s citizens when the federal government fails to meet one of it’s authorized (by the states in common) mandates. As the USA continues along its chosen road to bankruptcy, I imagine we’ll see this same sort of intervention by county and city governments as the states find themselves without funds to fulfill their own charters. We might as well start planning on how we are going to individually and collectively defend ourselves. To circumvent this kind of scenario, the federal government ought to be enlisting the help of states instead of suing them for trying to do what the feds have failed to do.
Normally when something needs to be done, a person or entity has one of three choices: lead, follow, or get out of the way. Somehow the federal government has found another option: deliberately getting in the way. It won’t enforce its own laws but it won’t let a state do it either and actually sues the state for trying. I have mixed feelings when it comes to states vs. the federal government, but this situation defies logic. You’re right; if the fed can’t or won’t enforce its own immigration laws, it should be asking the states to help.
You’d think if there was anything the country could agree on and work together on, it would be the defense of our borders.
“Seriously, people, until I can walk into your country any time I want, without papers of any kind or any questions being asked, and be treated exactly like one of your citizens for the rest of my life, don’t go getting all huffy about U.S. immigration laws.”
That’s a good point. I am still conflicted about all of this. Yes, go through proper channels. Yes, be legal. But as my sister’s husband can tell you, proper channels are often so back-logged that one becomes illegal by default. Also, I’m not so naive to think that illegal immigrants don’t play a substantial role in our economy and society. I don’t buy that they “steal” jobs. They do the jobs no one else wants to do, and work very hard at them, to boot. The American work ethic is dead in the water, which is why we’re in the mess we’re in. Everyone wanted quick, fast money at no effort, and look what happened.
I’m not sure I understand how your brother-in-law ended up being here illegally. He was here legally when he married your sis, applied for permanent residency at some point after that, and because of the slow process, fell into illegal status? I know love is love and all that, but if you’re here illegally, don’t you assume the risk that you may be deported and that if you want to stay together, you’ll both have to leave?
The jobs thing has always puzzled me. I hear constantly that immigrants “do the work Americans won’t do.” But I’ve never seen “proof” of that — examples or reports showing that, say, several unemployed Americans were offered a certain job and turned it down, so the employer had no choice but to hire an illegal immigrant.
The biggest hypocritical country is Mexico, with plans to build a wall of their own to the south.
Sad this isn’t being reported more in the US.