My Dear Spanish-Speaking Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Today is a sad day in the struggle to see all God’s people treated in a humane and compassionate manner. I had hoped that our Governor and law-makers would listen to their consciences and not be swayed by the voices of bigotry and racism. With the Governor’s signing of SB 1070, it seems that for now the advocates of fear and hatred have won over those of charity and love. Arizona claims to be a Golden Rule State. We have not lived up to that claim.
I know that the passage of this law is deeply troubling to many of you, especially those of undocumented status. I know that many of you fear for your jobs, your families, and your future in this state and in this country.
Lo siento, no entiendo esta carta.
Excuse me, is the US required to have open borders? Arizona is doing what the US government has abdicated. It is the US Government that is engaged in treasonous conduct.
Poor Kirk,
He has neglected to acknowledge the AZ folks who have been victimized by armed home invasions, drug violence, human trafficking and concurrent imprisonment in neighborhood drop houses, car jacking and car thefts, shootouts on the interstate highways, identity theft, mountains of human garbage cast off on public and private lands, murder, robbery, drunk driving, hit and run vehicular accidents, etc. Of course it is sad conditions under which many illegal aliens are fleeing, but it doesn’t give anyone the right to break the laws and soil the surroundings with crime and debris. Most Arizonans and local Episcopalians support this law. Enforcement of current laws, which is the underpinning of this law… what a concept! If only the good bishop spent as much time and energy on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, once delivered for all.
Golden Rule:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
So does this mean that we should now deceive and break laws if it helps us to get ahead? Let me try that out on my neighbor. Any volunteers?
I don’t know where to start with Bishop Smith. Maybe one way would be to remind him about 250 years of blood and sweat given to him and all US citizens in order to have and preserve America, and yes, to maintain a border and strict requirements for citizenship. Not that he’d be swayed all that much, but…
Second, I’d like to have him spend half his time at a Juarez satellite office so that he can get a glimpse of one possible outcome for US border cities should states choose to continue to rely on Washington to fix the problem.
I know, I know Bishop, we’re all bigots and racists. What a broken record those words are these days. Did you get your talking points from Washington dems?
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I have yet to see a religious leader, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or otherwise, provide a credible scriptural reason why religious arguments for open immigration should supervene civil law prohibiting it. Of the arguments occasional offered, none pertain any more than do the “shellfish” arguments used elsewhere.
So, those who disagree with +Kirk on this issue are “bigots” and “racists.” Hmm. At least he’s consistent, though. A few months back, in his weekly “E-pistle” to the diocese, he pointed out that Episcopal traditionalists “hate women and gays.”
[i] Please do not turn this into an ad hominem attack on Bishop Smith. [/i]
Elf Lady
I live in Arizona…about 50 or so miles from where a well-known and beloved rancher was killed by a border jumper who fled back into Mexico. For Smith to make this an issue of racial hatred is a real ad hominem attack on the people he agreed to shepherd who want our police to protect us from illegals crossing a porous border.
This statement reveals how out of touch Smith is…and why the people in this diocese shake their head at this statement’s true bigotry and ignorance.
-Jim+
They disagree with our politics, they must be vile, racist, hateful thugs.
How typica
typical of one group of Episcopalian clergy. (sorry, hit a key and submitted to early)
For a good analysis of the law, see the analysis by [url=http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/saturday-night-card-game-arizona.html ]Legal Insurrection[/url], a Cornell law prof. In particular, the law merely asks that people stopped for other reasons to provide proof of citizenship (which can be a driver’s license). I thought this was pertinent:
[blockquote] Claims of “driving while black” and other racial profiling have abounded for decades. But we don’t eliminate the enforcement of traffic laws just because some police racially profile; instead we educate and discipline police who use racially neutral traffic laws for racial purposes. Why should the immigration laws be any different? [/blockquote]
[blockquote]I know that the passage of this law is deeply troubling to many of you, especially those of undocumented status. I know that many of you fear for your jobs, your families, and your future in this state and in this country.[/blockquote]
And well they should. This is not a bug. It’s a feature! Part of the reason we pass laws is to make people [b]who break our laws [i]uncomfortable.[/i][/b] If you don’t break laws, you have less worries.
APB
Proud son of a naturalized parent.
The ASA of the Diocese of Arizona is around 8700 — a steady decline [of course] from its peak of around 11,000 in 2001.
The percentage of Hispanics is about 30% in Arizona — but somehow I very much doubt that the poor Hispanics have broken down the doors of the Episcopal Diocese of Arizona to join up.
I suspect that he is using the — what? a thousand, maybe? at most? — Hispanics in his diocese to pontificate on his own political biases and to indulge in a little bit of self-absorbed prophetic speech against [of course] the political conservatives in the state whom he loathes.
It’s just a tail-lashing, is all.
Please…This is such a boilerplate reality denying position that my teenager could have published it under the guise of the Episcopal church and no one would suspect. The problem is the neither the exploited citizens who are victims of this border war nor the legitimate victims of profiling are helped by this mindless utterance brought to you by this diocese.
Intercessor
Leviticus 19:33-34
If we repealed NAFTA, we wouldn’t have this problem. As it is, we decided we wanted a free market, without considering how it would destroy the Mexican Rural economy.
Of course, its interesting that people are willing to hand over their fourth amendment rights to the state so easily. I suppose we should all be willing to let big government stop any of us for whatever reason a cop sees necessary.
And I guess it’s nice to know that the GOP doesn’t feel the need to court the hispanic vote. A good way to remain the minority party nationally.
NAFTA is a trade agreement, Gawain, and illegal immigration was a problem in the US for many years before NAFTA. +Smith (nor the bulk of the ECUSA hierarchy for that matter) does not appear interested in the law of the land, so much for John Adam’s assertion that we are a government of laws, not of men.
I want to thank my Christian brothers and sisters for helping remind me of why the Christian right is alive and well and fully capable of embracing at least one form of Darwinianism.
One brief note about this discussion. As I watched the news last night I saw video of demonstrators protesting the new Arizona law. They were hurling rocks and other objects at the police, and I saw several officers get hit. I credit the police with very professional behavior. They simply continued to calmly respond to the crowd. If I had been the on scene commander, I would have ordered tear gas volleys and arrested any rock thrower I could.
I find it quite interesting that we are vilifying so called right wing Christians and tea party supporters as nascent agents of violence, but the only actual violence I am seeing is from the folks that the good bishop of Arizona is saying need to be protected.
Just sayin’ that this seems kind of skewed.
[blockquote] Dan Crawford #18
the Christian right is alive and well and fully capable of embracing at least one form of Darwinianism. [/blockquote]
If you’re going to do a drive-by, could you at least slow down enough to explain your comment?
#17 – Chris. It is a trade agreement. One that impacted Mexican immigration enormously. 2/3rds of undocumented workers came her AFTER Nafta.
Of course, during the 1980’s the government of Mexico began to privatize, emphasize free trade and government cut backs. The plain fact is that we pretty much gutted the Mexican farm sector with our heavily subsidized farm industry. They’ve shed 30% of their industry. Thats nearly three million Mexicans, if not more.
It lost 4 farm jobs for each 1 manufacturing job Mexico created (which is why people thought NAFTA would create Mexican jobs. looks like it didn’t work out the way we thought.
If you want Mexicans to stay in Mexico, consider what kind of economy they might want to return to.
That’s a humane way to look at it. Another way is to just criminalize them.
RE: “If we repealed NAFTA, we wouldn’t have this problem.”
Yes, we would.
RE: “A good way to remain the minority party nationally.”
Heh — you let the conservatives take care of that, Gawain — and check back in in December, m’kay? ; > )
RE: “I want to thank my Christian brothers and sisters for helping remind me of why the Christian right is alive and well …”
Yes, when one has people like leftist TEC bishops indulging in their buffoonish, incoherent, prophetic tail-lashings, it’s certainly easy to see why conservative thinking is ascending so nicely. We could do with more leftist “spokesmen” like Bishop Smith.
RE: “Another way is to just criminalize them.”
Yeh — criminalizing people who break our laws is just Truly Appalling. Whatever could we be thinking?
Heh.
Invest heavily in Mexico, provide career opportunities and incentives for those educated well enough to explore those opportunities, help to provide jobs with decent living wages so that Mexican workers can support their families and not have to come across the border illegally in the first place, and a big percentage of the problem has a chance of being taken care of. Even more: Encourage the Mexican Government to take the power out of the hands of the wealthy and provide for the well-being of their own people.
Well, in addition you would have to destroy the drug cartels. That would require military action and involve us, to all intents and purposes, in a war. Mexico is already in a civil war against the drug lords and the Mexican government is not winning that war.
The inconsistencies and omissions in #16/20 are so many it is difficult to know where to start. Let’s begin by examining the fundamental logical inconsistency in the left’s position that there is something unfair about enforcing immigration laws.
We all agree that people are drawn to the US primarily for the economic opportuities it provides. But those opportunities are only available due to the system of laws that allows business to flourish. Yet illegal immigrants and their supporters cannot see the glaring inconsistency in justifying the breaking of laws in the system that provides the very opportunities sought. Failure to enforce our immigration laws (already the most liberal of any industrialized nation) can only result in destruction of the nation.
Despite being a large oil producer, Mexico’s mismanagement of its fields, especially Cantarell, has resulted in large decreases in production. This raises the likelihod that Mexico will become an oil importer within 10-20 years.
Mexico’s drug industry has become its largest source of foreign exchange, estimated at $45bil/yr. The Mexican gov’t is unlikely to do anything about that cash cow (although it rightly complains about US failure to address the demand that creates the problem).
There is strong support among LEGAL Hispanics for immigration law enforcement. Among the ILLEGALS, of course there is strong support for the Democrats’ cynical amnesty program, which is nothing more than a transparent attempt to cement power illicitly.
After IRCA ’86 I did a lot of volunteer immigration counseling. Many of us hoped that IRCA would resolve the problem (10 years before NAFTA). Unfortunately, there has been no enforcement, and IRCA’s “one-time” amnesty only spurred more illegal immigration in hopes of renewal of amnesty, just as demanded by the left today. But let’s be clear enforcement is not just about rounding up illegals; it is also about enforcing the employer sanctions for violations that encourage illegals (e.g. failure to complete I-9 and verify eligibility to work). Clearly neither party has been willing to take action against employers.
Finally, even if John were correct that four subsistence ag jobs were lost for each manufacturing job created, that is not per se negative. First, we would have to verify that 4:1 is correct. [Note: even if 4:1 is correct, it is likely skewed by losses in other manuf. sectors (e.g. oil) due to mismanagement, making the NET gain less than the NAFTA gain.] Second, we would have see if the 1 actually paid more than all 4. Third, we would need to see if the manufacturing expansion held the potential for ore jobs in the future, something subsistence ag clearly does not.
Bill,
I admit that I admire your desire for Mexico to be a more perfect example of the market, but until the market does become perfect and / or the US can tell Mexico how to run its industry, we might want to try something different on this side of the border.
I have no issue with the idea that a nation has a right to police its borders. That’s a moral claim. I’m making a descriptive claim that this law will do little to stem the tide but merely – as most libertarians note about other sorts of laws – drive people underground. It renders illegal immigrants at the mercy of less scrupulous individuals.
From what I have seen, trade happens even when there aren’t laws to enforce them. People hire undocumented workers to clean and to landscape – they are under no legal obligation to pay them. A moral one, perhaps, but the undocumented workers don’t have much of a choice.
But I suspect you might have an ideological resistance to supposing that NAFTA might bear any responsibility for the rapid increase of illegal immigration. It may be… purely coincidental. For whatever reason, displaced agricultural workers means… they’re going somewhere else.
My own hunch is that illegal immigration actually improves the economy. I’ve read that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most other people don’t like. They get paid more than they would in Mexico, but less than others – it’s the law of comparative advantage.
And what’s interesting to me Bill is that you want the state to crack down on employers. It’s an interesting position for conservatives to take – have The STATE attack BUSINESSES for hiring people. That’s not really a free market.
I’m sure that plenty of Latinos oppose illegal immigration. Not the ones with the most recent amnesty perhaps, but others. Still, when legal Latinos get stopped for the …second… third… fourth… time, will they say it’s the price for being Latino? Or will they decide that they’ve had enough of big government? I’m saying that this law is a good way to get formerly sympathetic Latinos to strong laws to feel that the state has it in for them.
It’s a bad policy.
Leviticus 19:33-34
We shall have to see how this law is actually enforced. It does state clearly that race, language, and apparent ethnicity cannot be the primary reason for the immigration check; that is, the person will have to be doing something which raises the reasonable suspicion of illegal status. “Driving while Hispanic” will not qualify. Driving a van overstuffed with large numbers of people on remote roads might (trafficking). The governor has issued an executive order requiring training for all police to clarify what the proper grounds and proper procedures are. The potential for abuse is there, but correctly handled it need not develop into actual abuse. Arizona has way too many legal Hispanics for that kind of thing to be accepted.
It’s sort of like Florida’s seat belt law, or texting-while-driving law — you can’t be pulled over for just that, but if you DO get pulled over, and the officer finds evidence of the other, you get charged for both.
John,
I’m not sure you got it. I deplore the hypocrisy of many on the right whose solution is, “Deport ’em all”, with nothing done to the employers who create the problem by openly violating EXISTING law that forbids hiring those who do not have the legal right to work here. (No intereference in the market there.
I equally deplore the hypocrisy of those on the left, whose answer to mssive violation of the law is “Give ’em all amnesty.” Let’s enforce all the laws.
I find the “right/left”, “liberal/conservative” tags to be extremely unhelpful in discussion of this issue. A fair number of people who regard themselves as constitutional conservatives (and I certainly place myself in that category) are appalled at this kind of legislation. Aside from the Fourth Amendment issues, it squarely places a state (and where local governments have dabbled in variations of this) municipalities and counties into a realm where they have no constitutional authority to roam. It is an issue that is hugely rewarding for pols to demagogue. Few politicians can forgo the temptation of advocating anti-constitutional solutions rather than emphasizing that enforcement of legitimate existing state and local ordinances would effectively control behaviors that most people complain of when addressing impacts of illegal immigrant communities. Of course, it can be fairly said that the federal government has been completely ineffectual in fulfilling its responsibilities to secure the border. When there has been some effort to resolve issues on the federal level, however, the volume of protest over issues of how to get illegal immigrants already in the country into a position where we can regulate and protect them and their communities has left federal elected officials cowering under their desks.
NoVA Scout, why do you say that the state has no constitutional authority on this matter? I don’t follow your reasoning. If the federal government will not or cannot take action to remedy the serious problems in Arizona, why may the state not take this action? The desert is being severely damaged, people are unsafe in their homes and on their property, and public services are being swamped.
RE: “… the volume of protest over issues of how to get illegal immigrants already in the country into a position where we can regulate and protect them and their communities has left federal elected officials cowering under their desks.”
Right — that’s because people aren’t interesting in “regulating” people who break the law in order to enter the country. They’re interested in sending the lawbreakers back home and/or convicting them of the lawbreaking.
And yes, states have every constitutional mandate to police crime.
RE: “Or will they decide that they’ve had enough of big government?”
And of course, it’s not “big government” to enforce laws and hunt down criminals. In fact, it is “small government” to do what is constitutionally required of the actual government. “Big government” is when the US government attempts to do things outside of the Constitution, taking power, authority, and freedom from individuals.
And JW knows that, of course — he’s just doing his deconstructionist thing with language, after his own little malicious fashion.
As he has done with Holy Scripture as well. What an angry contempt for language and ideas Gawain de Leeuw, TEC priest, demonstrates in his comments on this blog.
I think that the rhetoric of calling them “lawbreakers” and “criminals” makes it easy politically to conduct all sorts of mischief. Such language has been used to scapegoat all sorts of people before.
Practically speaking, this will make it harder for cops to find the real criminals in those communities, as there’s no incentive for undocumented workers to help them. Cops will have to spend more time – as they an be sued if they DON’T enforce the law – doing the INS job rather than other police activity.
Of course, there is the possibility that this is just one way of intimidating legal immigrant voters from voting in 2010. Who are the suspects? Brown people.
Sarah’s comments about my “malicious” nature and “angry contempt” imply I hurt her feelings. (Are my comments passionate? or Angry? This is blogging!) I think she supposes that she “knows me” from my comments.
I’m sorry, Sarah. I simply think that this invites a police state. For me, that’s what big government does. You may think differently, but I think plenty of people in the world have found that carrying papers signifies the kind of regime that most Americans oppose, and we should be very wary about the unintended consequences.
RE: “Sarah’s comments about my “malicious†nature and “angry contempt†imply I hurt her feelings.”
Not at all — my comments stated quite clearly [as Gawain well knows] that this anger and contempt are expressed towards language. Angry contempt and willful [malicious] destruction of language are one of the hallmarks of deconstructionists and their deliberate abuse of language. They are by philosophy and most likely nature, angry and repelled by the nature of language and its *power*, they hate that power, and they wish to decrease that power as much as they are able by their deconstructionist use of language. It is rather like the efforts of those who deface buildings and monuments with graffiti — such is the work and hope of deconstructionists. And that is what Gawain de Leeuw, TEC priest, attempts.