MWR : The troubling law next door

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

Aug. 2, 2010 issue

Print this article.

4 comments on this article.

Tags: Due Consideration Immigration

The troubling law next door

By Ardie S. Goering

Page:

My husband and I are not certain we want to travel next door to Arizona anymore.

Goering

Since our home state of New Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship to obtain a legal driver’s license, we would need to carry additional documentation after Arizona’s new law takes effect July 29.

Taking along extra papers on a quick trip to baseball’s spring training games or a weekend at the Grand Canyon seems cumbersome. More than that, it changes the way we feel about our freedom to travel in this country.

With our fair skin, and my blue eyes and blond hair, you might respond that our concern is unwarranted. Surely, no law enforcement officer would have a reasonable suspicion we are not legal citizens.

You’re right. We probably would not be questioned. That’s the point.

That’s why Arizona’s SB 1070 is racist even though its language itself isn’t. Because all of us believe the majority of undocumented persons have dark eyes and brown skin, anyone with dark eyes and brown skin will become suspect when police are compelled to scrutinize the entire population for people without legal papers.

Few subjects are as relevant and complex to Americans as immigration. With the exception of Native Americans, all of us are rooted in the immigrant experience.

Because of that, many people are sympathetic to the estimated 10 or 11 million undocumented people, the vast majority of whom have come to the United States for jobs and personal liberty, the same reasons as all immigrants.

Consider this joke from late-night comedian David Letterman. Ask a Native American how many illegal immigrants there are and he will say, about 300 million.

Perhaps those who are eager to cite the letter of the law to force undocumented workers out of this country should review the broken treaties that forced Native groups off of their land to make room for European settlers.

continued on next page »

Page:

Comments

What is wrong is to scapegoat entire ethnic groups and to ignore the economic injustice that is interwoven throughout immigration issues.

Boycotting Phoenix for the Mennonite Church USA convention in 2013 is a good first step. I support it.

If you drop the word "ethnic" and state it is simply wrong to "scapegoat entire groups," then you are perchance recommending an economic injustice you say is wrong. Why is it okay to say don't injure all the "innocent" illegal immigrants who are here just looking for freedom and jobs, but it is okay to hurt innocent Arizona businesses, who are not responsible for the writing of this law, but saying you will boycott the state?

- David Engel (jul 16 at 11:15 p.m.)
I have not yet decided on the Arizona law.

I do think Ardie raises some good points. I would like to highlight most of her article as very good.

In northern states I have known some blacks who have been stopped for no apparent reason than they are black.

Illegal? What about illegal drivers? They violate the law and usually get away with it. Is speeding illegal? How many of us are illegal?
Why do we pick on one or two areas of illegality and not all illegal acts? Just wondering, no I think we need to do unto others as we would want them to do unto us.

- Les (jul 17 at 10:14 a.m.)
I am told Arizona SB 1070 is a mirror of the Federal Law, so why does not the Federal Law offend Ms Goering? She states the law is racist although its language isn’t. In that, she and all likeminded people fabricate racist assumptions which is altogether to frequent. We can expect this from the religious and political left. If Ms. Goering purchased a ticket to a sporting event and upon reaching her seat found it was taken by a minority person, would she be racist if she protested with the expectation the person be removed?

If I was to travel to AZ, my driver’s license and all other info I normally carry in my wallet would be acceptable as they are in my own state. If I travel in a foreign country as I have many times, I would be responsible to have with me at all times my identification and travel papers.

I am amused at her statement which reads “The majority of people crossing the border illegally are not carrying illegal drugs, according to border patrol officials.” That suggests the border patrol frisks each person crossing the border illegally, gives them a drug free wrist band and sends them on their way. In addition, they would need to keep a daily record and submit the details to headquarters for people like Ms Goering.

Does Ms. Goering suggest each border state opens its borders to anyone who wants to improve their standard of living and do no background checks? If Ms Goering really believes what she is stating in her article, then we should expect she place a sign along the street or roadway where she lives stating illegal immigrants welcome. Her entrance doors would have a walk in welcome sign and would be unlocked 24/7.

If truth be known, perhaps the reason why some want MC USA Convention for 2013 to be relocated is because of the fear of elevated violence in AZ to convention goers. They can fly their social justice flag to hide their fear of violence.

- Dale Welty (jul 19 at 9:58 p.m.)
The real reason a boycott of Phoenix is being considered is because it is no longer safe for tourists.

- Tom Brite (jul 21 at 10:04 p.m.)

Comment on the article The troubling law next door

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.