While there is no doubt that there is a crime problem in Arizona, this law in its writing was quite misguided. As soon as police start stopping white people and asking them to prove their citizenship in case they might be those pesky illegal socialist Canadians, this law will be revoked.

Yes, the federal government is responsible, and not just for leaky borders, economists are now laying blame for the mass migration to NAFTA destroying the economy of Central and South America. This law does nothing except make Arizona look goofy.

I know of two 4th generation families that have left Arizona, not because of illegal immigrants, but because of the retirees flocking there and in their words; “ruining the state.” No matter what laws are passed and how stringent they are, the problem is complex and has been brewing since the 50’s when the retirees started their mass migration. It will take at least that long to unravel it. Not just at the federal level but at the state level. It is about the haves vs. the have nots. Laws cannot fix social problems like that, they never have and never will. Look at civil rights, all the laws in the world cannot make people trust or accept each other.

This law has little to do with race. This is about calling out the Federal government for doing absolutely horrible job with what it is charged in the Constitution with doing; securing the borders and controlling immigration. Setting up a system of guest workers to get them in the country under legal means would be a start. Irrespective, the MASSIVE failure of the US government is getting exposed by the embarrassing law passed by Arizona. That's all this is. Constitutionally, it will be stricken down. But how far have we fallen that a nearly bankrupt state would still rather try to solve problems the US is supposed to fix, because it's still in Arizona's best interest?

INS, you and Congress have failed catastrophically. Fix it!

I think a large majority of Americans support the Arizona law despite the protestations of the media, Hollywood and the Democratic party. One good side effect of this conflaguration might be to point out - further - how out of touch mainstream media is with mainstream America.

The amazing thing in all this talk of "racism" is how many people think that "Latino" is a race. The vast majority of these people are just as caucasian as the Queen of England.

Here is another interesting article:

http://www.americanthinker.com.....proar.html

April 27, 2010
The Arizona Uproar
By Leo W. Banks

Listening to the national uproar, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Arizona has marched into the civil rights apocalypse with its new state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070, making it a crime to be in the state illegally and requiring cops, where “reasonable suspicion” exists, to determine a person’s legal status.

Rev. Al Sharpton is promising to come to Arizona to march, the New York Times says that the state has gone “off the deep end,” and the Nazi references are flying. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony likened SB1070 to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.”

Riding the noise for political advantage, President Obama is summoning his Justice Department to look into the matter, saying that the law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

But 70 percent of Arizona residents support the law, according to Rasmussen.

What’s going on here? Do we know something the rest of the country doesn’t?

Actually, we do. Context is everything, and it’d be nice if the national media provided some, rather than simply slamming Arizona as a redneck haven filled with nativists and bubbas with a hankering for racial profiling.

An estimated 500,000 illegal aliens live in Arizona, and many are decent folks, to be sure. But the border is still wide open, and many more are coming. Last year in Border Patrol’s 262-mile-wide Tucson Sector, agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, a drop of more than 130,000 from 2007.

It sounds great until you understand that gotaways outnumber arrests by three to one.

Does the country realize this, or have the people bought Janet Napolitano’s political fairy tale that border security has been “transformed” from where we were in 2007?

As Obama lectures Arizona, citizens here await his decision on an urgent request to send three thousand National Guard troops to the border. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl recently asked for soldiers, as did Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, to bring some security to American citizens being hammered by cross-border smugglers and thugs.

Here’s an important bit of context: This isn’t your father’s illegal immigration, when polite farm workers offered to do chores in return for some water and a sandwich as they walked north. Today, the drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business. They own the trails into the country and dominate the land, the same way urban gangs control neighborhoods

Any group wanting in has to deal with them, and the going rate is $2,500 per person. If you don’t have the cash, the cartel coyote will offer to bring you in for free if you carry his dope. As Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever testified to the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, most of the groups coming up now have a gun behind them.

Along the Chiricahua Corridor smuggling route north and east of Douglas, Arizona, residents have been screaming for some time about break-ins, threats, intimidation, vandalism, and home invasions. But the feds did nothing to keep citizens safe. Instead, they talked amnesty. Then the inevitable happened.

On March 27, Cochise County rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his land, presumably by a drug smuggler. The death occurred on a well-known drug trail, and trackers followed the killer’s prints back into Mexico. He is still at large.

Now, I can’t argue with those who say that SB1070 has some provisions that smack of desperation — such as making it a crime to stop your car to pick up a day laborer or to enter a stopped car to get temporary work. That sounds impossible to enforce.

But critics also say that it will have no impact on besieged residents of southern Arizona, and I disagree. It could help.

We have a huge problem with crooks coming up from Mexico to our cities and towns, committing crimes, and bolting back south of the border. Not long ago, I wrote a story that backtracked the records of two of these border coyotes and found that between them, they’d been arrested and released by either law enforcement or the courts a total of 35 times.

One was let go after a traffic stop, and the other had worked construction in Phoenix for years. If this law had been in effect, the police might’ve been able to get them off the street before they were able to lead more groups into southern Arizona, break into homes, and frighten citizens.

Civil rights? What about the civil right of American citizens to drive up to their homes at night and have some reasonable assurance that no one is inside?

On March 31, four hundred people gathered outside the one-room Apache School to tell their elected reps what it’s like to live in smuggler-occupied territory. The meeting was held there, in the cold, open air, in part because the nearest place to host a group that size inside was seventy round-trip miles away, and these folks didn’t feel comfortable leaving their homes for that length of time.

They live by a rule of thumb: If you leave your house empty, it will be occupied by illegals or drug smugglers. We’re not talking just about homes five miles from the international line. We’re talking about homes up to sixty miles north of the border.

Racial profiling doesn’t matter much when you’re in a fight to preserve your way of life and keep your family and property safe. Let me give you a different perspective on racial profiling. Now, when Border Patrol chases down and arrests illegals south of I-10, everybody says, “Atta boy. Good police work.”

But if these crossers put a toe north of I-10, they’re home free. Except for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, nobody is looking for them, and if you do, it’s racial profiling.

The farther you get from the line, the more people want to make this problem about race. It’s the ground the left wants to fight on because it’s so effective. Political correctness shuts people up and keeps the border open.

Arizona has had enough and seen enough. This bill, admittedly flawed, motivated in part by anger and frustration, is an effort to step in and do something about a serious national problem on our southern border that grows more dangerous all the time.

But the national media largely ignore it because it offers up the wrong victims and the wrong politics. They don’t send reporters out to Arizona get the story, to walk the smuggling trails, to sit with beleaguered Americans at their kitchen tables and understand the torment their lives have become.

Instead, they adopt the preening pose of the self-righteous, screaming from a safe distance about the bubbas. All 70 percent of them.

It’s more fun than context.

Leo W. Banks covers the border for Tucson Weekly.

Many people supporting a law that is poorly crafted and likely unconsitutional does not validate such a law. One hopes cooler heads previal, otherwise the mess is going to continue and become worse.

There are two separate but related problems. The first, is security at our borders. The second is an antiquated and broken immigration system. It is probably reasonable to call unregulated or unsecured border security a disease and undocumented residents one of its symptoms. We are going to have to separately deal with each.

Arizona is a major gateway from Mexico for people and goods. Mr. Van Dyk did not mention the amount of trade or numbers of legitimate visitors from Mexico that come thru Artizona on an average year, however I guess it is significant. Perhaps several billions in economic terms and 10 million visitors from Mexico on a yearly basis?

Arizona estimates an undocumeted resident population of 425,000 people. This is about six or seven percent of its poulation of 6.7 million people, and I would suspect the majority of these people are living quiet, if not almost hidden lives. It wouldn't be in their interest to do otherwise.

That leaves the problem makers, and are these people actual undocumented, longterm residents? Are they visitors from Mexico or elsewhere who are temporary residents who have no intention of remaining in the US and travel back and forth from Mexico and other countries atr will and as visitors? Not knowing is where we are failing at all our borders.

This set of issues is complex and not going to be solved by the "deport them now" crowd who supported this law. They ignore their responsibilty and culpibity for several decades of looking the other way and benefiting from the existence of these undocumented residents living in this country. It also ignores our resposibilty for the creation of cartels who existence is a result of this country's desire for drugs. You might have some temporty success arresting and deporting the drug dealer, however that isn't going to do anything to erase unchecked demand for drugs in the United States.

I believe that President Wilson's Attorney General (the infamous Palmer) initiated both during and after WWI blatantly unconstitutional deportations along with associated harassment of individuals and groups that were either anarchists or radical in other ways. Prior to this anarchist murders and bombings had been a problem. In effect the constitution was "suspended" as it sometimes is in wartime. Ninety years later it's hard to see that this militaristic response to a problem caused any lasting harm to our country or to the respect our constitution enjoys. A problem is seen as insurmountable using constitutional means; unconstitutional means are employed.

Palmer and to a lesser extent, Wilson, have been vilified over a long period of time for their zeal but the bombings ceased, the country gradually regained its balance and it is hard for me to see any long lasting harm. To individuals, yes, to the country no. I think we have to recognize that some problems require extraordinary response.

Just after the First World War, Rep. Albert Johnson from our state ascended to the Chairmanship of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. His steering of federal immigration policy in the 1920's, fueled by his fascination with the pseudo science of Eugenics, led to the system of quotas and policies we struggle with today (Johnson-Reed Act 1924). It also created a precedent for blurring the lines between managing access to U.S. citizenship and selection based upon racial preferences.
Washington is connected to the path Arizona has chosen for itself regarding immigration and race not only in a historical sense but in a social and economic one. Too few Washingtonians criticized and voted against Albert Johnson and what he stood for in the 1920’s. Too few spoke up in 1942 when his reasoning and committee targeting were helpful in using domestic and federal authority to relocate Japanese Americans. And too few of us are asking who is working effectively against Arizona’s new immigration policies and how can we help. We are partly to blame.

Quinn, last time I checked, there were three major races. They correspond to the three cradles of civilization. They are Asian, African, and Indo-European (also known as Caucasian). I don't see what's so difficult to understand. To look at this year's census form, you'd think that there were scads of races, but most of those exist only in the minds of politicians.

Ignore the one left wingnut federal judge out there waiting to strike down the Arizona law. Let's see how the 9 member US Supreme Court rules; hopefully they get the case as quickly as the Ref 71 case here in Washington.

Congratulations on a balanced, in-depth article -- a useful antidote to the usual ratings-driven cable news hysteria that tends to dominate the discussion. In the bigger picture, the Arizona immigration crisis is an instructive paradigm demonstrating a structural issue that now plagues contemporary America on many levels, and promises to extend into the indefinite future.

The issue is the pattern of public response generated by bad answers being offered for real problems. The unfortunate immediate result is for the debate to focus exclusively on the defects of the proposed answer (and the implicit moral shortcomings of the proponents) instead of searching for better ideas. There are a couple of reasons for this tendency. First and obviously, partisan advantage can be most easily gained from emphasizing the horrors of the deficient proposal; enemies can be demonized and allies mobilized. Second, it is intellectually simpler to pick someone else's work apart than to come up with a new and better plan. These problems by their nature tend to be intractable -- defying easy answer and involving tradeoffs that may create vexing difficulties in other areas.

So the ultimate question is this: do Americans any longer possess the maturity, dedication, patience and good will required to solve difficult public issues? The recent signs are that we do not. We increasingly demand simple, black-and-white and preferably cost-free answers to every problem. We don't trust our chosen leaders and angrily denounce as traitors anyone who dares to disagree with us.

If in the near future the American enterprise tumbles precipitously into the dustbin of history, it won't be because we were overwhelmed with unforeseen insoluble problems. It will be because we lacked the national character to rise to the challenge. Difficult but manageable problems only become insoluble if they are deferred and neglected indefinitely in pursuit of an endless acrimonious cycle of political expediency and opportunistic mythologizing.

Do we have the honesty, grit and courage to break out of this cycle? That, dear friends, is the essential question we must answer.

Thank you for the many thoughtful comments. Heartily subscribe, in particular, to woofer's observations.

There is an old saying in politics that "sometimes it is better to have a political issue than a policy solution." Somewhat akin to the old saw that doctors prefer patients with chronic but not critical conditions---keeps their revenue coming over a far longer period.

In the case of immigration, too many Republicans see a "wedge issue" which will put most voters, worried about illegal immigration, on their side.
Democrats see a wedge issue which will inflame Latinos and generate
their high turnout in upcoming congressional elections. Linked to my article, by coincidence, is a Washington Post article relating how
congressional Democrats prepared an immigration bill but, then, were instructed to hold back by President Obama. The story could just as easily have been written from another perspective relating how
Republicans would like to keep immigration anxiety alive rather than
legislate a solution.

What we're getting in response to this kind of "spinning" and manipulative politics are such things as the Arizona immigration law and the growing Tea Party movement nationally....the "we'll take things into our own hands" reaction to perceived failures by those nominally in charge.

The American people badly want and are not getting guts and integrity
from those they elect to lead.

This article seems to go out its way to racialize the situation and use overtly racist characterizations. For example:

"flooded by inflows of illegal Latinos far different from the family- and church-oriented, hard working Latinos familiar to Arizonans"

(assuming Arizonans are not "Latino"), and:

"Couriers on bikes (Latinos, as it happens) made drug deliveries throughout the city"

(here shifting the complaint from "illegal Latinos" to "Latinos" in general).

It is not at all clear that there is an "Arizona immigration crisis" as woofer puts it. Van Dyk offers very thin evidence. Last year a Nation article ("The Border Violence Myth") examined the weak origins of this claim:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090608/arana

I think this is just suburban malaise (in these depressionary times for the underclass) and the collapse of the housing bubble of which Phoenix was an epicenter. Sure, some people will blame Latinos and write articles saying so... shame on Crosscut for publishing it.

Reget that the thoughtful comments had to end with spock's contribution.
Of course there is an Arizona immigration crisis. "Suburban malaise?..." You've got to be kidding. People blaming Latinos for the housing collapse?...a novel theory out of the blue. The state is hip-deep in trouble totally unrelated to the housing collapse---namely the cross-border flood of human, weapons, and drug trafficking accompanied by social dislocations and crime. Spock needs a brief vacation along the southern Arizona border to clear his head. I will add to my final comment that we not only need leaders of guts and integrity. We need citizens who take the trouble to inform themselves on important issues. Shame on spock for being so ignorant.

Interesting post, Ted. From up here in Washington state, it's impossible to disambiguate any real problems Arizona faces from the ugly, unabashed racism that shows up daily in the comment threads of the Seattle Times and PI.

Thanks also to GoMoJo for posting that article. The fact that the increasingly powerful and brutal drug cartels are effectively taking over our neighbor to the south should be as terrifying to us as it is to the citizens of Mexico, and points to the need for a smart "war on drugs" that is less about naive moralizing and more about reality.

Legalizing marijuana is a smart and easy first step that would take a bite out of the cartel's business. Beyond that, it's not hard to imagine the US eventually being drawn into an actual war against the cartels once it becomes evident that the Mexican government is no longer in control.

Ted, you aren't helping yourself by so rudely dismissing Spock's comments. The fact is, you are both right.

Racism, scapegoating, and macro-economic factors that have nothing to do with Mexicans are without doubt an important factor contributing to this legislation. It's implausible that AZ is free of the ignorant rage that is currently rearing it's ugly white head in every other US state.

You've made a convincing case (along with those in GoMoJo's article) that the anarchic conditions in AZ are real and also an important factor.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, I usually ignore comments such as spock's because one assumes that most readers will recognize their irrelevance. But in this instance, I responded. I did so because it is stunning, that after years of a building immigration crisis in Arizona, spock could be so obviously ignorant of the facts---which are conceded by national and state leaders of all political persuasions.

There also is consensus, among leaders of all persuasions, that the federal government is not doing its statutory job in addressing it effectively. Arizona, in its frustration, has passed a bad law which is quite likely to be struck down entirely. Both Arizona and the U.S.---especially the states on our southern tier---need comprehensive and effective federal legislation and, then, execution of that legislation. This is years overdue. And, yes, criminal gangs in Mexico have effectively taken over large parts of that country, corrupting public officials at every level and ruling by murder and terror, and have extended their operations northward.

So long as citizens don't pay attention, or view the situation in a careless, off-hand way, it is all the easier for our federal elected officials to keep sloughing off their responsibility or to manipulate the issue in cartoon, bumper-sticker-level political terms.

Why don't you all go spend some quality time in Yakima and Union Gap. Make sure you walk around downtown at night.

Write back and tell us what you see and hear.

Thanks for the article. It is quite worrying indeed to see the mounting hostility.

I think that we can call a spade on this one. My recollection is that there was a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress, one that enjoyed support by the Democratic leadership as well as President Bush. I also recall quite well who is responsible for torpedoing it; they are the same people who cite federal inaction as a reason for the Arizona law. Is this about finding a workable solution to the serious challenges near the border, or is it about creating a wedge issue, or is it about ethnic cleansing?

Pepper: Thank you for your regular, positive contributions to Crosscut dialogue.

Calling a spade, your analysis is too simplistic. It should be remembered that the torpedoing of the Bush/Democratic/some GOP (including John McCain) initial immigration bill had opposition from unions, employers, pro-immigration and anti-immigration groups. In the end, its principal sponsors lost their nerve. Too easy (and inaccurate) to say that its opponents were the same people now complaining about federal inaction. All affected groups are angry with federal inaction---beginning with border control and extending to regularization of immigrants' status.

Ethnic cleansing? No. That is ridiculous. A wedge issue? Unfortunately, yes, by those who would exploit fears and anxieties both of Latinos and those who fear immigration. There are workable solutions---not far from those contained in the original Bush-era bill---but they are being put aside for now in favor of grandstanding by politicos and groups who prefer noisemaking to solutions.

We are far distant from it in the Northwest. But imagine for a moment
that the British Columbia government was dominated by drug cartels and
that weapons, drug, and human trafficking from B.C. had brought the Puget Sound region to a crisis point. Consider if maybe 1/4 of Seattle's population now consisted of illegals from a particular group (Paks, Russians, French Canadians, white-bread Ontario natives, whatever) and that the constitution of the group had changed in recent years from hard-working, upward-striving families to criminals engaged in illegal, often violent enterprises. We would, of course, turn first to the feds to
control the border. If that did not work, we would turn to local law enforcement. If that did not work, we probably would look to pass laws that would help us identify and deport the people causing the problems.
Washington and Seattle being generally progressive and tolerant places,
I would hope such laws would fully protect the rights of ordinary, law abiding people of the ethnic group in question. But, as one commenter noted above, even our own state has had some dark passages in its past
regarding such matters.

We are under no such threat, of course, although being forced to cope with lower levels of drug, human, and weapons trafficking across our northern border.

I'd urge care about throwing around terms such as "ethnic cleansing" or racism. I'd also urge restraint on unions and anti-immigration groups painting Latinos, illegal or otherwise, as major threats to American jobs.
Same for groups taking a "throw-'em--all-out" posture toward Latinos who
may not yet have citizenship or green cards but want them and are
otherwise filling workforce needs and not harming others. There are millions of illegals, mainly Latinos, in the United States. Mass deportations are out of the question. The vast majority should remain, but on a path toward eventual citizenship.

This is going to be a difficult issue over this decade. The sooner we deal with it comprehensively, the better. To do that, better to exercise reason than passion.

And as we all blather, the Law enforcement officers are out gunned out manned and being shot in Arizona as we write. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizona.deputy.shot/index.html?hpt=T2

Unless we talk to Washington D.C and tell them to seal the border or make pot legal I think the state is trying to do their best.

Meanwhile STFU.

In reply to woofer's excellent post, if solving AZ's immigration problem requires productive and intelligent dialog, the problem won't be solved.

However, I do think it's possible for a savvy politician to harness the ignorance, anger, and self-righteousness of both the left and right by re-framing this issue as a war against the cartels rather than Mexican laborers.

There's no better way to unite diverse populations than presenting a common enemy, and the drug cartels would be perfect in this roll - left or right, nobody likes them. The laborers, on the other hand, make a lousy target given their appeal to businesses large and small along with the fact that as poor nonwhites, they perfectly fit the "social justice" narrative so cherished by the left.

I don't know if it's poor PR or just lousy media coverage, but somehow the laborers have become the poster children for the AZ legislation. We need to be hearing more about the drug lord's roll in all this.

woofer,
Enjoyed your comments, they really stand out!

Two thoughts:
"the national character" — doesn't that go full circle back to what you say is not the real problem, i. e. arguing over what is and is not "Un-American."

"partisan advantage" —also needs dissecting: 1) politicians who see the honor of representing the rest of us as racing solo long distance instead of the relay race that our first President led by example, and 2) the parties and all the rest of bullying out way around because we are afraid the other guy might be right. We could start our rethinking here.

Ted, thanks for your reply. You raise a good point. Even though the most vocal critics of comprehensive immigration reform have come from the right, I forgot about the role of labor. By and large, I don't feel that labor's role in this debate has been very constructive, and I do wonder whether they could also have been decisive in the federal government's failure on this front.

I also regret my usage of the term "ethnic cleansing". I was upset and I pulled out harsh rhetoric. I know very well that of the opponents of comprehensive immigration reform, very few would desire something along those lines. I try to keep my posts thoughtful, but sometimes there are lapses.

As I thought more about the issue throughout the day, I realized that public safety and civil liberties are two sides of the same coin. If there is a harsh crackdown, it will actually jeopardize public safety (Jordan Royer's post here a few days ago is a good one illustrating this). Likewise, if public safety needs are not addressed, then people will lose their freedoms. I agree that it is wrong to be dismissive of the real security threat posed by our immigration mess, but of course we need a smart (and national) solution.

I am still trying to get an understanding of the size and amount of cross border trade between Mexico and the US that enters thru Arizona. In addition to that, how many vistors enter the US from Mexico via Arizona on a yearly basis? I presume there are millions of Mexicans who yearly cross the border for shopping, visting relatives, business and other legitmate pursuits. Is there any clearly established data here?

" Consider if maybe 1/4 of Seattle's population now consisted
of illegals...."

Mr. Van Dyk, I am trying to get a handle on this issue, and focus on the issues the people in AZ are concerned about. By your statement above, are you suggesting that 25% of the population of a somewhat comparable metro area such as perhaps Phoenix is comprised of illegals?

Checking back in for late comments.

Bella: A bit puzzled by your first query. Sure, there is cross-border commerce between Mexico and Arizona and a regular flow of visitors both ways. Estimates, I am sure, could be obtained through the AZ Dept of Commerce or, on flows alone, through the Border Patrol. But this has nothing to do with the flow of illegals across the border and into S. Arizona. There is no controversy about the regular, legal flow of business people, commercial traffic, visitors, and tourists across the border. They all in any case carry relevant documentation.

Many illegals come by foot through the desert led by "coyotes" whom they pay large sums to leave them at drop-off points. Numbers regularly are found dead in the desert, often robbed and abandoned by the coyotes. Others are victims of heat and dehydration. Some come via van. A supposedly legitimate van service was raided recently in Phoenix. Turns out it had no legitimate business but was used solely by criminals to
shuttle illegals across the border. Many of these illegals are victims in a true sense.

The Phoenix metro area is larger than the Seattle metro area. No Puget Sound, Lake Washington, or mountains to contain it. The estimated Latino population of Arizona, overall, is well over 30 percent. In Phoenix the percentage is higher. It is a truly bilingual city. The percentage of illegals in Phoenix is hard to estimate, since they are without green cards and dodging census takers. Law enforcement has high estimates; Latino groups have lower ones. Some have claimed illegals constitute a majority of Phoenix Latinos but I doubt it.

However you slice it, Latino illegals in the Phoenix metro area are in six figures. I cited the 25 percent figure for Seattle simply for illustrative purposes.

Mr. Van Dyk,

I am trying to get a sense of the importance of Mexico to Arizona outside of the issues of illegals and drug smuggling. I am surprised that you and others don't apprently consider it a critical consideration when attempting to come to understanding the parameters which will comprise a border security policy that considers the economic needs within the state (and the corresponding state(s)in Mexico), and the development of a plan for formulating a coherent immigration policy. Lock down the border if you want to completely stop illegal immigration and drugs, however the flow of goods and services will be curtailed and the economy will be one hell of lot worse than it is now.....and I am likely understating that scenerio.

I presume most of undocumented residents living in Arizona likely came here because of the promise of employment, and I would suggest that over the last thirty or forty years our workforces have continued to become integrated. If employment in the US is the primary magnet, the problem might be readily solved by the creation of a guest worker program.

With regards to drugs, the problem will never disappear until the people of Arizona and the US become honest and admit they are the market for these drugs. As long as that demand exists, it will be supplied. There will continue to be shootings and deaths. We might not like the lake we are swimming in because it is filthy, but that is a result of our using it as a toilet.

I was not sure what you are trying to illustrate by the 25 percent figure.
I am not sure it is even reasonably comparable to Arizona. Metro Phoenix must have around 5 million resident. Even if we allow for half the reported illegals living in Arizona (approx. 450,000), the percentage in Phoenix would be about 4 or 5 percent. I think the total estimated undocumented folks living in the entire US is around 12-15 million. The US population is around 307 million. These percentages aren't much different if we assume Phoenix has an illegal population of half the estimated state total.

Lastly, per my previous post, I think these issues can be solved in a economical, humane and pragmatic manner, however the Arizona state legislature enacted remedies that were made under the advice of fear, hubris and prejudice. Those adverse qualities have never promoted good decision making, and the likely result is that none of the state's problems are going to get cured anytime soon.

I find the Arizona law not just stupid and unconstitutional but wrong from both a human rights and human economics point of view. I find this article lacking a few key policy related points that I feel should be included.

Despite the fact that Ted has had some personal bad experience with illegal immigrants, he, more than anyone, should not allow these anecdotal tales to be used in policy planning.

Any discussion of this should start with telling Arizona, "This is what smaller government looks like." John McCain and the Republicans should be happy that DC is keeping their incompetence off of their state, shouldn't they? After all isn't DC corrupt and incapable of doing anything? What about states rights? Aren't the Republicans constantly complaining about those 'Waaaashington bureuacrats poking their noses into the states' business? Well, here you go, Arizona. This is what smaller government feels like. How do you like it? Would you like an order of BIGGIE Government with those illegal immigrants?

There are 2 quotes in the article:
" law enforcement officers would have to undergo special training to guard against its abuse."

"Since almost all illegals are Latino, they would be the focal point of the effort."

I keep hearing that this law does not target brown people.. Latinos. But Ted says here that it does, which it obviously does. The other quote is from the Governor Jan Brewer who says that they want to guard against abuse. Well, the very implementation of the law requires abuse of civil rights.

The implied solution to all of this seems to be a big new Federal law from DC... saying what exactly? I don't know but I suppose it means more border agents and a great wall of Mexico on our Southern border. If we're going to have a policy debate, why was there no mention in the article about the economics of Mexico and NAFTA? These people aren't risking their lives in the desert for some good food at Taco Bell after all! They want money. They want jobs. So why don't they have jobs in Mexico? Most people would say NAFTA. That needs to be a big part of this debate.

Lastly, a reasoned, rational policy debate MUST include a comparison of the Northern border along Canada with the Southern border along Mexico. Why aren't the Canadians streaming down to the United States? Answer that question and you'll have the answer to the problem in Arizona.

This will be my final post on this piece, responding to Bella.

Yes, Mexico is important to the U.S. economically. Drug trafficking and sales exist because there is demand for drugs. Most of the illegals have come here, over the years, in search of employment (the flow decreasing during the U.S. recession). Arizona farm and other employers utilize
illegals, in many cases knowingly, because they can be paid in cash and below minimum wage. These things are all incontestable.

I and many others have favored programs for the illegals already residing here to transition over time to citizenship. Guest-worker programs, sure. I have great sympathy for those illegals, fitting the traditional "hard-working immigrant" profile, who come despite daunting challenges. (My own father entered the U.S. as a non-citizen
in a freight car. He worked hard at manual labor the rest of his life, becoming a citizen. My late wife was born in Mexico, of a Mexican father, and had dual citizenship for a time). I think your estimate of total Latino illegals in Phoenix is very low. Work back through the numbers.
U.S. Census or INS data can be helpful but are not authoritative, as noted, because illegals live outside the system and are not counted. Thus the reliance on media-reported estimates by state and local officials.

There are positive, long-term answers, many of them incorporated in the Bush-era legislation which failed. But, since failure of that legislation, the problem has become more urgent.

The border-security problem is now more acute than it was at the time of that legislation and opinion has swung, in AZ as elsewhere, toward border control first, long-term answers later. Border security is where national security begins, in any case, and it is fruitless to argue against that proposition.

Let's disaggregate the problem. There are the things that have existed
all along, attendant to illegal immigration. The illegals themselves are exploited---from the moment they pay coyotes to launch them on death-defying trips north; to their exploitation by criminal gangs who
transport them, often locking them in transit houses or crowded vans;
to their exploitation by employers who pay them sub-minimum wage without benefits. These illegals are hurt or become ill and go to emergency rooms uninsured. They are involved, uninsured, in auto accidents. They place great strain on local social-service and school budgets. Since a high percentage are not English-speaking, bilingual programs are necessary.
At state, county and local level, AZ public budgets mre strained by the presence of the illegals.

The sense of urgency does not flow from these factors, however. In recent years, criminals and criminal activity (flowing in part from organized Mexican gangs) have arrived on the scene in the illegal community. Drug production and trafficking (meth in particular), and attendant violence,
have increased. Kidnappings, associated with human trafficking, have increased. So have murder and violence among the traffickers. I related
the experience of a middle-sized city 100 miles north of Phoenix. Anxiety has been raised by media reporting of crime involving illegals: Just recently, the murder of a well-known southern Arizona rancher patrolling his property for illegal trafficking; the raid on the well known van service previously thought legitimate; the killing of law-enforcement officers by illegals; citizens returning from vacation to find their homes occupied by illegals; requests by law enforcement for higher budgets and staffing to cope with the above. If you spend much time in AZ, you soon find just about everyone has had a personal or neighborhood experience with illegal-related activity, ranging from a fender-bender accident to
a burglary or violent offense.

Wherever you live, public safety is the first priority. Then comes everything else. When public safety seems jeopardized, people reach for quick answers. Hence the bad AZ legislation (already amended). The
responsible, longer-term answer has to include all the positive things
you and I would want. But, first, there must be an immediate answer
on the security front. That is where the federal government, nominally responsible, and federal legislation come in. If the feds don't do the job, states and localities will keep coming up with incoherent responses of their own.

Final P.S. to Bella:

The federal Department of Homeland Security says there are 450,000 illegals in AZ. Probably as good an estimate as any. Figure out how many of those might be in the Phoenix metro area. I say a six-figure number.

Janet Napolitano wasn’t any better.

With anything high profile Republicans do these days, you always need to look behind the curtain to what they're REALLY trying to do. And what this law in Arizona is aimed at is a 'Brown Out'. Disenfranchising hispanics from voting to steal the election this Fall.

Keep in mind that Janet Brewer was not elected. She was appointed. She was also former Secretary of State. There's a good long list of Republican Sec of State trying to screw up state elections in Florida, Ohio and Washington State.

Read all about it from Greg Palast

MONDAY 3 MAY 2010
Behind the Arizona Immigration Law: GOP Game to Swipe the November Election
Monday 26 April 2010
by: Greg Palast

http://www.truthout.org/behind-the-arizona-immigration-law-gop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election58877

The article offers a valuable reminder about the Arizona crime problem. But Mr. Van Dyk undermines the article with his typical "a pox on both their houses" polemic. What he fails to acknowledge, in his evasion of partisan reality, is that the Arizona bill was passed SOLELY by Republicans, with NO Democratic votes. So when he talks about elected officials responding to public anger about crime, he's really talking about GOP elected officials pandering to their base for election purposes. Pepper2000 is right that the people complaining about federal inaction, including Sen. John McCain, are the same ones now blocking a solution. In addition, Mr. Van Dyk takes a cheap shot at Harry Reid. Sure, Reid stands to gain from strengthening his voting support among Latino voters. But isn't it a good thing when doing the right thing and the smart political thing are one and the same? If Reid and other Democratic leaders don't put a bill out there, how is Congress ever going to address the issue? It makes no sense to criticize Reid for that. In response to Cameron, I live in Yakima and walk around downtown all the time, and have never seen any crime problems there.

I grew up on the Mexico/Arizona border (Douglas which a gateway). There is really only one answer to the story: money. It's not racism (Arizona has way too many legal Mexicans and, of course, native Mexican Americans for it to be about racism).

One side is that the flow of illegal immigration has stepped up considerably over the last 10 years. If you own property (like a ranch) and had hundreds of people crossing your property, day and night, you, too, would be worried. Most of those people are looking to escape poverty but there are also drug dealers and coyotes. It's a problem. Additionally, the social problems with drug abuse and uninsured drivers as well as medical and education costs are troubling. Frankly, it is humane to give these people medical care as well as educate their children so that they don't become bigger problems but the costs to the government are not understated.

I recall Ronald Reagan yapping about this issue back in the '80s. Anything get done? No. John McCain, senior senator from Arizona, ran for President. Did he make this a big focus of his campaign. No.

Between the individual wealthy people who don't want to lose their housekeepers and gardeners to the corporations (like the chicken factories in Arkansas) who don't want to lose their cheap labor, there you have it.

If Mexican illegal immigration was that important, the government could have done a lot long ago. But, we need the cheap labor and so nothing is done. Arizona just decided to take things into their own hands. (For the record, I do not support this legislation. I'm part Mexican myself.)

So what could be done? One, are we doing enough to support the government in Mexican create jobs? It's cheaper to create jobs there than here and it would certainly slow the flow. Two, get a guest worker program going like they have in Europe. It can be done. Three, I don't know the data on births but my belief is that there certainly is a percentage of the women who come who want to have a child here who then is an American citizen. Band the states together and change our constitution so that everyone born here isn't a citizen (it's certainly not the norm in other countries). You'd end a certain percentage of illegals just doing that.

At the end of the day, you have desperate people looking for a better life. (As someone else pointed out, you don't see this from Canada.) Their cheap labor helps a lot of business in our country EVEN with a bad economy (you won't find Americans who will pick fruit).

So what do we do? We get some political backbone and do what is best for our country from a security point of view and not a business point of view.

Ted, why shouldn't the Democrats make hay of an unconstitutional, unpopular law passed on a party-line vote by Republicans? If the Democrats try to stay above the fray on this issue, they will turn off their base, turn off Hispanics, and reinforce the perception that they don't stand for anything. If they stand by the Hispanics and use this conflict to argue for comprehensive immigration reform, they'll be doing themselves and the country a service.

It's both sad and misleading that this article was framed around an alleged increase in violence as a justification for Arizona's racist law. Unfortunately the supposed increase in violence is just another of those made-up claims - see this piece by a law enforcement officer who should know: http://tinyurl.com/238o4ad.

Lex -

Thanks so much for posting that article. I agree, the entire premise of the article seems to follow a flawed GOP message point. Namely that the 'illegals' are shooting people, raping the women, killing the cops, invading the homes and causing accidents on the freeways.

Whenever I hear a Republican speak these days, I always check what they're saying with a whole bunch of other sources. This issue is one of those Republican-branded lies. The article you posted shows that. The fact that the law enforcement agencies were against this law also shows that.

Here's the link again: http://tinyurl.com/238o4ad

The last few lines say it all:

"There's no violence here," said Francisco Hernandez, 31, who works in a sign shop and lives on a ranch along the border. "It doesn't drain over, like people are saying."

Leo Federico, 61, a retired teacher, said he has been amazed to hear members of Congress call for National Guard troops in the area.

"That's politics," he said, shrugging. "It's all about votes. . . . We have plenty of law enforcement."

I'm always skeptical when the people in power say they were "goaded into" doing something. In practical terms, that means they think they can get away with it. The powerless learn to shrug off those impulses to be "goaded into" doing something. That always turns out badly if you're not in control.

Liked the (Latino?) bicycle messengers delivering drugs. Presumably the (Anglo?) bicycle riders are all college students.

Can't help but wonder how many of the retirees live in AZ because it's easy to go to Mexico for medical treatments and cheaper drugs.

There are a number of things, like ending the War on Drugs or inspecting businesses for illegal workers, that Arizonans have shown no interest in. It's hard to take them seriously.