Arizona Immigration Views
Published in La Prensa
(Honduras) on 18 May 2010
by Ricardo Trotti (link to original)
Just as the city of Los Angeles declared an economic boycott on the state of Arizona because of the new immigration law it considers to be unconstitutional and racist, surprisingly, various polls have shown that a majority of Americans support this legislation.
These results were a slap in the face. The upheaval disturbed many, showing a different and contradictory reality from that which the press had been echoing. While it appeared that everyone had joined their voices in the thunderous demonstrations of protest and condemnation organized by artists, politicians and even President Barack Obama, who ordered an investigation into how to block the law, a silent majority of citizens had given a different verdict.
According to similar polls done by the Pew Research Center and McClatchy-Ipsos, 73 percent of Americans support SB1070, the law that, beginning on July 29, will criminalize illegal immigration in Arizona and permit the police to detain and interrogate people about their immigration status. The majority also don't consider the law to be an infringement of their civil liberties and think that it will have positive effects in terms of putting the brakes on unemployment and problems with national security: two values that many link to the unresolved problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the country.
It also deserves attention that, while many leaders thought the public protests on May 1 in dozens of important cities would help to obtain a sure victory against the Arizona law, they passed almost unnoticed in the social networks that are always predisposed to go viral. The Facebook group that asked for "1 Million Strong Against the Arizona Immigration Law SB1070" only has a little more than 100 followers, while the group that calls for members to "Boycott Arizona for Passing Anti-Immigration Law" has only reached 8,800 members.
Measurements of opinion have the ability to help mold political forces; those who appear to be in the minority can suddenly transform themselves into the majority. These new trends change behaviors and can free others from inhibitions that kept them silent or politically correct out of fear of criticism. In the political society, majority opinion is like a glider's tailwind. Take for example the case of Bill McCollum, attorney general of Florida, who, after initially criticizing the bill, now says that he would support a similar law in his state.
In situations that are polarized and in upheaval, one runs the risk that politicians will act demagogically, trying to flatter or shield themselves in the majority even if they are wrong, paying too much attention to samples of public opinion that can change radically depending on the context and facts of the moment.
This is occurring in the presidential race in Colombia, where the main candidates, Antanas Mockus and Juan Manuel Santos, are competing day after day for the support of an electorate that changes in large measure following the declarations made by the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, about them.
Beyond the legislation put forward by Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23 and the bad poll results for those in the minority, the positive side is that this new law sparked debate and put immigration back on equal terms with the economic crisis, war, health care reform and the pursuit of a comprehensive federal solution.
The law is significant not just for the United States, but also for Latin America — the principal "provider" of immigrants and the main beneficiary of family remittances. Immigration is a problem that affects everyone, and in every Latin American country the same problems of discrimination and xenophobia that are attributed to the SB1070 law exist. It is worth asking one's self: What is it like to be an undocumented Paraguayan in Argentina? What about Argentinians in Peru? Peruvians in Chile? Colombians in Venezuela? Haitians in the Dominican Republic? Central Americans in Mexico? Hondurans in Nicaragua? Or Nicaraguans in Costa Rica?
It would be good if the Mexican legislators and the presidents of the Union of South American Nations who have criticized so strongly and genuinely the Arizona law would take advantage of this debate to generate opinions, reflections and also more appropriate legislation in each one of their own countries.
These results were a slap in the face. The upheaval disturbed many, showing a different and contradictory reality from that which the press had been echoing. While it appeared that everyone had joined their voices in the thunderous demonstrations of protest and condemnation organized by artists, politicians and even President Barack Obama, who ordered an investigation into how to block the law, a silent majority of citizens had given a different verdict.
According to similar polls done by the Pew Research Center and McClatchy-Ipsos, 73 percent of Americans support SB1070, the law that, beginning on July 29, will criminalize illegal immigration in Arizona and permit the police to detain and interrogate people about their immigration status. The majority also don't consider the law to be an infringement of their civil liberties and think that it will have positive effects in terms of putting the brakes on unemployment and problems with national security: two values that many link to the unresolved problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the country.
It also deserves attention that, while many leaders thought the public protests on May 1 in dozens of important cities would help to obtain a sure victory against the Arizona law, they passed almost unnoticed in the social networks that are always predisposed to go viral. The Facebook group that asked for "1 Million Strong Against the Arizona Immigration Law SB1070" only has a little more than 100 followers, while the group that calls for members to "Boycott Arizona for Passing Anti-Immigration Law" has only reached 8,800 members.
Measurements of opinion have the ability to help mold political forces; those who appear to be in the minority can suddenly transform themselves into the majority. These new trends change behaviors and can free others from inhibitions that kept them silent or politically correct out of fear of criticism. In the political society, majority opinion is like a glider's tailwind. Take for example the case of Bill McCollum, attorney general of Florida, who, after initially criticizing the bill, now says that he would support a similar law in his state.
In situations that are polarized and in upheaval, one runs the risk that politicians will act demagogically, trying to flatter or shield themselves in the majority even if they are wrong, paying too much attention to samples of public opinion that can change radically depending on the context and facts of the moment.
This is occurring in the presidential race in Colombia, where the main candidates, Antanas Mockus and Juan Manuel Santos, are competing day after day for the support of an electorate that changes in large measure following the declarations made by the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, about them.
Beyond the legislation put forward by Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23 and the bad poll results for those in the minority, the positive side is that this new law sparked debate and put immigration back on equal terms with the economic crisis, war, health care reform and the pursuit of a comprehensive federal solution.
The law is significant not just for the United States, but also for Latin America — the principal "provider" of immigrants and the main beneficiary of family remittances. Immigration is a problem that affects everyone, and in every Latin American country the same problems of discrimination and xenophobia that are attributed to the SB1070 law exist. It is worth asking one's self: What is it like to be an undocumented Paraguayan in Argentina? What about Argentinians in Peru? Peruvians in Chile? Colombians in Venezuela? Haitians in the Dominican Republic? Central Americans in Mexico? Hondurans in Nicaragua? Or Nicaraguans in Costa Rica?
It would be good if the Mexican legislators and the presidents of the Union of South American Nations who have criticized so strongly and genuinely the Arizona law would take advantage of this debate to generate opinions, reflections and also more appropriate legislation in each one of their own countries.
Part of our problem in the U.S. is that the media is owned by an ever more powerful plutocracy, that has managed to gain control of almost all the major news outlets, and is even making forays into the internet, censoring news comments not for any violation of terms, but for the message a post may convey, for it’s ideas.
At this time, our government is doing all it can to allow illegals in without resistance. There is only one purpose to it, and that is to flood the workforce with labor that needn’t be paid adequately, needn’t be given health benefits (Ronald Reagan signed it into law that they MUST be treated at emergency rooms, and so placed the onus for their health-care on the general public), and cannot report their employers for any breach of worker’s rights, such as sexual harassment, violations of OSHA regulations (plant safety), or pay discrimination.
The U.S. government is doing this on the orders of wealthy corporate donors…the same class that has taken over most of our media.
It is no wonder that the media is trying to portray the Arizona law as something it’s not, or that even the President is misleading whoever will listen as to the “profiling” aspect of this state regulation.
Corporate America does not want illegals stopped from entering the country…their wholly owned congress & president are just following orders.
In the meantime, American workers are being supplanted, and the crime rate in our border states has reached a critical level, with innocent ranchers being shot just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Of course most American citizens agree with this law, if the federal officials will not abide by their oaths of office, then the States must take action to protect their citizens, regardless of the self-serving demands of the plutocracy.