SB1070 in Retrospect

Alia Beard Rau, from The Arizona Republic, looked into what SB1070 has done in the past three months.  Rau reports that there has been no arrests since the implementation of the law.  Along with this, not one Arizona citizen has sued an officer or police department because of not enforcing the law.  One thing to note, says Rau, is that Phoenix's law enforcement agency refused to report any arrests to the media.  I found this interesting since Apairo is responsible for that district and one of the most staunch advocates of the bill.  Also, Jan Brewer did not comment on the last three months, either.

It is interesting that the supporters of this legislation refused to comment on the last three months, and I feel it indicates some sort of defeat from those key players.  Although many portions went through after Susan Bolton's ruling, I, as an Arizonan citizen, do not even feel effected by the sections in effect.  It will be interesting to see if this law will cause any change in the next year or so because I feel if it does not, it really only functioned as a catalyst to the immigration debate for this election year.

Another "Angle"

Sharron Angle was back at it again with immigration by releasing this new ad campaign:



She first starts by stating illegal immigrants come over here and join gangs.  I am also in rhetoric class this semester, and I can already tell you she has committed two major logical fallacies in this accusation.  She has a slippery slope fallacy because she depicts this picture: illegal immigrant come here, then join violent gangs, and then cause worry to American families.  Obviously, this is a very narrow point-of-view on immigration, and it does not always follow logic.  She also commits a fallacy by making a hasty generalization that all Mexican immigrants want to join a gang and promote violence.  Again, there has been more than enough evidence that most illegal immigrants don't participate in violent, illegal activity.

She then uses the rest of this commercial to attack Harry Reid on his actions taken for illegal immigration.  Angle does not provide any sources for those accusations.  With the other aspects of this election that I have wrote on, I really feel Sharron Angle does not accurately know enough about the immigration debate to have proper public discourse on the matter.  Hopefully the voters in Nevada recognize her inconsistencies and unfounded opinions, also.

"Don't Vote" Ad

This ad, which aired in Nevada, is outraging about everyone, especially Latino voters.  The ad starts off in Spanish, and then it progresses, in English, to tell voters to send a message to the Democrats (does not spell out Democrats, but implies it through pictures) by not voting in the election this year.  The narrator explains that the politicians failed on immigration reform, so voters should send them a strong message by not voting.

Obviously, there is some clear ulterior motives behind this campaign.  Right now the election between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle is almost a tie, and with encouraging Latino voters not to vote this year, the person sponsoring this ad wants Harry Reid to lose the votes.  Although this ad is not approved by Sharron Angle, it definitely works towards her advantage because she has made it quite clear in her earlier ad campaigns that she does not support immigration in almost any fashion.  Hopefully, Latino voters do not buy into the message in this ad because that would be a shame.  They have a right to vote, like every other American citizen.

Providing a Different "Angle"

In responding to her political ad slamming Harry Reid on immigration, Sharron Angle met with Hispanic High School students to downplay her beliefs.  Her attempts appeared to hurt her more than help, though.  In answering a student's question on why she used Latinos to represent illegal immigrants, Sharron Angle merely responded that the immigrants do not look exactly Hispanic to her.   She even hurt her credibility more by saying some of the Hispanic students in the audience look more Asian than Latino.

I will admit I was not the biggest Sharron Angle fan before this, but I found her responses offensive and unthoughtful.  I think it was an appropriate time to perhaps admit she did single out Hispanics in her ad, but she meant no harm in it because her focus is on illegal immigration, not race.  Instead, I feel she has alienated not only a Hispanic voter base, but an Asian voter base, too.  The best lesson to take out of this is that immigration should not be narrowed down to race because when that happens, it is a step backwards, not forwards.

Here Come the Outsiders

Out-of-staters fuel fight over Arizona immigration law

Today The Christian Science Monitor featured an article explaining how SB 1070 has drawn many out-of-state people to visit Arizona in support of bill.  Loudres Medrano, the author, uses quite a few examples of people making the trip.  One guy, Timothy Mellon, did not make the trip, but he contributed $1.5 million to help offset the legal fees this bill has caused.  Medrano also considers how Arizonans feel by the out-of-state people by interviewing Marshall Trimble, our state's historian.  Trimble feels it is a mix of outsiders trying to influence the Arizona system, but it is also people coming here because they feel immigration is an American issue.  Tea Party activists have also flocked Arizona to provide support for SB 1070.  Lastly, the article interviews a hotel owner in Phoenix, who says he is just recovering from all the cancelled hotel reservations in boycott of the bill.

I admire that this article takes different approaches on the issue.  When I originally saw the title, I thought it was only going to explain this through an out-of-state person's point-of-view.  I especially thought it was interesting to interview our state historian on the issue.  I believe he was very fair in his approach.  These people may seem as outsiders, but it is important to understand that immigration reform is truly an American issue, not just Arizonan.  

Susan Bolton Is Back at It Again

It has just come out that Susan Bolton has accepted the ACLU and other non-profit organizations' lawsuit of SB1070.    Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe did not want Bolton to let this case go through, but Bolton ultimately decided to hear the case after dismissing certain aspects of the lawsuit.  She did so because some parts were already addressed with the ruling with the U.S. Justice Department's case.

It will be interesting to see if Susan Bolton reconsiders any of the choices she made during the first lawsuit by the federal government.  There has been more analysis since the law has gone into affect, and I wonder if these figures will sway Bolton in making a different decision.  It will also be intriguing to see if the ACLU and the nonprofits bring forth some new evidence or claim in their argument.  Overall, I wouldn't be surprised to see more changes with SB1070.

Does this Editorial Hold Some Truth?

In an editorial entitled "Illegal-immigration debate in not about prejudice", Susan D. Ree tries to prove a point that people against illegal immigration are not prejudice.  She attempts to support this by sharing her experiences in other countries, and she also tries to establish some credibility through her childhood experiences.  Her main point is that prejudice and illegal immigration are not relatable because they are different concepts.

Although I can believe she does not hold prejudices with illegal immigrants, I find it a fallacy to conclude all anti illegal immigration people do not hold racial judgments, too.   As shown in this class, history can prove that many people did have racial prejudices with immigrants, and I would find it hard to believe that this has suddenly changed with this issue.

Now Muslims Are Taking Over?

I remember in class we watched a political ad featuring Sharron Angle criticizing illegal immigrants (she only showed Hispanics in her ad, by the way), but now it looks like she has moved on to attack another immigrant group in this country--Muslims.  In a recent Tea Party demonstration in Nevada, she claimed that not only was this group is a problem, but that they are trying to have Sharia Law overrule constitutional law.  Basically, she believes that Muslims are taking over this country.  Sound familiar?  This happened with the Italians, the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, and the Hispanics (which is obviously still an argument, too).

With the recent debates around the mosque around Ground Zero and the elections coming up, I am not surprised that Angle took this angle (pun intended) on this issue.  In looking at this poll from Gallup.com, it is easy to see why she would use this political topic to her advantage:

Although much of these worries surrounding Islam and its influence on American society are unfounded and overstated, I unfortunately do not see people changing their beliefs anytime soon when we have people, like Angle, that use this fear to their political advantage.

Lou Dobbs: The Hypocrite?

A magazine ripped Lou Dobbs for hiring illegals at his own house.  As many people know, Lou Dobbs has been a staunch critic on the issue of illegal immigration.  Isabel McDonald, the author of this article featured in The Nation, claims that Lou Dobbs has hired contractors that have been known to hire illegal immigrants.  She further goes into how Dobbs "has relied for years on undocumented labor for the upkeep of his multimillion-dollar estates and the horses he keeps for his 22-year-old daughter, Hillary, a champion show jumper."  Dobbs has of course publicly denied these claims the articles have made.  He has said that all his workers on the stables are 100% legal.  Since the actual article in The Nation does use irrelevant remarks about his daughter being a champion show jumper, I think it hurts the credibility of McDonald's claims.

Even if these accusations are true , I think it shows that even critics of undocumented workers cannot truly escape the influence of illegal immigration.  With this and Meg Whitman's houseworker, it demonstrates that there is possibly a need for these types of workers to fill jobs that Americans will not.  I know that opens room for numerous debates, but the important aspect to obtain out of this information is that something in the system needs to be fixed.

Glenn Beck: The Expert on Immigration?

In this video he gives a timeline of illegal immigration in the US.  He starts with mentioning an article written in 1890 in the L.A. Times.  To check his mention of the article, I tried googling to see if that article would show up.  The first item displayed led me right back to Glenn Beck, so I question the validity of this piece he uses.  The search certainly does not prove that he lied, but it certainly does not help his credibility, either.

Another aspect I found interesting was that he mentioned Operation Wetback.  He goes on for a few seconds about this initiative to deport illegal immigrants out of this country, but I find it quite humorous that he never mentions the Bracero Program along with this part.  The Bracero Program brought many of these deported workers into the country legally to help hold agricultural jobs.  He also fails to attribute all the negative actions that took place with these immigrant workers.  Glenn Beck only mentions the consequence of this program--Operation Wetback.

Generally, Glenn Beck took his typical one-sided approach to this history, and he could benefit picking up any book that dealt with the history of immigration.  Then he might produce more factual videos...but I have feeling he does not want to.