The vocal critics of Arizona's new law SB1070 are trying to wear us down with the argument that racial profiling is racist. Every intelligent person knows otherwise as shown by the dictionary definitions of both terms. This argument is basically a red herring. They also argue that the new law will lead to racial profiling which is illegal.
Racial profiling, although illegal, could be an effective law enforcement tool because it would allow the police, ICE, and border patrol agents to narrow their search for illegal aliens down to the population where they are most likely to be found.
If strict anti-profiling rules were to be applied to the Border Patrol, the agents would be unable to stop anyone who managed to make his way across the border. They would in effect be told that they could not stop anyone and demand proof of citizenship if it was based on profiles like: apprehended near the border; appears to be Hispanic; speaks only broken English if at all; appears to be enroute from south of the border but there is no proof; appears to be wearing typical Mexican garb; or attempts to escape.
Stopping citizens in autos within 60 miles of the border at illegal alien checkpoints seems to be legal and acceptable. I have been stopped at one of those checkpoints. However, once illegals disappear into the local community or go Norte, it becomes a different story. Now it becomes flagrant profiling rather than a routine stop.
Of course, stopping or questioning individuals who may be citizens is not a step to be taken lightly. Yet, this happens all the time for traffic violations and DUIs and for immigration purposes. In Arizona, you cannot get a drivers license unless you can prove you are in this country legally. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask drivers stopped for other reasons and their passengers to not only show their drivers licenses and proof of insurance but also their citizenship papers or other documents that prove they are in this country legally. This check of bona fides is only a minor and legal imposition on loyal citizens interested in keeping unsafe drivers off the road and apprehending illegals. This is apparently not the case with Hispanic citizens of Arizona. They see this minor imposition as a foot on their necks or reminiscent of old movies in which papers are checked routinely in other countries. (Remember in "The Day of the Jackal" when passports had to be turned in at hotels and were reported to the police every morning by courier.)
Naturally, those who are unsympathetic to the enforcement of immigration laws and the removal of illegal aliens take every opportunity to blow such routine stops out of all proportion using such terms as "foot on the neck", racial profiling, and racism as cover for their real feelings. For every imposition experienced by Hispanic citizens there are probably three times that many involving anglos
who have gone astray of the law. Hispanic citizens are their own worst enemies because of their support for illegal aliens. They have become a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. Their full cooperation would remove any necessity for Draconian laws, "sweeps by what some have called pejoratively "masked goons", and such other measures as citizens desperate for immigration laws to be enforced are willing to accept.
The critics are also trying to organize a boycott of Arizona's businesses to achieve what they were unable to achieve at the ballot box through the democratic process. Goes to show you the high regard in which these critics hold democracy as a form of government and the rule of law as the foundation of all civilized societies. They are willing to sacrifice the jobs of citizens and aliens alike in Arizona in order to achieve their aims.
Some of the Mexican-American critics profess to be in favor of border security but at the same time persist in denying law enforcement the tools necessary to achieve that goal. This clearly indicates that they are only giving lip service to border security. Their real agenda is to remove all the barriers to illegal entry while thwarting any effective approach to the removal of illegal aliens.
This once again illustrates their lack of: personal integrity; loyalty to the rule of law; their shortage of grey matter; and their inability to take a long term view of what that would mean to the America we know and love.
They see no value in defending the national interest, our national sovereignty, and our national character. They see no value in supporting the rule of law. They define Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) basically in terms of amnesty for 12-20 million lawbreakers. It hasn't occurred to them yet that CIR and amnesty are two totally different things. They are responsible for SB 1070 as much as anybody.
Amnesty was tried in 1968 and the result was that the 1-1.3 million illegals then grew to 12-20 million today, a compound rate of growth of between 9.8% and as 10.7%. None of the critics have bothered to calculate what a 10% compound rate of increase in the number of illegal aliens would mean by the year 2050. Here's the calculation: 12 million x (1.10)^40 = 543 million illegal aliens. If the number today is 20 million, that would mean 20 x 1.10^40 = 905 million. Now I fervently hope that this will not be the reality but I can say tht these calculations are acurate. No wonder the CIR advocates want to sweep the current problem under the carpet with another amnesty so they can start all over again counting from zero.
There is no disagreement that our population is headed for a minimum of 458 million by mid-century and perhaps as many as a billion by the end of this century. The above calculations suggest that the 458 million may be a gross underestimate of our potential population in 2050, especially if the amnesty proponents have their way.
Population growth in America is due almost solely to legal immigrants, illegal aliens, their higher fertility rates, and their progeny. As they flood across the border, the last thought in their minds and in the minds of their supporters, aiders, and abettors is the fact that the "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. Simply put that means: the more there are of us, the less there is for each of us, and that applies equally to the immigrants, the illegal aliens, their children and all citizens, including the Hispanic-Americans who seem to be oblivious to this elementary fact. They are equally oblivious to the effects of unfettered population growth on the environment. According to the UN's estimate, Americans' produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. At that rate, 300 million more people will produce 6 billion more tons of pollutants annually. Even if by some technological miracle we were to be able to reduce our per capita output to the 10 metric tons per year of Mexico, we would have made absolutely no progress in reducing the current unacceptable level as our population doubles.
As the boycotters and open borders crowd do all they can to thwart the efforts of Arizonans to remove illegal aliens from their state, you can be sure they have not given any thought to the consequences of continuing down the present path to the destruction of America.
At the same time we must admit that some white supremacists have raised their ugly heads in Arizona polluting the political climate with their Neo-Nazi filth. Although I support SB 1070 wholeheartedly, I am severely disppointed by the apparent connection between the governor, and others involved in the formulation and passage of this bill, with white supremacists. By that affiliation they have damaged the credibility of the bill itself and undermined the ability of those who see this bill as an important way to deal with illegal aliens to continue to support it.
Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.