Tuesday, June 22, 2010


The recent Arizona law aimed at its burgeoning problems has reawakened the subdued din regarding the American debate over illegal immigration. And while both sides of the argument over that state's particular law are engaged in trash talking and finger pointing, both sides also agree that the federal government's failure to protect the borders was the catalyst behind Arizona's controversial legislation.

The shooting of an Arizona law enforcement officer, suspected by a drug dealing illegal immigrant, and a successful lawsuit against John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York are two of the more recent acts focusing on the issue.

The shooting speaks for itself. But the lawsuit against John Jay College appears to be a severe case of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. A school employee was terminated for failing to produce a green card after repeated requests to do so. The employee had been hired after producing a valid social security card and drivers license. As it turns out the school was in violation of the law by demanding to see the green card. And though federal law requires all non-citizens to carry proof that they are in the country legally, prospective employees are not required to produce more than a valid drivers license and social security card. However, federal law also increased fines against employers found to have hired illegal immigrants. So how does an employer navigate the absurdity of this "Don't ask, don't tell" immigration policy without being fined and without being sued?

The major controversy surrounding the new Arizona law revolves around the fearful possibility of discrimination by Arizona law enforcement. While the law specifically mandates "probable cause" before asking for the necessary documents, opponents of the new law feel that history justifies their lack of faith and trust in law enforcement's ability to be non-abusive toward non-whites. The talking head conservatives and their allied political punditry supporting the move by Arizona are oblivious to the fears of any penchant for discriminatory abuse because the word "discrimination" is not in their vocabulary unless it is preceded with the word "reverse."

When obvious injustices, based on race, are perpetrated against blacks by government and/or law enforcement, their input is to castigate the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton as a rabble-rouser and troublemaker for pointing it out. But they will scream long and loud about "reverse discrimination" when an injustice befalls a white male seemingly based on the color of his skin. Discrimination is not a suffix! While repeatedly using the term reverse discrimination as it concerns whites, their action is to kill the messenger when the discrimination occurs against non-whites. And it is this behavior wherein they are psychologically giving tacit approval to discrimination based on race - as long as it never happens to white folks.

1 comment:

David said...

Hello Calvin,

It is nice to see you come back over to the democratic side (smile). I agree with your opinion by in large, but I also believe the borders must be secured. No country can survive what amounts to a peaceful invasion by millions of people entering the country illegally. Sadly republicans basically created this problem as they sought cheap, non union labor. They became upset overtime when it became obvious that the workers were not only staying, but were also bringing family and friends to the new Eden. Did they think the workers would happily go back to the poverty of their country?