Immigration is a hot topic in the United States. There are two major issues:
How to resolve the status of undocumented immigrants living in America
How to stop the flow of illegal immigrants from crossing the border
There is major opposition to anything like amnesty for those who entered or stayed in the United States illegally. President Bush tried effectless to convince conservatives that the path to citizenship for illegal aliens is not ammesity.
President Bush Proposed that undocument immigrant could earn a path to citizenship if they:
Have a job for "x" years,
Pay their taxes. In addition
When a legistration for amnesty came before the floor On June 29th 2007, the United States Senate squashed the proposed comprehensive immigration legislation, just '46' of the '60' votes needed to conclude debate and proceed to final passage. Sixty senators, including '37' of Bush's fellow Republicans, voted against it.
We can't overlook the fact that there are many undocumented immigrants that have been living in the United states working and living as productive citizens and I think that President Bush was trying to make the point that they should be allowed to come out of the shadows. The point is well taken but would giving ammestity be grossly unfair to those that entered the country legally and waited years for citizenship.
Recently Governor Jan Brewer implemented an immigration law requiring local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally. This Law has been quantified as Racial Profiling. My question would be why Governor Brewer would fell the necessity to enact such a law. It appears that enacting that type of law was they only way to get the attention of the Federal Government. In fact the new bill S.B. 1070 mirrors federal law by making it a state crime to be in this country illegally, as has been in the federal statute for decades. This bill also clearly states that racial profiling is not and will not be tolerated and recognizes an established standard, "reasonable suspicion,". I am 100% against any type of racial profiling because it's wrong and ultimately presents a problem. In reality there may not be any way to fix the border problem without getting into the slippery slope of racial profiling. There are other races of people crossing the border but the majority of the crossing is people that are native to Mexico. Many public officials have spoken openly about the border problems.
Here a quote by then Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona in August 2005, "Both federal governments let us down - there doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency,"
Bill Richardson then Governor of new Mexico in 2005 was quoted as saying: "This is an act of desperation," Mr. Richardson said in a separate phone interview, adding that border problems had gone beyond illegal immigration to violent crime. He said the action would provide resources "until Congress and the feds deal with this issue,".
The state of California responded to the S.B. 1070 law by stating its time to boycott Arizona for its "harsh" immigration policy.
Washington, D.C is suing asks; How can law enforcement "reasonably suspect" someone of being undocumented without racial profiling? Other than race, what are the key indicators?
It a fact that not every illegal immigrant is crossing the border for the purpose of criminal or malicious acts, but there has to be checks and balances in place, considering the types of criminal activities that are occurring along the Border States. It's sad when the Federal Government is suing the state government for attempting to keep the citizen safe and secure in their daily lives. Why waste time, money an energy pursuing a lawsuit, when constituencies could be working together to find a feasible resolution for Arizona and the other Border States.