|
|
 | | From: | D.L. | | Subject: | Re: Arizona's illegals and Washington | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:22:40 -0500 |
|
|
 | Senator McCain from Arizona has a solution. The same as Bush's. Make them
legal. You see they come here to do jobs that Americans dont want. I guess
it makes sense if you can get an illegal to do it for almost nothing. Why
would an American want those jobs that the employers want to pay at minimum
wage for like picking lettuce in 110 degree heat?
"Jim" wrote in message
news:1105446446.768578.31360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Graphic Queen wrote:
> > Arizona's illegals and Washington
> >
> >
> >
> > In the run-up to voting in November, Arizonans sent their political
> > leaders a message: Do something about illegal immigation, or we'll do
> > it ourselves. The result was Proposition 200, a ballot initiative to
> > tighten the receipt of public benefits by illegals and to make public
> > employees report illegals to federal authorities. The measure passed,
> > and late last month the state began implementing it. Some immigration
> > authorities are viewing the move as an antidote to lax enforcement in
> > Washington, and now that it's becoming a reality we'll see whether
> > they're right. Immigration control is primarily a federal government
> > responsibility. But if Congress and the Bush Administration won't
> > solve the problem, there's no law saying the states can't take steps
> > to protect their own interests when illegal immigration weighs
> heavily
> > upon them.
> >
> > And in Arizona, weigh heavily it did. Outsiders who don't follow the
> > issue closely are likely to be surprised by the numbers for the
> state.
> > As U.S. Border Patrol data show, in fiscal year 2004, for the first
> > time, more than half of all illegals caught along the U.S.-Mexico
> > border were caught in Arizona. More illegals were caught there than
> in
> > California, New Mexico and Texas combined. As a share of the national
> > total, Arizona's burden is nearly four times what it was 10 years
> ago.
> > The tightening of controls in California and Texas, flat funding
> > increases for Arizona and unfavorable geography on the state's
> borders
> > are the primary reasons why it happened. As early as 2000,
> immigration
> > agents were calling Phoenix's airport the "gateway" to the rest of
> the
> > United States for illegals. Too bad Washington wasn't paying
> > attention.
> > For years, Arizonans have known that their state - not
> California
> > or Texas - is ground zero for illegal immigration. But the numbers
> for
> > last year show the full extent of the problem, and go far in
> > explaining why Arizonans acted as they did at the polls, despite the
> > opposition of most of the state's political and business
> > establishment.
> > Editorializing on the subject last November, the Washington Post
> > opined against state-by-state solutions like Arizona's, saying
> illegal
> > immigration cannot be dealt with sensibly on a piecemeal basis. If
> the
> > Post writers mean to suggest that federal authorities are best suited
> > to handle illegal immigration, surely they are correct: Washington is
> > charged with protecting the nation's borders, not the individual
> > states. But what happens when Washington abdicates its
> responsibility?
> > Surely Arizona's experience shows that Washington can fail in its
> > charge. And we don't yet know what will be the effects of moves like
> > Arizona's to curb the worst abuses. That's why other states -
> > Colorado, prominently - have been following Proposition 200 so
> > closely.
> > We hope Arizona succeeds in curbing the worst excesses of its
> > illegal-immigration conundrum. The implementation of Proposition 200
> > will show whether the states have a fighting chance to make up for
> > failures at the federal level.
> >
> > http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050109-102909-8000r.htm
>
> FYI
>
> Jim
>
|
|
|
