Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION THE FIGHT TO KEEP OUR DEMOCRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1915)	7/1/2007 8:31:37 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 3197

Good article 'til the incorrect conclusion. Here's the winner for cartoon of the year: unitedmedia.com

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1915)	7/3/2007 3:11:02 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3197

Napolitano signs immigrant bill targeting employers Matthew Benson The Arizona Republic Jul. 2, 2007 Napolitano's letter to the House To the Senate Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday signed sweeping legislation against employers of undocumented workers, targeting the state's market for illegal labor with what she called “the most aggressive action in the country.” The penalty for violators: The suspension of a business license on the first violation and permanent revocation on a second, amounting to a death sentence for repeat offenders. “It's monumental. It's a change from anything we've done in the past,” said Speaker of the House Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix. “It's time for the states to start stepping up and stop waiting for Congress.” The law takes effect Jan. 1, significantly raising the stakes for more than a quarter-million undocumented workers believed to reside in Arizona and the businesses that employ them. Between now and then, Napolitano hinted at calling legislators back to the Capitol for a special session this fall to amend flaws in the bill, including a provision that could force the closure of hospitals, power plants and other critical facilities if they're cited for making illegal hires. Her other concerns included “woefully'' inadequate funding for enforcement and the lack of a non-discrimination clause to ensure it's enforced fairly. Napolitano's signature comes just days after the failure of a comprehensive immigration reform measure being considered by the U.S. Senate. She again lamented that proposal's collapse and blasted Congress anew in saying Arizona could no longer afford to wait. “We're dealing somewhat in uncharted territory right now – uncharted territory because of the inability of the Congress to act,” Napolitano said. “The states will take the lead, and Arizona will take the lead among the states.” But opposition to the new law was swift, led by Latino activists and the business community. Eight minutes following the governor's announcement that she had signed the bill, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce issued a statement calling it “a crippling blow to Arizona business.” That opposition coalesced in a Capitol hearing room where critics vowed a fight. “We have five months for the business community to rally and come to the table and demand that the House and Senate come back to the table and work on this bill,” said Mary Rose Wilcox, a Maricopa County supervisor and Hispanic activist. “People are just incensed about this. This will be disastrous for the state of Arizona.” A legal challenge regarding the constitutionality of the new law is already in the works. Phoenix employment attorney Julie Pace said that challenge will question whether the law violates due process and interstate commerce clauses, and assert that Arizona has overstepped its authority by moving into the arena of immigration law. The U.S. Constitution gives power over immigration policy to the federal government. “I will make a prediction that sanctions will never be imposed because they can't ever become workable,” said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix. “It will never be implemented properly. It will never function.” Beginning Jan. 1, all Arizona employers will be required to check the legal status of their employees through a federal database known as the Basic Pilot Program. The accuracy of that database and its ability to handle 130,000 to 150,000 Arizona businesses that will now use it has been questioned. Napolitano sent a letter Monday to congressional leaders asking for improvements and federal investment to ensure Basic Pilot is up to the task. But the day was one of relief for those who've for years asked for a set of state sanctions against businesses that dabble in illegal labor. Perhaps chief among them is Rep. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the bill and was at the forefront of numerous similar efforts in the past. “Anyone worried about this bill ought to be worried about their hiring practices,” said Pearce, who called the measure “the toughest yet fairest employer-sanction law in the country.” An even stricter set of employer sanctions waits in the wings, led by a citizens group that hopes to get its proposal on the 2008 ballot. That measure, which would revoke a violator's business license on a first offense, loomed over the development of Pearce's bill and was again noted on the day of its signing. The hope among many lawmakers is that the new law will short-circuit an initiative some consider too drastic. “The main concern is you've got an initiative out on the street that's growing momentum every day,” Weiers said. “If it goes to the ballot, I suspect it'll win overwhelmingly.” The new law has problems of its own, Napolitano conceded. She has already spoken with Weiers and Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, about the potential of a special session. Bee said he was open to the possibility. Weiers noted any changes would have to be scripted in advance. Issues that Napolitano says need to be corrected in the new law include: Insufficient funding for enforcement. Overbroad language that could cause a chain of businesses to be penalized if a single location was cited. Lack of an exemption to ensure that critical facilities such as hospitals and power plants don't have to temporarily close their operations if undocumented workers are found among their staffs. “For an immigration violation for hiring a nursing aid, are you going to close down a nursing home?” Napolitano asked. Observing that “this is not a doorway for discrimination against anyone,” Napolitano said she'd like lawmakers to add a non-discrimination clause to assure residents that they won't be targeted based on their race or ethnicity. Those problems aside, Napolitano said she viewed it as better to move forward with a new law than back to Square One next session with a veto. Republic reporters Amanda J. Crawford and Yvonne Wingett contributed to this article.

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (1915)	7/3/2007 6:36:21 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3197

Political Correctness Police Strike Again --Historians may well look back on last week's defeat of the immigration bill as a watershed moment. It was, for good or ill, a milestone in America's transformation into a "normal" country. Normal countries have arguments about their national identity and immigration's effect on it. In normal countries, it's not illegitimate to suggest that too many immigrants, or too many immigrants of a specific origin, may upset the social peace or do damage to the national culture. In America, however, to raise such concerns is to open yourself to charges of racism, bigotry, nativism and all-around hate. Indeed, one of the most striking aspects of the recent immigration bill was how its opponents managed to win despite having the deck stacked against them. Any reference to cultural objections to mass immigration from Mexico was automatically deemed reactionary and bigoted by proponents of the bill in the news media and on Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, supporters of legalizing some 12 million illegal immigrants were free to use the cultural card as much as they liked. We are a nation of immigrants, we were told constantly. Immigrants make American society better. Anyone who disagreed with this was automatically lumped in with the forces of bigotry and hate. A cultural club One could get bogged down in pointing out that few people have problems with immigrants applying. It's the part where they skip the application process and illegally jump the line that rankles. But the real point here is that even Southern conservative Republicans have bought into the idea that cultural arguments are legitimate only when employed in favor of massive Mexican immigration, never in opposition to it. This is one reason why the economic impact of immigrants became such an outsized issue. At one point, the White House trumpeted a new study showing that immigration contributes about $30 billion a year to the economy. Even assuming the numbers are accurate, and leaving aside how it includes legal immigration which was never at issue that's still a trivial amount in a $13 trillion economy. But arguing about the numbers is a safe harbor for liberals and conservatives alike because you can't be called a hatemonger when you're debating dollars and cents. Similarly, hype about everything from leprosy to terrorists crossing the U.S.-Mexican border can be chalked up, in part, to a desire to talk around what's really bothering lots of people. But if advocates of comprehensive immigration reform are going to make any headway toward their goals, they're going to have to learn how to speak to those worried about the cultural impact that Mexican immigration is having on communities around the country without calling them racists or reactionaries incapable of coping with modernity. Now, the offense some take to the seeming underside of Mexican immigration might seem uncharitable, snobbish or bigoted to New York reporters or US senators but such people tend to live in buildings or communities that protect themselves from poor working-class Mexican-Americans, and every other kind of poor American to boot (except as the help). Not a lot of Mexican immigrants are going to park on John Kerry's lawn or get approved by Maureen Dowd's condo board. In France, the French are free to worry about staying French. Indeed, throughout the industrialized world, it's considered normal to talk about one's national character and culture. Nowhere else is the desire to control your border considered an act of bigotry. The American identity Well, "Americanness" is no less real than "Frenchness." But in America, the logic of diversity has completely swamped any conception of Americanness as anything beyond platitudes about "inclusiveness." Worse, Americans who think real inclusiveness requires learning English are told that their kind of inclusiveness is actually exclusionary. This merely exacerbates resentments because such policies are the only surefire way toward assimilation. The point here is not to say that America has become "too Mexican." Though it's ironic that liberals who see nothing wrong with talking about America, the GOP, or various universities as being "too white," "too Christian," or not black or Hispanic enough should recoil in horror at such a thought. Rather it's simply to note that such concerns are normal, human reactions to changes many Americans feel they were never consulted on. How could they be consulted when so much immigration is illegal? Americans are proud of being citizens of the most inclusive country in the world. But is it so outrageous for them to want it to be a bit more of a normal country, too? Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online. He is a syndicated columnist and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.