When people make an argument or present a position I don’t agree with, I can usually understand their side, even I think it’s incorrect. Not so with the illegal immigration question. How can anyone justify illegally entering my country for any reason?
Then I read an opinion piece about the Arizona immigration law in the Global Times, an English language paper published in Beijing. The piece was written by Rong Xiaoqing, a Chinese living in New York. One sentence caught my attention, “The newly minted immigration law in Arizona, which allows the police to check the documents of anyone they think might be illegal immigrants and defines illegal immigration as a crime, has exacerbated the issue.”
Beside the obvious factual error that the police can not “check the documents of anyone they think might be illegal.” The law specifically disallows random document checks. The police can only check documents of people who have broken a law and have come to the attention of the police for doing so. There are no random checks allowed.
But more telling is the phrase “and defines illegal immigration as a crime”. When has anything illegal not been a crime? Clearly this nut job thinks illegal immigration, like legal immigration, is not a crime. She considers both kinds of immigration, legal and illegal, to be equal and the same.
Later in the piece this muddled thinking lunatic rambles on a bit about laws requiring employers hiring foreigners to check their immigration status when she states, “While its success or otherwise in reducing illegal hiring is still in question, it has been found to trigger recruitment discrimination against anyone who has a foreign look or accent, according to a report released by the General Accountability Office in 1990.” It is obvious she doesn’t think anyone, legal or illegal, should have to prove their immigration status when applying for a job.
I am required to carry a drivers license when I drive a car. Occasionally I am stopped at a check point and must present it even if I have not broken a traffic law. It is the law. I comply. And if I am stopped and do not have my license with me I fully expect to get a ticket. Legal immigrants are required to carry their papers. What is the big problem being asked to present them when applying for a job? No papers, no job. Very simple and straight forward. There is no racial discrimination involved.
Finally this clear thinking journalist sums up her feelings with he final sentence, “We may think we live in a world of subtlety and nuance but sometimes, whether we like it or not, it really does come down to right against wrong and us against them.” Huh? Besides making absolutely no sense, who is right and who is wrong? Who is us and who is them?
So to summarize Rong’s thoughts on the Arizona immigration law, all immigration is OK. To categorize illegal immigration as illegal is wrong. Therefore everyone in this country has the right to be here. When laws are passed which discriminate against illegal immigrants, the laws are wrong and should not be enforced. Since most illegal immigrants are brown, the only reason for such laws to exist must be racism. And finally, all immigrants must stand together before someone asks to see their papers.
This illustrates the thought process of the anti-Arizona law wackos. My head hurts from this stupidity. I think I’ll take two aspirin and go to bed. And I hope someone checks Rong’s immigration status.