Archive for Monday, March 28, 2011

Hispanic leaders say ‘tide is turning’ on anti-immigration legislation

March 28, 2011


— Hispanic advocates are hailing the rejection of an Arizona-like immigration bill in Kansas and in other states as a sign that the country may be ready for a constructive debate on immigration.

“We are heartened that the tide is turning and that these legislatures are realizing that, in a time of unprecedented fiscal crisis, considering legislation, which is costly, discriminatory and completely ineffective, is a waste of both politicians’ and taxpayers’ time,” said Janet Murguía, president and chief executive officer of the National Council of La Raza.

Murguía, a Kansas native and former executive vice chancellor for university relations at Kansas University, said several other states, including Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming, have also recently rejected what she called extreme anti-immigrant, anti-Latino legislation.

Her comments as leader of the country’s largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization were made after the Kansas House last week voted 84-40 against a procedural move to consider a bill that would have required law enforcement officers to check the legal status of people they suspected of being in the country illegally.

The policing measure in House Bill 2372 mirrored an Arizona law that is at the center of fierce legal challenge. The Kansas bill had the backing of Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who also helped write the Arizona law.

But a cross-section of representatives, including Democrats and conservative Republicans representing agricultural interests, voted against bringing the bill up. Some argued that it would have led to racial profiling, while others said it would have been burdensome to business and police.

Another bill, sought by Kobach and others, would repeal the state law that allows in-state tuition for some undocumented students.

The legislation has been approved by the House, but earlier this month, a Senate committee voted against advancing it. Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, has also signaled he is not interested in repealing the current law.

Lalo Munoz, with the Latino Informational Network of Kansas, said immigration issues should be handled nationally.

“It’s extremely complicated and not going to be solved on a state-by-state basis,” Munoz said.


panzermike007 7 years, 1 month ago

It is NOT anti-immigration, it IS anti "ILLEGAL ALIEN"!

cheeseburger 7 years, 1 month ago

I used to have respect for Janet Murguia, but not any longer. Panzermike is right, but Murguia wants to spin it into something it isn't. She is an intelligent woman, but for some reason fails to grasp the sentiment of America, that being legal = welcome, while Illegal = unwelcome.

Carol Braden 7 years, 1 month ago

What Janet Murgia said was:

“We are heartened that the tide is turning and that these legislatures are realizing that, in a time of unprecedented fiscal crisis, considering legislation, which is costly, discriminatory and completely ineffective, is a waste of both politicians’ and taxpayers’ time,” said Janet Murguía, president and chief executive officer of the National Council of La Raza.

She addressed the issue of costly, discriminatory, and the ineffectiveness of this legislation. Her legislative background and experience lends merit to her opinion on good vs. bad legislation.

She also welcomed debate on immigration. No where in the article does it state that she weighs in on YOUR opinion of "legal = welcome, while illegal - unwelcome". This sentiment is not necessarily the sentiment of America. I welcome debate, as well.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

Are illegal employers welcome or unwelcome?

BigDog 7 years, 1 month ago

You are correct ..... and you are now considered "racist" if you want to protect the borders and don't accept illegal aliens into America with open arms.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Please show us where people are saying we should not protect our borders and that we should accept people entering the country illegally with open arms.

roverk190 7 years, 1 month ago

Common LJworld. Anti-immigration? Really?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

Be legal or be gone. Doesn't matter if you are from Iceland or Brazil.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

By "gone", do you mean murdered by shooters from helicopters?

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

Ok, Kobach looks baked again in the picture.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

The best way to stop illegal immigration is to eliminate the demand for cheap, unregulated, seasonal labor with no benefits.

Companies that hire illegal aliens should be punished.

Dry up the demand, and the supply will not come. Simple free market capitalism.

Shardwurm 7 years, 1 month ago

Wrong. Very wrong.

No work won't stop them from coming here. It will only have them come here and not be able to provide for themselves and send poverty claims up. Additionally, with no way to provide for their families the crime rate will go up as people become desperate.

I don't know what the solution is, but believing that no work will stop them from coming here is simplistic. Would you rather be unemployed and poor in Mexico or the US?

ksarmychick 7 years, 1 month ago

Then it's time for the US to stop giving benefits to illegals. Every person applying for a government handout should have to prove citizenship. No more food stamps, cash assistance, medicaid, etc for those here illegally.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

It's supply and demand. Not supply then demand or demand then supply. We need to eliminate both supply and demand.

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

"..eliminate the demand for cheap, unregulated, seasonal labor with no benefits."

Hmmm, if we do that, we'd have to replace it with expensive, regulated, permanent labor with benefits. I wonder what that would do to prices?

Illegal immigrants are a modern form of slave labor that helps keep our prices low. Get rid of them if it makes you feel better about yourself, but don't complain about the foreseeable consequences of doing so.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

I may in fact be willing to pay higher prices. Many people go out of their way to "Buy American" even if foreign produced goods are cheaper. Yours is very circular reasoning because you say I should not complain if something happens but then refuses to provide the opportunity.

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

"I may in fact be willing to pay higher prices." - I'm not.

"Many people go out of their way to 'Buy American' even if foreign produced goods are cheaper." - Relatively few people do this, but if you want to buy more expensive products for some reason, be my guest. Maybe we need a "Picked by an American" sticker for expensive produce.

"...refuses to provide the opportunity." - I don't know what this means; I'm not preventing anything from happening, I'm in the minority in this state.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

What I'm saying is that I do not want the illegal immigrants and that if it leads to higher prices, I'm willing to accept that. You countered and said you were not willing to pay higher prices yet you say labor provided by illegal immigrants is a modern form of slavery. So you support slavery?

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

Its a "form" of slavery; obviously, illegal immigrants are not owned as property and can leave anytime they want to, but they also don't have the freedoms and rights that citizens do.

I think its a win-win: They make more money than they would in their home countries, and we pay lower wages for their labor.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

And what we lose is the rule of law. A bad trade, if you ask me.

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

I think arguments about "the rule of law" are disingenuous. People who couldn't care less about other minor breaches of the law are, for some reason, infatuated with this particular minor breach.

Personally, I'd rather Kobach focused on more important issues, like drunk drivers and pedophiles, than hard-working illegal immigrants.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

If you'll look further down in this thread, I responded to someone else and defended the right of individuals using the rule of law for justification. It may be disingenuous for some, but it is not for me. After all. most drunk drivers make it home safely, should we ignore them? No. If we turn a blind eye to people breaking this law, which law will be next? Where will it stop? If you believe the laws are wrong, work to change them.

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

Yes, but, as a practical matter, we don't have the time, manpower, money, or other resources to enforce all laws. So the issue is whether we want police spending their time asking tan people whether they are here legally or whether we want them investigating more serious crimes. Every moment that Kobach spends on illegal immigration, is time he could have been spending on something more relevant to the average Kansan.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Good point about practical matters. But the problem as I see it is that if Kansas and 48 other states routinely ignore the problem and the Federal government also ignores the problem, then the lawbreakers becomes de facto law abiders. Then when the one remaining state (say Arizona) decides to enforce the law, they become the ostracized one. And for what? Enforcing the law. Then things get turned upside down, lawbreakers are empowered to break laws and those wanting to enforce the law are called racists. I still believe the correct path is to secure majority opinions and change the laws or, barring a change in the opinions of the majority, live within the laws as written.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

And on the losing side of the equation: our citizens who are unemployed, all workers who are harmed by the downward wage pressure and all citizens who are forced to live in an over-populated country of sleazy strip malls and apartment complexes so that a few may make an ill gotten profit.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Those who do not distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration are being intellectually dishonest. I suspect most Americans are in favor of immigration that is done in an orderly and well reasoned manner. I support that kind of immigration. I would find abhorrent any immigration policy that discriminated against members of certain ethnicities, cultures, religions, etc. I feel immigrants add to the mosaic that is exactly what makes this country the best that it can be. But illegal immigration is something that is very different. It is not orderly nor well reasoned. The first thing those people do upon entering this country is to break it's law. Facilitating their stay here frequently involves breaking more laws. That type of lawbreaking does not add to the wonderful mosaic that legal immigration brings. To those who advocate for changes in immigration policy, as those mentioned in the article, please be clear as to which group you are working for. Or if you are working for both, know that by putting both groups together, you are risking the interests of legal immigrants when you tie their interests to the those of illegal immigrants. Their interests are very different and should be discussed separately.

Synjyn Smythe 7 years, 1 month ago

I'll take that bet! Where do I book it?

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Thankfully, the Obama administration has been far more aggressive in battling the problems of illegal immigration than past administrations, particularly going after those with a criminal record. Thanks President Obama.

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

Wow you make being an illegal immigrant sound great - even better than being a citizen. If I revoke my citizenship, can I get some of that free healthcare? And where exactly do I go to find that?

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Free health care is readily available at any ER in any hospital. Go to any of the many sanctuary cities and is against their policy to even ask your status. Many illegal immigrants use hospitals for routine medical care. The costs are then passed on to taxpayers.

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

Emergency rooms are required to stablize patients - that's it; they aren't required to provide routine care to people without insurance. If you've been shot, an ER is a great place to go; if you have diabetes or cancer, an ER isn't going to do anything for you.

Think about it: If ERs provided routine care for free, why would anyone, citizen or non-citizen, pay for health insurance?

gudpoynt 7 years, 1 month ago

just like that huh?

Alright then, drop your own health care, and use the ER from here on out.

I guarantee you, when they see you don't have insurance, they don't simply say "Oh well, nevermind. We'll take care of this one"

Au contraire. I wonder where this idea comes from? Fox news perhaps. But it's ludicrous.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

I lived for many years in California. It's well known and well documented. Say your child is running a fever of say 99.5. Go to the ER. The doctor will examine the child and tell the parent what to do with that very mild temperature. I've seen it with these two eyes many times. San Francisco General Hospital stopped taking patients with insurance several years ago. They only take indigent patients (other than trauma patients. They do have one of the best trauma centers in the area.). They refuse to ask immigration status. I will admit that I don't know that much about this area. But large cities in the Southwest that have large illegal immigration, it's the norm.

gudpoynt 7 years, 1 month ago

my point is, have you seen with your own eyes what happens afterward?

it's true that a lot of the cost of health care that go to the uninsured (by using the ER or otherwise) end up getting covered by the health care providers (~$10B), the federal gov't (~$20B), or the state gov't (~$10B).... (source:

but the health care providers do not simply pass the buck. They first try to get the money from the patient. And you know what I've seen with my own two eyes? Medical bankruptcy.

So the fallacy of "free" health care by simply using the ER is just that, a fallacy. It may cost the provider or the gov't more than the patient in the end, but only because you can't squeeze blood (i.e. money) from a turnip (i.e. the patient).

Or, from a more no-brainer, forehead-slapping, perspective.... if it was more beneficial and/or cost effective to simply use the ER for health care, then why aren't people just dropping their insurance in droves?

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

The reason people don't drop their insurance in droves as you put it is because the level of patient services is not as high. By that I mean long waits to see a doctor. Most people will not tolerate that for routine care. But the poor, and I include illegal immigrants in that number, have no other choice. But no other choice does not mean it's not happening. It is. Medical bankruptcy happens when names, addresses, social security numbers, etc. are honestly given so that collections can even be tried. But if I go in and say my name is John Smith, but it's not, then I won't file for bankruptcy, the bill will just be returned to sender.

joelwisch2 7 years, 1 month ago

Murguía, a Kansas native and former executive vice chancellor for university relations at Kansas University, said several other states, including Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming, have also recently rejected what she called extreme anti-immigrant, anti-Latino legislation.

It is sad that a woman who may have a significant level of education doesn't understand the issue has nothing to do with American Latino's. The issues deal with illegal aliens, and in spite of this woman's words, illegal aliens is NOT a race, and NOT directed at any American. What she has done is make yet another false accusation and while until recently, this country did not object to Hispanics at all.. enjoyed them, and enjoyed elements of their culture, the constant accusations by people like Murguia are turning another sort of tide that leads people to believe the Latinos are violent and bent to no good.

We have issues with illegal aliens and this site is documented, and excellent! We have serious issues with costs. City of Los Angeles welfare Staggering Cost Of Illegal Aliens In America

These are the cumulative issues. Amnesty will cost a bundle and one estimate suggests 2.3 trillion dollars. That is not acceptable.

Lets enforce the law and deport the illegal aliens.

gudpoynt 7 years, 1 month ago

Are you effing kidding me?

Which population makes up an overwhelming majority of illegal immigration in the US?

Who passed the law that requires law enforcement to check ID on "suspected" illegal immigration.

What, in your opinion, is the #1 visible characteristic that would cause law enforcement to "suspect" a person as being an illegal immigrant.

What percentage of those pulled over for being "suspected" illegal immigrants will have brown skin. What percentage will have white skin.

Don't be daft. The article specifically refers to this unacceptable caveat in the legislation passed by Arizona and attempted in other states. If you don't think a measure like this will lead to unfair discrimination, you've got to be ignorant, or in denial.

gudpoynt 7 years, 1 month ago

kinda forgot how to use questions marks in that last post..... interrogatives implied.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

I looked it up a couple of weeks ago, 57% are from Mexico and another 25% are from countries south of Mexico. So the total illegal immigration numbers from that part of the world are 82%.
My fist clue in suspecting a person of being an illegal immigrant would be not having a driver's license or state issued ID. If driving, my second clue would be not having insurance, since it's harder to get if you don't have a driver's license. Clearly, if a person has a foreign accent, be it Spanish, Russian, German, Irish, etc. it seems like a follow-up question might be reasonable.

gudpoynt 7 years, 1 month ago

a good point, and it does sound reasonable... if we can assume that officers and entities charged with enforcing the law are acting reasonably.

I'm not inherently distrusting of law enforcement. Rather I'm more distrusting of "show me your papers" type laws, especially when it's predicted that an overwhelming majority of those being asked to "show me your papers" will be from a very distinct ethnic, and socio-economic demographic, which happens to also include many, many legal US residents.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

I agree it's a fine line between "show me your papers" and racial profiling. I would never suggest that all people who look like members of a certain group be pulled over and asked for their citizenship papers. But I think it's O.K. to ask that of all people pulled over for speeding.

gudpoynt 7 years, 1 month ago

How would weapons enthusiasts and gun-rights advocates feel about legislation that requires law enforcement to search all people they suspected of having a concealed weapon, in areas where concealed weapons were banned (i.e. businesses with the posted "no guns" signs).

After all, the law states that you cannot have guns in places with "no guns" signs posted -- and the law is the law. How can we be sure that people aren't concealing weapons in "no gun" zones unless instruct the police to pat down anybody they suspect of carrying? Surely that's the only way to effectively enforce the law, right?

Give me a break.

for what it's worth, i feel much safer around an unarmed illegal alien than I do an armed US citizen

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been asked by law enforcement if they could look in your trunk. I have and I let them, knowing I had nothing to hide. Did they violate my rights when they asked? The answer is no. Had they opened my trunk without my permission, then they would have violated my rights. But what about if they were required to ask? I could still say no. It seems to me that asking a person's immigration status is not a violation, it's the compelling them to answer (honestly, since lying to the police is also a crime). That may run afoul of the Constitution. It's a fine line.

BigPrune 7 years, 1 month ago

Another George Soros funded group. Why won't the reporter report that? If the Koch's were involved it would be a headline. Why does George Soros always get a pass?

This group seeks to open America’s borders and have visions of “reclaiming” Aztlan -the American Southwest, “stolen” from Mexico by the Yankees.

gudpoynt 7 years, 1 month ago

TomShwermon... 12,165 posts (and counting) containing little to no value whatsoever.

For being a "beacon for all liberal progressives and an oasis of socialism", the LJWorld sure does seem to attract it's fair share of hard core right wingers.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

Both Kansas and Arizona are in the USA, bea. try to keep up.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Both in the USA. How about that. Both didn't make it out of the Elite Eight as well. My, the coincidences just keep piling up.

So what is your point again -- that you are thankful for the Obama administration doing much more to fight illegal immigrantion, especially those with criminal backgrounds, than past administrations? You seem to have an issue with illegal activity and drug smuggling, so you must be thankful to Obama for actually doing something to stop this. Aren't you?

jesse499 7 years, 1 month ago

Just try going over the border to mexico illegally and see what happens to you!

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Are you suggesting we lower our standards to treat our citizens (and non-citizens) the way other nations treat people?

SnakeFist 7 years, 1 month ago

Excellent point, beatrice. How other nations treat their illegal immigrants is irrelevant - we aren't other nations.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

It would be foolish for other states to attempt to pass immigration laws right now like those recently passed in Arizona. With the AZ laws currently working their way through the courts, it would just be a waste of resources to pass similar laws elsewhere. Wait until the courts have ruled, then states will have a better understanding of what they can and cannot do on their own. That is just common sense, and it isn't meant in any way as partisan.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Communication between the courts and the states go back and forth. Let's take this example: 25 states allow execution and 25 don't. Of the 25 that do allow executions, 24 allow the execution of minors. The Supreme Court rules that the execution of minors is legal. Fast forward a couple of decades. While 25 states still allow executions, 15 of those states have since outlawed the execution of minors. Again the Supreme Court takes up the issue but now reverses it's previous decision and outlaws the execution of minors. What the Supreme Court has done is listened to the people who, via their representatives, have made it clear that the execution of minors is no longer what we as a country want. Getting back to the issue at hand: If Arizona's law is looked at alone, the Supreme Court may make a ruling in a certain way. However, if several or maybe many states pass similar laws, the court will almost certainly take that into consideration.
I'm not saying other states should pass these laws. But what I am saying is that if they want to align themselves with Arizona on this issue, they should do so in such a way as their voice will be heard by the courts. There will be legal costs, but that is the cost of having your voice heard.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

The Supreme Court shouldn't be ruling based on what an apparent majority wants, but whether something is constitutional or not. While I can appreciate your point, I think it is foolish at this time of massive cuts in government spending to knowingly pass laws that are guaranteed to require still more spending. Wait to see what is and isn't legal based on the cases already moving through the courts. To spend money otherwise is not a good use of government funds.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

My point is just that the Supreme Court does change over time and that if the various states want their voices heard, they need to speak up. The court once ruled that separate but equal was fine, then changed it's mind. They did listen to the changes going on in the country and responded accordingly.
I'm not suggesting I agree with all aspects of the Arizona law. But if other states that share a southern border were to pass similar laws, and then the states that border them, the court would see things differently than if it was just one rogue state.

jesse499 7 years, 1 month ago

No I'm suggesting there not our citizens there illegals you idot and if we don't do something were not going to have a country their going to have it .I have no problems with legals that come to our country the right way pay taxes and so on . I do have a problem Illegals that think I should support them with my taxes and they send there money back home that they make here and don't want to be Americans just want the free benifits that I've paid for for 40 yrs.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Who exactly are you calling an "idot"?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

In other cross-border news: "They could be the people on the bus seat across the aisle, or the neighbors: members of East African groups that a recently released government memorandum says are “ready to die for the cause.” The FBI and Homeland Security Department don’t know where they all are. And it’s unclear if they know how many arrived. But in a rare admission, a Justice Department memo and other documents obtained by the San Antonio Express-News say federal authorities know terror suspects are in this country and know who allegedly helped bring them here through Mexico and Texas: a Somali man in custody near San Antonio. Last year, Houston-area news outlets reported that homeland security issued a vague bulletin to Texas law enforcement to be on the lookout for Mohamed Ali, a purported member of Somalia-based Al-Shabaab, which has aligned itself with al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. The government in 2008 designated Al-Shabaab a terror organization. It’s part of an insurgency determined to set up an Islamic theocracy in Somalia and has made statements about its intent to harm the United States. Locally, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force has been trying to retrace the steps and untangle the contacts of Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane. He has been in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since entering the country from Mexico through Brownsville in March 2008 and later applying for asylum. His case resulted from an earlier, unspecified terrorism investigation, records show. Newly released public documents label Dhakane, 24, a “national security risk” and paint him as a facilitator of groups accused of funding terrorism. They also allege he smuggled potential terrorists here..." Read more:

jericho40 7 years ago

doesn't everyone realize the whole country is corrupt. The country needs drug dealers to supply the regular pot smokers for a joint. That keeps jobs for cops lawyers judges probation officers prison gaurds and prisons are now needed for government factories. I live in a east Texas town that has had the same weed suppliers since the 70s. The law needs the illegals and drug users to fill their prisons. And they have done away with most mental hospitals and put mentally ill people in prisons without proper mental care and give them a prison record. We have enough of our own problems without importing more. Black people are 12% of the US population who do 60% of all US crime. That is why most of the prisoners are black plus they don't hire lawyers, they have 200.00 tennis shoes and 2000.00 wheels on a 500.00 car. Texas is 38% Latino that caused "white flight" when the white neighborhoods got invaded by illegals and blacks, most whites moved to the country to avoid all the latino music and rap noise. All the houses values dropped when the neighborhoods got invaded.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.