Like others, I’ve been watching with morbid fascination the reaction to Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. It makes failing to carry immigration documents a crime, and gives police broad power to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally.
Because the issue seemed to be peripheral to Route 66, I initially decided to observe from the sidelines. But a couple of things in recent days reeled me in.
First, here’s a provocative editorial cartoon by Monte Wolverton that re-uses a line from Bobby Troup’s “Route 66.”
Second, here’s a report a few days ago from Gallup, N.M. The Route 66 town, angered by the law, has decided to cut all ties with the state of Arizona, the border of which is just a few miles away.
Gallup is a diverse town — the last Census showed roughly equal proportions of whites, Hispanics and American Indians. A huge percentage of those Hispanics and Indians come from families that have lived in the Southwest for centuries, before white settlers arrived. So a new law that targets minorities — especially given the original white settlers’ often-ugly history with those groups — obviously would be galling.
And it seems buyer’s remorse has set in. The Arizona legislature modified the law days after it was enacted so racial profiling wouldn’t be used “solely” during police stops — a telling sign that lawmakers doubted it would withstand a legal challenge.
A number of prominent conservatives who ordinarily would take a hardline approach to illegal immigration have expressed significant reservations about the law. The list of Republicans criticizing Arizona’s law include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado and, most recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The GOP, realizing that Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority in America, knows that offending that bloc is a political minefield.
Some are calling for a boycott of Arizona as a way to oppose the law. But Spud Hilton, who’s written about Route 66 for the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote that the new law is “boneheaded.” But he added that a blanket boycott of an entire state is “moronic.”
So if you’re an avid traveler and love Arizona’s stunning scenery and natural attractions, but you have your heart set on boycotting the state, here are a few questions you might consider:
On old Route 66, can you visit Gallup, N.M., and Barstow, but nothing in between? Is it OK to visit the Nevada side of the Hoover Dam? (Or should we just boycott the whole thing because Hoover was such an idiot?)
I agree with Hilton that a boycott is a terrible idea, namely because it would hurt small businesses along Route 66, many of which are minority-owned.
But it also seems certain the Arizona law won’t survive a constitutional challenge. Because passing an unconstitutional law would become a waste of time and taxpayer money, I would oppose it on those principles alone.
The Arizona Republic newspaper, in a rare front-page editorial, said the law “intimidates Latinos while doing nothing to curb illegal immigration.” I concur.
An obvious solution to illegal immigration would be to levy steep fines against non-agricultural companies that hire such workers (you still want seasonal migrant workers, or else you have $10-a-quart strawberries). Such regulations would nearly stop the flow of illegal immigrants from south of the border. But politicians are reluctant to take that action because too many fat cats benefit from a cheap pool of labor.
In addition, a smart immigration law would increase the yearly allowance of legal immigrants for skilled workers. Many corporations are clamoring for college-educated, specialized workers. Increasing the number of such foreigners to our shores would benefit the economy and the country in general.
But, until those things happen, laws such as Arizona’s should be regarded as unproductive and not serious about dealing with the illegal-immigration problem.
I really like your take on it, and I agree. If I were traveling soon in Arizona, I wouldn’t want to penalize local businesses. But I stand with other cities and organizations that are canceling business trips. I do think this law will be struck down soon.
So, you’re saying no to illegal immigrants, except in the case of farm workers. How can you have any “except” clauses at all? It is a yes or no question, period. Maybe I stop eating strawberries. So be it.
I would definitely put in an exception for farm workers because without them, the resultant skyrocketing price of food would adversely affect poor people the worst. You can do without many things if you’re poor, but food isn’t one of them.
In general, why shouldn’t there be exceptions? Only a fool or purist would adopt an “all-or-nothing” or “yes or no” platform on any issue. Compromise is how things get done in this country. Compromise was how the bones of the Constitution were formed.
I am all for people entering our country “the right way” as we Irish, Germans, et al did. “CONSTITUTION?” How did we Americans get Obama Care shoved down our throats when 67% DID NOT want it???
Was that “CONSTITUTIONAL?” By not building a fence, Obama is letting in a million new voters, following blanket amnesty, for HIMSELF. If I were a terrorist I know exactly how I could EASILY get in and blow YOU up.
Watch for a terrorist, coming to your neighborhood soon. Adios.
So many inaccuracies and absurdities, I don’t know where to start …
— No legal expert worth his or her salt thinks the health-care plan is unconstitutional. It’s also irrelevant to the issue above.
— I find it hard to believe a mere border fence would stanch the flow of illegal immigrants. There are these things called ladders and shovels.
— Amnesty for longtime undocumented workers in the United States is supported by many on both sides of the political aisle. It’s a pragmatic and humane solution.
— The Times Square suspect didn’t need the Mexico border for his terror plot. And there are plenty of domestic terrorists to worry about, also.
Ron’s take on this is sensible and pragmatic and yes, I live in AZ. S.B. 1070 is the latest in a string of relatively crazy legislation that would seem to be a fine foundation for the argument to do drug testing on the AZ Legislature. We have a “Birther” bill (which thankfully didn’t pass); a host of direct-from-the-NRA gun bills that essentially remove any and all control of firearms in AZ.; a lightbulb bill that extols the virtues of filament vs. florescent lighting, and on and on. Meanwhile the ship of state is sinking against a huge budget defict like the Titanic. Having just been to New Mexico, their anger is palpable and justified surrounding S.B. 1070. Arizona doesn’t need a boycott- especially those folks trying to make a living on 66-it needs education. Rather than a boycott, spend your energies letting the Legislature and Governor know how you feel about S.B. 1070. If you are an Arizonan- vote approriately in November. Lastly regardless of where you stand on S.B. 1070- remember this board is about 66 and not politics- this should not become a wedge issue on whether or not we support, and preserve Route 66, and we ought not let issues like this from keeping Route 66 at the forefront of our energies.
On the humorous side, The Historic Route 66 Association of AZ. just issued a passport program for Route 66 travelers- perhaps we can use these when we are asjked to produce our “papers”!
The federal government refused to do anything about Arizona’s problem, so they decided to take matters into their own hands. The majority of people in the United States agree with this law, and I am in that majorty. Amnesty would be extremely unfair to all of those people who took the time to enter the United States legally, and would cause additional problems. I realize that many Mexicans enter America illegally to escape poverty, and they should certainly do so legally by taking the proper steps, over 100,000 Mexicans do so every year.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that amnesty would cause more problems than the gigantic headache and heartache of millions of deportations.
And just because Arizona got desperate and the American people agree with the law doesn’t make one iota of difference with its constitutionality. Again, why would you pass a law that won’t pass muster and thus waste taxpayer money?
The problem with using legal immigration is that there’s a long waiting list to do so. Employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 a year, and family-based immigration is limited to 480,000 per year. The numbers are capped, and have been for a long time, and the bureaucracy in using legal immigration is aggravating, according to many.
The Tulsa World did a story a few years ago about the Hispanics in town. Most of them came from the Casa Blanca area of Mexico. Most of the immigrants in Tulsa wanted to stay there in Mexico, but left when the agricultural jobs dried up. In that sense, there’s little difference between them and the Okies who migrated to California during the Great Depression. And the Okies weren’t treated too well, either.
I support the Arizona law 100%. In fact, I don’t think it goes far enough. They are simply trying to do what the federal government refuses to do–enforce laws already on the books. Southern Arizonans are engaged in a shooting war with illegals and drug cartel gangs. People are dying on both sides. The only absurdity is to to nothing. If you want to protest an immigration policy, try criticizing the Mexican government’s treatment of those who enter Mexico illegally. Amnesty is a separate issue. We must first seal the borders. That is imperative, and I favor whatever it takes to get that done. I don’t know if this law will be struck down or not, but I do predict big changes in November, brought to you by those of us who still adhere to the notion that we are a nation of laws, not men.
Given that the federal government is running a big deficit and there’s only so much money to go around, would you advocate ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and move that money and troops to the Mexican border to secure it?
If securing the border is what you want to do, those are the decisions you’ll face. Unless you want a tax increase to pay for it.
Right on, Jim, you said it all. “Hey, c’mon in “whoever” you are.
I read so much from these left-wingers, sitting behind their word processors, maybe in Ohio, or New Mexico, threatening Arizona with boycotts, while ILLEGAL, WE-DON’T-KNOW-WHATS are “invading” Arizona’s back yards. If NEW MEXICO wants them, fine,
go get them and take them to YOUR homes. But first, see if you can figure out what ILLEGAL means, and do YOU ACCEPT all of the possible consequences???
Ron – in regards to your comment about “Given that the federal government is running a big deficit and there’s only so much money to go around, would you advocate ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and move that money and troops to the Mexican border to secure it?” – where in the hell did the Stimulus Package come from then?
We waste more money with that package (and about 40-45% of it is still left unspent) on things we really can do without – why not take $100,000 and put it to border security? Can’t do that – it would costs certain individuals VOTES!!! Because that is all that really matters – right?
My fiance is an Assyrian from Iran – she was threatened to be killed because of her Christian beliefs (just like we are starting to get here in the good ole USA) and she had to go through 3 years of hell trying to get into this country LEGALLY! Ask her what she thinks about people ‘waltzing in’ like they have the right to…
Now you are saying that we as a country could not afford ‘their cheap labor’ they provide? ‘Who would do thier jobs??’
Ask that to several thousand (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of folks without work and their unemployment that has ran out. I PROMISE you a lot of those jobs will be filled.
BTW – what did we do BEFORE these farms were filled with illegals?? Oh yeah, WE worked them!
Round them up, throw them back over, and threaten their lives if they come back. Trespassing – plan and simple. You break into my house – you are in some serious trouble. So why is it ok when you break into my country?
I totally agree that this subject should have NEVER come up in this forum. This is not the proper place.
It’s DISGUSTING that we have to start boycotting our own states that are in dire financial need. I CAN’T WAIT to move to Arizona – I will be waving the US flag with one hand – and the Arizona state flag with the other while packing a gun because our forefathers gave us that right!!
Support the business’ on Route 66 – support business’ in Arizona – support THIS damn country!!!
Ed, a few points …
— Anyone who advocates not doing an economic stimulus during a severe recession is a fool. If you don’t do it, you become the next Hoover presiding over a new Great Depression.
— I very much doubt that many folks, even those unemployed, would be doing those agriculture jobs. You can claim those back-breaking jobs would be filled, but decades of experience in the ag sector indicate otherwise.
— Route 66 News is not a forum. And, like it or not, this law is newsworthy and relevant to Route 66.
— Take a deep breath and put away the pistol … nobody here is advocating a boycott of Arizona.
– Never once said NOT to do a Stimulus – just not happy where the money is going and being used… so what do we do when all of the roads have been repaired…..?
– A raid at a market led to 300 arrests on illegals, some 3000+ AMERICANS showed up to replace their jobs. Sounds like people would do anything for work right now.
– If it is not a forum, then we shouldn’t be allowed to post our responses (just my thoughts though).
– I live in Chicago – where there are more killings a year here than in Iraq, and ironically I am not allowed to carry, let alone OWN, a gun in the city limits…. so no pistol to put away.
I am tired when people complain about the cure and not trying to fix the ‘disease’. Illegal immigration is a disease and it needs to be cured.
Sorry to be so harsh, but I am just tired of it…
— Ed, if you think all the roads will be repaired with one stimulus package, I’ve some oceanfront property in Oklahoma to sell you. And complaining about allocations during a severe money supply problem is looking a gift horse in the mouth.
— The raid was at a market. Those are not agricultural jobs, as I’ve alluded to.
— No, it’s not a forum. Route 66 News remains primarily a new site. You can comment, but I do have leeway over what gets posted.
— Regardless, you were talking about waving a gun. Anger and firearms don’t mix. Just sayin’.
— I’ve already given my proposed solutions for the illegal-immigration problem. It’s up to others to have the will to do it.
“– Regardless, you were talking about waving a gun. Anger and firearms don’t mix. Just sayin’.”
No, no, no….Ed was NOT talking about “waving” his gun. Ed mentioned the lawful carrying (packing) of a gun. A huge actual, and legal, difference. Waving implies brandishing, a threatening movement or display of the firearm intended to intimidate or threaten. Packing is to carry or transport. A monster difference. Just because someone says “gun”, there’s no need to panic. They are legal, useful, and fun to own.
I will NOT pretend to be a legal expert, or an immigration expert.I will say, that IMO, there seems to be nothing wrong with this law. It seems to me that’s what it boils down to. Law, and the proper enforcement of it. If it unconstitutional, we will soon know it. (Note: IMO, the cartoon from the S.F. paper is disgusting, and links to such material only cheapen this wonderful site).
Correct me (and the news outlet) if I’m wrong, but I saw a report on a line of rules/laws regulating the behavior of those here legally, working toward citizenship. They MUST carry paperwork with them at all times showing who they are, and their immigration status. Break that rule, face deportation. Being allowed citizenship is a privileged, not a right. Why in the world would you hold illegals to a lower standard?
FYI….I have to carry a drivers license, or photo ID, or risk detention for the inability to identify myself. It was my understanding that this was common practice/law everywhere in the country. If I want to drive a heavy truck, or ride a motorcycle, I have to have the proper endorsements on my license. I have to carry proof of insurance when I drive. I have to carry registration for my vehicle. If I want to go to Canada for the day, I need a passport to identify myself. In Illinois I had to carry a FOID (Firearm Owner ID) card (because I was part of a special group that had to be singled out to carry a special ID). All of these cost me money to obtain. Again, I don’t see much difference in what this Az. law asks.
The reason I say the law is almost certainly unconstitutional is because the U.S. government and no one else is in charge of immigration. Arizona is essentially granting itself new powers in controlling immigration — powers that it does not have. The link I provided, which is from a right-wing site, clearly spells this out.
Also, the problem with the papers rule is that you’re going to have people whose family has lived in Arizona for hundreds of years be required to carry proof of citizenship if they’re contacted by police. My grandmother surrendered her driver’s license years ago, and many other elderly or poor people do no have driver’s licenses. Do you think that she and other such people would carry proof of citizenship on them? I don’t.
And I’ll argue that anyone who, out of the blue, talks about packing or waving a gun during a discussion that has nothing to do with guns isn’t doing it for benign reasons.
As for the cartoon, I did say it was provocative. That’s the mark of a good editorial cartoonist, whether you agree with him or not.
Ron is right. Constitutionally, Arizona doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Immigration, like international trade, diplomacy and treaties is the function of the Federal government only. This illegal problem is as old as the hills here in the southwest, but with the economic crash two years back, things got really bad down Mexico way, and illegal immigration skyrocketed. Arizona cannot deport illegals, only imprison them. This is a huge and costly fix that AZ. can’t afford. The I.D. issue is sticky for all the reasons Ron mentioned plus a few more. They just aren’t hard to get (or fake) here. The real problem that I believe drives the anti-S.B. 1070 crowd though is this: The law grants police power to stop people under any legal guise and then ask them prove their citizenship, a sort of “papers please” situation (if you remember Casablanca). Are they going to stop and ask a white male (like me) to prove my citizenship? Or, more likely, are they going to stop my Hispanic neighbors- whose family have been in Arizona a whole lot longer than I have (they in fact pre-date statehood)? The law also makes communities and police departments accountable for non-enforcement and for profiling charges-something the law actually seems designed to do. No one wins here. Not Hispanics (legal or otherwise), Arizona taxpayers, the police or municipalities.
The great SW is a true melting pot of Hispanic, Spanish, Native American and Anglo cultures and peoples. That is one of the elements that has made it such a destination on Route 66. S.B. 1070 targets one group for special treatment-and potential abuse. After all it won’t be just one traffic stop and one “papers” check that Hispanics will have to endure, it will be daily and ongoing. In the end the law will have little impact on immigration as the border remains as open as ever (especially in California, New Mexico and Texas), but it will have huge economic and political impacts here in Arizona, and will split our communities along a culture divide for a generation.
I like to think that Route 66 has helped to heal and develop the small towns along the road over time that were hurt in the past by the bypass (and earlier racisms, and prejudices too). We need to keep that economic lifeline Route 66 offers alive so that these towns can mend post S.B. 1070. Our focus here in this blog should be on that- we should all go over to CNN or some other public site to debate politics.
Thanks- Cruise safe you all-
Just a comment, my Cherokee wife has to prove she’s a Native American by showing her card any time she is applying for any benefits ‘given’ by the State or the Feds. Of course, she can ignore that path, but she is proud of her heritage. She really thought about the ‘card burning’ protest event in Denver a while back, but decided not to.
#2 – about a billion dollars of Arizona’s budget problems comes directly from undocumented worker’s use of schools and medical facilities.
Chew on this for a minute: Angel Delgadillo started the movement that saved the most famous road in the United States. As far as I’m concerned, the man is an American hero.
As far as his home state is concerned, however, the Guardian Angel of Route 66 is a suspicious character and deserves to be treated as such.
Forgive me if I think Angel and his family deserve better than that.
Well ofcourse you are right- and that’s the point. Angel and his family could be subjected to ongoing requests to prove their citizenship- even though they have been in Arizona longer than most of us. To those who say this law isn’t racist, don’t understand that it makes anyone of Hispanic origins in AZ. (legal or otherwise) the potential subject of a citizen proving experience- over and over again as long as the police can come up with “reasonable cause”.