Arizona's immigration law

[theatokos]

I've been asked my thoughts on the Arizona immigration law. It's impressive how well informed people are about US news. Of course, after living in the US my standards for informed people are pretty low. I have to say that I don't know much about it. snowcalla is basically my only source at this point! And the Daily Show. Hee. I figure the Economist will clue me in next week too. It's hard to get too worked up about it, even though I think it's a terrible law. But, of course, I do have some opinions!

Firstly, I'm wary of spouting off on Arizona. I think this law is a reaction to specific issues in the state. I have always been wary of people spouting off about Alaska and it's issues, including opening ANWR and wolf culling. Most people get all worked up, but don't really understand the complexities of the issues. (And do not get me started on the idea of 'untouched wilderness.') So I'm going to ignore Arizona, since I don't know anything about it.

Secondly, and I'm not defending the law, mind, but if the US as a whole won't deal with the issue of immigration, then I guess the citizens of Arizona have to take the lead. Even if Congress start debating this issue I can't see any real change occurring. It will be like health care - a start. But as we've seen, even though everyone will get health care, but it's still at the mercy of the insurance business and the medical-industrial complex. I see the same thing happening in immigration issues: band-aid beginnings. Unless the US is willing to pay the REAL COST of food corporate farms, producers, meat packers, restaurants, etc will continue to hire (and in many cases BUS IN) illegal immigrants to do the work that US citizens refuse to do for such low pay in such abysmal conditions. Are you willing to pick produce in the California sun for less than a dollar a boxful? Yeah, I didn't think so. And are you willing to pay $9 for strawberries? Or $11/lb for sustainably raised, ethically slaughtered, grass fed beef? No? Then chances are good you won't want to pay that much for feedlot fed, mechanically slaughtered meat when US citizens are working the cattle yard.

My liberal compatriots in the United States are all up in arms over this Arizona bill - and my conservative friends want stricter enforcement - but if they/we are serious about creating immigration reform then we've got to look at the much bigger and more uncomfortable picture.

Comments

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

I do not believe the procedure should be legal. The original "right to privacy" is not at all written in the Constitution and was perceived as implied via the ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut (I believe in 1961) due to a textual interpretation of the Constitution. That ruling and the perceived 14th Amendment "right to privacy" in the Due Process Clause are where the basis for Roe v. Wade (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, as well as the latter Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I believe that the premise of the "right to privacy" as a constitutional right is faulty and that the federal government should have no business universally allowing abortion. I would vastly prefer state-by-state legislation on the issue.

No medical procedure is 100% without risks. While the abortion may be "safe" for the woman, it results in death for her unborn child.

Since when did the state have the right to dictate what occurs between the doctor and patient?

The abortion procedure is not merely between the doctor and the patient/mother. That is akin to the removal of a tumor or injured body part - for which an individual would undergo significant testing and extensive discussion, and possibly a mental health check (in the case of, for example, gastric bypass). Abortion is not the removal of a tumor or gangrenous limb. It is the removal of living tissue, one that possesses or will soon possess a heartbeat, and, if NOT aborted, will grow and develop as a human being, as we all continue to grow and develop, from conception to infancy to childhood, adulthood, and old age.

I don't want the state telling me I can't remove a tumor. I fully support the state telling me that I can't take the life of my unborn child.

[seaivy.livejournal.com]

But it IS legal and therefore it is a medical procedure governed by medical protocols NOT the state's philosophical preferences.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

Your question was with regard to my feelings. I explained my views on the issue from a legal perspective.

But it IS legal and therefore it is a medical procedure governed by medical protocols NOT the state's philosophical preferences.

This is 2010. Roe came into being in 1973.

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," *JUSTICE* reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the *UNBORN* were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Substituting the bold text to make a point.

We have 150+ years of hindsight regarding those words, right now. The original basis for the above italicized text would seem to us horrifying, and we are appalled that the statement was even made. Yes, when that statement was made, it was in support of a widely held view, a legal view, reaffirming a legal principle/law. Many individuals or groups did not see fault with that statement - in fact, they promoted it widely, and much of their lives were based around that statement.

I'll repost the original statement.

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," [U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B.] Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Maybe in another 153 years we'll look back at this time, in 2010, and wonder how and why abortion could possibly be legal, and why more individuals and groups didn't speak out against it, in defense of those hurt by abortion - like many did not speak out against slavery and the oppression of the African/African-American, in defense of those hurt by slavery, bigotry, and overt racism. Just because something is legal today does not mean that it is right. It does not mean that it will not be seen as something horrifying and become illegal in the future.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

And as a Constitutional Positivist, I am the LAST person who would desire a state or federal government to govern by philosophical principles rather than constitutional ones.

Sourced (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html)

[seaivy.livejournal.com]

I'm not interested in your feelings nor did I ask about them. I am interested in women having access to a LEGAL medical procedure without the state placing unnecessary conditions upon it.
I had not read your story before this. Every woman has her own story. I am happy that you are happy with your choice. You had a choice. You would deny CHOICE to other women. It is legal, it is medical and it is a choice.

My comments were directed specifically to the Oklahoma law which is mandating unnecessary procedures which while complicating access also drive up the cost. Which adds a dimension of economic class to the situation. The rich have always been able to access abortion one way or another. But rape, incest, fetal deformity and maternal health can be found in all economic situations.

It is popular to use the slavery argument about abortion. But, again that puts LIVING people against POTENTIAL people. Abortion was been a subject of philosophical debate for about as long as there are people. When does life begin? There have been many opinions. And in all that time there have been abortions.