posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:10 AM
Wasn't economics the reason for Arizona to enact those laws in the first place? Arizona voters were complaining about illegal immigrants straining
their State's budget by paying out for social and family welfare programs, increased costs for additional law enforcement, and paying for medical
expenses for the illegals. It seemed the question and concern was, "How can we afford not to have these laws?" Or was the motive based more on ethnic
and racial biases?
Finding and rounding up illegal immigrants is bound to be a greater job than most of the voters had realized. The illegals come not only from
Latin-American countries to the south but there are a great number of illegal and undocumented Canadian and European immigrants as well, and that is
before taking into account the many from Asian and African countries. They are from all parts of the world. To go after Latinos alone would be racial
If the interest is truely a concern about the expense of over-extended social aid programs and medical costs then that is rightly where should be the
first line of defense over that kind of mis-use, requiring proof of legal residency or visitation before those benefits are given. And for medical aid
the same applied but should be given to those in need and requesting assistance, then if proven to be in the US unlawfully the appropriate steps
should then be taken by immigrations authorities.
Outside of requiring a national ID for US citizens and legal residents then measures taken by law enforcement officers at street level would be
ineffective and a fence along the southern border a waste of resources. Appropriate measures need to be in place where the economic concerns enter
into the equation. That is, unless the true motives for passing such legislation have an entirely different agenda.
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 30-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)