Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling

Last I checked, the law was an attempt to deal with illegal immigration. You may disagree with the law, but you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that the reason people want to curb illegal (note: not legal) immigration is because the immigrants are brown. Incidentally, how is it any more racial profiling to take into account the fact that many illegal immigrants are brown than it is racial profiling to concentrate on black people when the description of the suspect in a crime is black? Why would you suggest that police and authorities deliberately make themselves stupid and pretend not to know something that they do in fact know: that many illegals are mexican, and therefore brown? I have my worries that the new law will lead to injustice and unfair treatment, but I cannot honestly go out and say to police, "Hey: we don't want to get accused of intolerance or hating brown people, so if you could please deny a fact of reality while you're on duty, that'd be great."

Personally, I think all illegals (of all colors) should be dealt with in one of two ways. Option one: they can all be rounded up and deported. Kids who were born here of illegal parents can be given a passport, sent with their parents, and told they have the right to come back when they are able and if they wish it, or if they're old enough and able, allowed to stay if they choose. The other option is to come up with some way to let them become citizens over time (5 year plan or something) and then kick them off any and all welfare rolls while they are on said plan. Otherwise, we might start getting into the same situation that Canada and Europe are in, where a large portion of the welfare money goes to immigrants who often aren't contributing to the coffers nearly as much as they get in benefits,

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233842

and where radical Islamics are able to do things like collect welfare for each of their multiple wives even as they preach jihad against the very society which supports them.

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2388.htm
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/04/24/france-busted-burqa-momma-is-fourth-wife-of-polygamist-on-benefits/
http://www.radicalislam.org/threat/homegrown-threat/us-mosques

As for new immigration, I would have absolutely no problem with reopening Ellis Island or setting up something like Ellis Island on the Mexican border... provided that immigrants were also not entitled to any sort of social welfare. Otherwise, sorry; I don't want open immigration. Milton Friedman once pointed out that you cannot have an open immigration policy and a social democratic welfare state at the same time.

http://vdare.com/misc/archive00/friedman.htm

If anyone doubts that fact, then I urge them to look up Europe's case. It is quite literally living proof.

As for the possibility of amnesty, it is absolutely not an option because it would only encourage more illegal immigration (when you reward a behavior, you are going to get more of it) and because it would violate the concept of ex post facto, the idea that one's actions must be judged by what the law was at the time the action was committed. I have nothing against illegals as people, and I enjoy the thought of facing the problems involved in sorting out the immigration issue about as much as I enjoy the thought of taking a punch to the gut, but sometimes the only thing worse than facing an unpleasant reality is avoiding facing an unpleasant reality.