Arizona’s Immigration Law is the hottest topic at present. The Law signed by Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer on April 23 is the nation’s toughest bill ever on illegal immigration into law. The main aim of the bill is to identify, prosecute and deport the illegal immigrants. Governor Brewer signed the bill despite the criticism on President Obama. President Obama called this law “miss-guided” and referred to justice. This law has charged the national debate about securing the Mexican border and fighting drugs cartels.
Arizona Law gives authority to Arizona local police to arrest the immigrants they suspect are living illegally in United States and check they legal status. According to public poll, many said Arizona’s Law needs changes; three quarters said illegal immigrants were occupying their jobs and were enjoying the public services without paying. Well, the law has not taken effect and is facing legal challenges. Majority believe that this law is devised for segregation, discrimination and racial profile. The law raises a moral issue for those illegal immigrants who were here as yearly as they were 6 months old. They do not know anything about their country and they spend all their life in United States. In consequences of this law, they will be detained too. Many Americans still believe that immigrants have weakened the economy of America; therefore, this law is appropriate, whereas some argue the law is all right. However, some changes needs to be done. The number of protesters has increased not only in Arizona but also in other states. Protesters from other states fear that parallel law may employ in their state. It is the broadest and strictest immigration law in generations, which allows Arizona police officials to stop, ask and arrest any immigrant if they do not provide legal documentation. The law will carry into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, by August. It may lead to more crimes as immigrants would not report the crime to the police department due to the fear of detention. The law has created strong fissure in Arizona, with thousands of the caller to the Governor’s office urging her to reject the toughest immigration law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This person’s blog regarding Arizona’s new immigration law has a compelling argument for and against the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe new Arizona immigration law allows local police officers to arrest anybody that is suspected to be an illegal immigrant and check their legal statuses. “The main aim of the bill is to identify, prosecute and deport the illegal immigrants.”
The author seems to be against the new but has also included reasons why Arizona should go on with the law. The author included poll results which said that 75% of Americans believed that illegal immigrants has been occupying many American jobs while not paying any taxes, and she later said how illegal immigrants are hurting the American economy.
Although these reasons are supporting Arizona’s new law, the author has provided much more reasons against the law which makes me believe that she is against it. The law has brought up suspicions of it being an act of racism because it is promoting segregation and racial profiling. The author has also brought up moral issues regarding those who were born in the U.S. from parents who are illegal immigrants and that it is not “fair” to them that they are sent to their country when they have never lived anywhere outside the United States. This law would increase crime rate because illegal immigrants would not report crimes to the police because they are afraid of being deported. The argument against the law that the author provided are purely ethical reasons which makes it less convincing to those who would prefer more legal reasons. The reasons that support the law are more convincing to me personally because illegal immigrants are occupying American jobs and thus hurting the American economy. The reasons against the law are not violating any legal issue and would not be entirely convince me to go against the law.
From an ethical standpoint, the author’s argument would be convincing to any “average” person but not to someone who would prefer legal reasons.