I consider myself socially liberal (fiscally conservative). "Do what you want, just leave me alone." But what is going on with all this crap about the laws in Arizona? What is wrong with enforcing the law? They are after all "Illegal" immigrants. It's against the law for them to be here without taking the correct steps to do so.
Arizona - Sure loves bacon!
- Thread starter stormpetrel
- Start date
I'm not sure this topic should be brought up here, and I really can't say I take a stand either way as I'm not totally up on everything. I believe the arguments against Arizona's new law are mostly from those that believe it will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics and another side that's it's unconstitutional because immigration and it's dealings are the realm of the Federal government, not the State's.
this debate started to get a little heated the last time it was brought up. best to just leave it alone
Allow me to say
In before the lock
bacon
Godwin's law
Ok, we done here?
In before the lock
bacon
Godwin's law
Ok, we done here?
I love bacon too! 
***Professor mode engaged***
The term "illegal" with regards to migrants in the US is not now, nor has it ever been, a statutory distinction made by the federal government. The term "illegal" is a distinction made by the populace and is often misused by lawmakers and the press because it is the term with which the citizenry is familiar. The true distinctions are "undocumented" or "non-certified" or "unregistered" alien. But, lets forget that for a moment and address the meat of your question...
First, lets look at public policy and what that means. For every law (policy) on the books there are two sets of consequences. The first set of consequences are those that the law intends to create, or the "intended consequences." For example, the intended consequence of the law in question is to reduce the number of undocumented aliens in Arizona. The second set of consequences are those which the law creates unintentionally, or the "unintended consequences." For example, one unintended consequence of the law in question could be increases in the undocumented alien population of states which neighbor Arizona. Because rather than go back to Mexico they just move across the state line. Another unintended consequence could be fear of the police. Consider this scenario.
A mexican woman is abused by her husband. Normally we would expect her to pick up the phone and call the police to come and help her. But now, she is scared that if she calls the police she will be deported. So, she is left to fend for herself in a dangerous, perhaps even life threatening situation.
Another unintended consequence would be the selective enforcement of the law against one ethnic group; in this case hispanics. There are lots and lots of caucasian aliens here from European and Mediterranean nations. Now I ask you, when was the last time you saw a white guy and thought to yourself, "illegal"? This is referred to as "racial profiling."
To minimize these unintended consequences I teach my public affairs students to examine policy under what I call the HELPS umbrella. This means to examine the Historical, Ethical, Legal, Political, and Social implications of proposed policy.
It appears to me that the historical, ethical, legal, political and social implications of the law in question were not examined and as such the unintended consequences vastly outweigh the minimal benefits.
***Professor Mode Deactivated***
Sorry, I know that sounds horribly pedantic, but hey. I'm a pedant.
where's the bacon? 
someone said bacon.....
someone said bacon.....
Did someone say bacon?
Is Canadian Bacon allowed in this thread?
Heck ya!
Ive really started to buy only one type or brand of bacon lately.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KNFz0ckcOM[/YOUTUBE]
I'm going to shoot a hole in this thread.
There's no BBQ in it!
There's no BBQ in it!
Breakfast of champions?
Similar threads
