Arizona’s law isn’t anti-immigration

Published 11:08 am Tuesday, July 13, 2010

I keep hearing the word “anti-immigration” used to describe those who support the Arizona Immigration law.

We are not anti-immigration. We are pro-immigration, but anti-illegal immigration…there’s a difference. I’m glad that the U.S. opens its arms to embrace those who wish to come here to create a better life for themselves, but just try moving to Mexico.

There you’ll be questioned about your health, age, education and occupation. They will consider your burden or contribution to their society before allowing you to stay in the country and apply for citizenship.

Email newsletter signup

We have no such requirements, only that an individual be of moral character and no criminal background. Yet, President Calderon has the gall to stand in our own congressional chamber and lecture us about the immorality of the Arizona law? Hypocrite!

I find it amusing that the United Farm Workers of America would ignore those who advocate for better working conditions and higher pay for those who work farm related jobs.

Under any other circumstance or occupation most unions would be pushing for better pay and conditions for their union members.

They’d stage walk-outs and pickets to put pressure on the employer, but in this case they support keeping the wages low and working conditions bleak. They’re protecting the wrong people. It’s no wonder they can’t find Americans willing to do these jobs.

They argue that if they do raise wages and improve working conditions it will result in $6.99 a pound for produce at the supermarket.

A similar argument has traditionally been used by the right to oppose the spread of unions in the U.S. In this case however it’s being used by the left who typically are union supporters.

The simple fact of the matter is that while this argument has been around for years there is still not one case anyone can cite where a labor union was formed, negotiated better conditions and wages, and a significant increase in the price of a product was passed onto the consumer.

So why continue to protect the employers who hire illegals? It’s cheap labor plain and simple, and it’s another case of hypocrisy.

Those who oppose legal immigration, and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants; those that support amnesty for 12-20 million illegals who broke the law in coming here are not your typical liberal, but they are social progressives whose arguments fall short of the facts and if they have their way are capable of destroying the very fabric of this great land.

They have no sense of history or respect for the Constitution or our laws.

In addition, they are almost always out of touch with mainstream America (65 percent of American’s support the Arizona law).

Here’s a little known fact. Right now, there are activists from numerous organizations including Mexican American Legal Defense and La Raza (The Race) activists who are attempting to annex large portions of SW U.S. to Mexico, which would include the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and southern Colorado.

They’ve determined that this new “Hispanic Homeland” they call “Aztlan” should be brought into being “by any means necessary.” They are also anti-semitic. So while they support their own right to a homeland they deny that same right to the Jews. Once again … hypocrisy!

Finally, my wife and my four children are of Hispanic descent, I am in no way prejudice. I love Hispanics, their culture, and support their right to come here.

However, my wife is offended that some think that it’s okay to break the law when entering this country.

We support legal immigration for any nationality who wishes to obey the law and immigrate to this great United States of America!

Richard L. Duvendeck II