I was doing research for a paper I had to writ e in one of my Japanese classes and found some interesting statistics about illegal aliens (or immigrants) in the United States.
Some of what I found was from FAIR, which some people have a problem with apparently. I checked there statistics to other sources and they seemed to agree, so I'm not sure what peoples' problem with them is exactly.
Anyway, another source I use was the Pew Research Center (click here to go to the report), which is some sort of think tank. Anyway, their statistics where the most interesting, and shocking I must say, though if you think about it, it only makes sense. According to them 56% of the approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the county are from Mexico. 22% are from other South American countries. If you add up all of the illegal aliens from Asia and Europe, it is only about 15% . Now, not every person from South America "looks Hispanic," there are white people down there too, and I'm sure plenty of them come to the U.S. illegally. But I think it would be fair to say that out of the about 9 million illegals from South America, at least 7 million "look Hispanic," right?
So anyway, the point is that of the people arrested under a law like the one in Arizona, most of them would be Hispanic. It's simple numbers. That doesn't mean that all Hispanics are going to be abused or arrested or harassed. If there is a problem, that is why we have courts, so they can be compensated for their trouble and punishment can be exacted on anyone who did wrong.
Here is my report in Japanese for anyone who can read it. It is pretty bad, I'm sure, and I was in a hurry to get it done so my conclusions my be a little out there.
SB1070：アリゾナ州の不法入国との戦い
アメリカ国勢調査によると、アリゾナ州の人口は659万5,778人である。その中で、30.1%がヒスパニックとラテンアメリカ人であるとすると、その人数は198万5,329人となる。アリゾナ州はアメリカ合衆国とメキシコの国境地帯に位置しており、米国は元々「人種の坩堝(るつぼ)」と言われる国なので、この数値が高くても、気にするほどのものではない。むしろ、多様性があるのは喜ぶべきことである。
しかし、アリゾナ州は大変深刻な問題に直面している。その問題とは、南米から来るヒスパニックとラテンアメリカ人の不法入国者の増加と、それと共に国境を渡る「犯罪」である。FAIR(Federation for American Immigration Reform)の報告では、アリゾナ州に住んでいる不法入国者は約45万7,000人である。アリゾナ州は全米で6番目に多い。ちなみに、カリフォルニア州は約320万人、テキサス州は約174万人、フロリダ州は約95万人である。アリゾナ州、カリフォルニア州、テキサス州の不法入国者の大半が隣のメキシコから来た。フロリダ州は、キューバなどからである。このヒスパニックの不法入国者の多い州の4つを合わせば、米国の不法入国者の48%を占める。不法入国者が大勢いるというだけで重要な問題だと思わない人もいるが、この人々と共に国境を渡ってくる麻薬密輸と麻薬ギャングの問題もある。この問題の犠牲になって殺された警察官と一般国民もいる。
上記のことを憂慮して、アリゾナ州議会と知事がSB1070という法案を議会で承認した。この法案の大部分は、不法入国者の雇用と、密入国と麻薬密輸に関するものである。しかし、アリゾナ州が、この深刻な問題を解決すべく打ち出した対策が、米国のメディアとオバマ政権に、人種差別であり連邦法に違反するということで、非常に反対されている。本稿ではこの主張について考察する。
アリゾナ州の新移民法が認められない第一の理由は、人種差別を助長する危険性があるということである。新移民法により、たとえ警察官が法律違反で一般市民の車を停止させたり、職務質問したりする場合、その人に不法滞在の疑いがあると警察官が判断すれば、移民資格の有無を確かめなければならないと定められている。この点について、各メディアとオバマ政権は、人種差別の助長につながると主張している。なぜかというと、主に疑われる人種は、ヒスパニックになるからである。「Pew Research Center」という米国のあるシンクタンクによると、2005年に米国の1200万人の不法入国者の内、56％はメキシコから、22％は南米の国々から来ている。アジアとヨーロッパからは、ほんの15％に過ぎない。この統計から推測すれば、アリゾナ州の不法入国者のあらかたは南米人といっても良いだろう。論理的に考えれば、誰でも、「主に疑われる人種はヒスパニックだ」という結論に至る。
しかし、これは人種差別を助長すると言えるまい。SB1070の施行により、正規の移民と米国国籍を持ったヒスパニックである人に迷惑がかかり、不自由を強いると強く主張する人もいる。確かにこの人々も疑われる可能性もあるが、その疑いは、容易に晴らすことができるのである。アリゾナ州では、車両管理局で取得できる運転免許証・身分証明証を持っているということは、有効な正規の移民資格を持っているということにほかならない。どちらでもの手続きの際、移民資格が確かめられるからである。そして、国民であろうがなかろうが、警察官に制止されれば、上記の身分証明証の一つを必ず提示しなければならない。
以上のことから、メディアとオバマ政権の主張は根拠がなく、差別の助長とはつながらないのである。
第二の理由は、連邦法違反になるからだということである。オバマ政権の人種差別につながるという主張は、裁判の理由にならないとわかっているので、SB1070に関してアリゾナ州を提訴するに当たって、連邦法違反に変更して、提訴理由として挙げている。しかし、現在のオバマ政権とその前のブッシュ政権も連邦移民法を適用しようとしないので、アリゾナ州議会とブリューワー知事は同州の新移民法を承認した。
新移民法を分析すれば、アリゾナ州の警察官に連邦移民法を行使する権限が与えられていないのは、明確である。警察官が逮捕した者が不法移民であると判定すれば、その者は強制送還させられるかどうかなどの問題を連邦政府に委ねることになる。だから、新移民法は連邦法に違反するのではなく、むしろ、連邦法を遵守するものである。
アリゾナ州の新移民法であるSB1070に反対するメディアとオバマ政権の主張は、両方とも根拠がない。そもそもなぜ左派がアリゾナ州の法案に反対するのだろう。包括的な移民法改正を求めているからである。しかし、「包括的」というのは特赦のことである。つまり、現在米国に滞在している不法移民全てに国籍を与える。そうすると、民主党のための投票が非常に増えると思われているからである。こういう安直な理由で法律を無視すべきではない。不法入国は、大変深刻な問題で、様々な方面での問題につながる。まことの自由と、公平と国民の安全のために、連邦移民法を守らなければならない。そして、連邦政府がやらないなら、アリゾナのようにそれぞれの州が新移民法を施行するべきである。

An Ancient Depth

I had an interesting experience the other day. I was walking down an old market street in Kyoto, or rather a market street that has been there for some time, and noticed a small shrine off to the side. I figured I go inside and see what it was like, since they always have nice gardens. I ended up spending a half hour in there. This is how I felt.

An Ancient Depth

Ancient gods of foreign land still my troubled heart,

and bring to me a peace, it seems, that's lacking on my part.

I find it hard to usher in gods that don't exist,

and yet I find that as I stare, they in my heart subsist.

"How can this be?" I think aloud, the flutt'ring leaves aplenty.

Of gods I know there be but one, yet here there are so many.

But, in my heart, the same voice says, "Respect this holy Place;

for in it lies a secret, still, that soon shall match your pace."

What is this peace, this calm, this light, that brushes o'er my heart?

Is it the lies of modern men, or some devil's wicked art?

It cannot be that such is true, for truth, I know, sinks deep;

and here I find some truth of old awak'ning from its sleep.

I sit and gaze upon the scene; the moment ne'er does pass.

Eternal truth still lingers here, for truth will always last.

What's Wrong With Making Illegal Immigration Illegal?

This whole Arizona immigration law thing is driving me crazy. I don't understand what the big deal is, and why everyone is in such an uproar about it. All the law does is make something that is already a breach of federal law into a breach of state law so that the state government and law enforcement can do something about it. And the only reason for Arizona having to do that is because the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibility to enforce those laws.


I found it hysterical how the media says things like "the new Arizona law makes it against the law to be an illegal immigrant" or something of the kind. It was already against the laws of the United States to be in the country without going through the proper procedure. That's why it's called ILLEGAL immigration.

Another thing they keep mentioning in the news is that the law would require even legal immigrants to carry their papers, or proof of legality (like a green card, passport, or visa), with them at all times. Is this a new requirement? No! Having had a bit of experience with U.S. and another country's immigration and visa services, I know. I have had two separate experiences living in a foreign country and obtained a visa both times. I also have a wife who is a legal immigrant, because we went through the correct process. Any country requires those who are not citizens to carry such papers with them at all times. Most countries don't really have any qualms about making those aliens, immigrant or otherwise, show those papers at anytime simply because they want them to. Not us in  the U.S. though, we have to respect people's rights (sure, that's what we're doing). Rights to do what, break the law? They do have the right to break the law, that's their choice, but then they can't complain about the consequences they knew about well before hand. We are the stupid ones for not holding them responsible for those consequences. Instead we let the consequence fall on the backs of the everyday citizen and LEGAL immigrant who didn't break any laws. At least not to such a degree(okay, so we all violate traffic laws occasionally).

Anyway back to the matter at hand, being required to carry your papers with you at all times. This is what the letter that someone receives with their green card, or more correctly resident card, says: " Always carry your card in the United States and show it when you reenter the United States." It's that simple. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requires immigrants to carry proof of their immigration status with them at all times. A question and answer guide that can be found on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website says this:

Question: "Do I need to carry my Permanent Resident Card with me at all times?"

Answer "Yes. The Permanent Resident Card, Form I-551, is issued to all Permanent Residents as evidence of alien registration and their permanent resident status in the U.S. The card must be in your possession at all times. This means that you are not only required to have a currently valid card at all times, but also that you carry your currently valid card with you at all times."

Interestingly enough, "Welcome to the United State: A Guide for New Immigrants" also put out by USCIS says this about being a permanent resident which is pretty much the closest an immigrant can get to citizenship without actually becoming a citizen. This is great:

"Being a permanent resident is a “privilege” and not a “right.” The U.S. government can take away your permanent resident status under certain conditions"

You like that, huh?

The guide then continues by listing the rights and requirements of a permanent resident and then says this:

"If you are a permanent resident who is 18 years or older, you must carry proof of your immigration status. You must show it to an immigration officer if asked for it."

Here's the link to the pdf file for this guide. Read the section 'Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Permanent Resident'
All the Arizona law is doing is requiring its residents to obey already established federal law. The problem is that the federal government won't enforce these things, but somebody has to if we hope to maintain the rule of law in our society.

I strongly disagree that the new Arizona law is racist, infringes upon anyone's rights, or encourages racial profiling. According to the law, the only time a police officer would ask for proof of someone's immigration status is when that person has already violated the law. That means that they would ask for identification anyway. For a non-citizen, that identification is their permanent resident card or other visa, which they are already required to carry at all times by federal law.The law also clearly encourages cooperation with federal officials in all cases.

Is my point clear yet?

If not, here is a link to azleg.gov where you can read the bill. The majority of it deals with businesses who knowingly hire illegal aliens (I don't like to call them immigrants), and with human smuggling.

I also just want to add that I HATE the term racial profiling. How is it any different than normal profiling? Anyone who has seen the news at least once has probably heard the profile of some criminal the police are looking for given by a newscaster. What is one of the key elements of those profiles? Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and so forth. Race is always a part of profiling, because it is a quick and effective way to indentify someone. "Racial profiling" is just a superfluous, asinine term conjured up to make it easier to lay the label of racist on someone who is legitimately selecting people on grounds of race.

I'm sure the argument is much deeper than that, and there may be things that go along with racial profiling that make it a legitimate term, but still, is it really necessary? Even if it is justifiable, the media and politicians throw it around far too much. It's like discrimination. When did that become a bad word? Being able to discriminate is a very good and important thing, especially for a police force. Unjustified discrimination against a racial group is unconstitutional, but discrimination in and of itself is not.

Anyone who wants to, let me have it.

The Founding Fathers

I've been listening to Glenn Beck a little bit and although some people like to call him radical or off his rocker or some other expression of the kind, the things he says really seem to make sense to me. He has been doing an episode a week about the founding fathers of the United States, and I have watched and really loved all of them so far. I feel a power in the words of the fathers that he shares that can only be the power of God. He, and two experts as well likened their words to scripture. I had the same thought.


I know that the men who led the revolutions and helped to form the nation were led by God. They did what they did because they believed it was God's will and that he would and did support them in the cause of liberty and justice and in seeking the right for all men to worship God as their conscience sees fit among other things.

I've always felt that way. It drives me insane how people always try to claim that separation of church and state is about protecting the state from the rule of religion. I think if most people really thought about it they would see how that doesn't make any logical sense. Unfortunately, the fad of our generation is to just that, that the state must be protected from irrational, fanatical religions (which we all know all religions are, right?).
I'm no expert on 18th century European or American history, but it appears to be relatively plain that the founding fathers were breaking away from the influence of the state, and not from the influence of the church, unless it be the church of England, which was run by the state. Yes, if my understanding is correct, it was the state that ran the church and not the other way around. In countries with catholic influence it may have been different, but in England, where the majority of the builders of the nation came from, it was the state that ran the religion. So what they were afraid of was a state run church like the church of England that would inhibit the rights of an individual to worship God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience and force said individual to worship according to the dictates of law laid out by the state. That is why we have separation of church and state, to protect churches from evil government and not government from evil churches.



Go to watchglennbeck.com to see the specials he has done so far on Samuel Adams, George Washington, and George Whitefield. They are truly inspiring.