Immigration Bills around the Nation

Florida SB 2040:

• It requires the police to make a reasonable effort to determine the immigration status of people they arrest and jail.

Indiana SB 0590:

• It requires most Indiana businesses to check immigration status of new employees
• It forbids distribution of state aid to illegal immigrants
• It prohibits local governments from refusing to abide by federal immigration law. 
• This bill has been passed both by the Senate and the House and is now awaiting Governor Mitch Daniel’s signature.

Alabama SB 256 and HB 56

• They require police to question the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally
• They make it a crime to knowingly house, give a ride to, rent to or employ an illegal immigrant.
•  SB 256 has been passed by the Senate but still needs House approval. 
• HB 56 has been passed by the House but still needs Senate approval. 

Tennessee SB 1141 and HB 670: 

• Mandates every jailer in state to inspect the immigration documents of every person arrested 
• Requires city and country jails in the state to report any person who may be in violation of immigration laws to the U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement 
• Includes similar clauses from Arizona's SB 1070 but are less harsh
• HB 670 has been passed by both the House and the Senate, and it has been signed by Governor Phil Bredesen

Arizona SB 1070:

• Makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents 
• Requires that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest when there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal alien
• It bars the state and local officials and agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws
• It cracks down on those sheltering, hiring, and transporting illegal aliens
• It has been passed by the Senate and the House, and it has been signed into law by Governor Jan Brower but controversial provisions were blocked by a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge

Utah HB 497:

• Includes similar clauses to those from Arizona's SB 1070
• Allows for state based-guest based worker programs.

Voters Score Card on Oklahoma HB 1446

House of Representatives 

YEAS:   85

    Armes              Fourkiller         McNiel             Roberts, D.        

    Banz               Glenn              McPeak             Roberts, S.        

    Bennett            Grau               Moore              Rousselot          

    Billy              Hall               Morgan             

    Blackwell          Hardin             Mulready           Sanders            

    Brumbaugh          Hickman            Murphey            Schwartz           

    Cannaday           Holland            Nelson             Sears              

    Casey              Hoskin             Newell             Shannon            

    Christian          Inman              Nollan             Stiles             

    Cockroft           Jackson            Ortega             Sullivan           

    Condit             Jordan             Osborn             Terrill            

    Coody              Joyner             Ownbey             Thomsen            

    Cooksey            Kern               Peters             Tibbs              

    Cox                Key                Peterson           Trebilcock         

    Dank               Kirby              Pittman            Vaughan            

    Denney             Kouplen            Proctor            Watson             

    Derby              Liebmann           Pruett             Wesselhoft         

    DeWitt             Lockhart           Quinn              Wright             

    Dorman             Martin, Sc.        Renegar            Mr.Speaker         

    Enns               Martin, St.        Reynolds           

    Farley             McCullough         Richardson         

    Faught             McDaniel, R.       Ritze              

NAYS:   7

    Hamilton           Scott              Shumate                  Williams           

    McDaniel, J.       Shelton            Virgin             

EXCUSED:   9

    Brown              McAffrey           Sherrer            

    Hilliard           Morrissette        Shoemake           

    Johnson            Roan               Walker             

Senate

YEAS:   37

    Aldridge          Burrage           Jolley            Shortey           

    Allen             Crain             Justice           Simpson           

    Anderson          David             Marlatt           Sparks           

    Ballenger         Ellis             Mazzei            Stanislawski      

    Barrington        Fields            Myers             Sykes            

    Bingman           Ford              Newberry          Treat            

    Branan            Garrison          Nichols           Wyrick           

    Brecheen          Halligan          Reynolds          

    Brinkley          Holt              Russell           

    Brown             Johnson, R.       Schulz           

NAYS:    8

    Bass              Eason Mc          Laster            Rice             

    Coates            Johnson, C.       Lerblance         Wilson           

EXCUSED:    3

Adelson           Ivester           Paddack 

          

Immigration Bill Right Here in Oklahoma

Oklahoma House Bill 1446: 

• Anti-immigration law
• Copycat of Arizona's SB 1070
• Relating to the unlawful transport of an alien; making the smuggling of human beings unlawful
• Allows local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status in certain circumstances
• Allows the seizure of vehicles used in human trafficking 
• Makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek employment 
• Passed in both the Senate and the House 

My Thoughts on the Hot Debate over Immigration

After reading this, I believe that both sides make equal amount of sense. Personally, I compare the situation the U.S. is in with the time before America was even created. Americas was created when people from Europe and Britain left their countries and old lives behind and came to the Americas. But, here in the Americas, they were already people residing and living their own lives: the Indians. We all know what happened after that, the immigrants took over and killed so many of the Indians that they almost went into extinction. Now, the tables have turned. Americans are the residents, and they are scared of being taken over by the immigrants. But, people have to remember that America, to many people, is a land of opportunity. Just like it was for those immigrants centuries ago. But, that doesn't mean that people can just enter a country and use up its resources without giving anything in in return.

IMMIGRATION: Why is everyone making a big deal about it?

 Have you heard any talk about immigration these past couple of months? If you haven't, then you must be completely out of it! Immigration is one of this year's hot debates so everyone probably has heard of it, but if you haven't, read this post as an introduction to what this whole immigration thing is actually about.

The Hot Debate on Immigration : Dating back to the late 19th century, illegal immigration has been a problem in the United States, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century. Basically, illegal immigration is when immigrants enter the United States without any legal papers or documents or a legal status. Examples of this situation is when someone from Mexico crosses the border without any legal documents and starts a life in the U.S., or when someone from Pakistan applies for a visiting visa to the U.S., and is granted one, he or she stays and lives in the U.S. even after the visa expires.

So you might ask, what is the big deal? People are just coming to the U.S without a couple of papers, and that's why the government is making such a big deal about it? That is why so many law and legislatures are being passed regarding this issue? Because they don't have pieces of paper that make it legal for them to be here?

Well, here are some of the main points supporting each side of the debate:

Stance: Supporting illegal immigration

• Some of the most intelligent and ambitious individuals, who are unsatisfied with their own countries, bring their skills to America.
• It increases the diversity and expands the culture of the country.
• Immigrants often taken the low-paying jobs (like food service & hotel cleaning) that most Americans don't want to do at such low wages.
• Decreasing or eliminating legal immigration will inevitably create more incentive to come to the country illegally, which leads to less assimilation and fewer taxpaying, law-abiding citizens.
• It improves the overall image of America internationally, as it is seen as an open, welcoming country; and immigrants who return home or maintain contact with family back home have a true image of America, not the one propagandized in much of the international media.
• Adding an additional group of cheap labor adds to the flexibility of business, leading to cheaper prices, better quality products, and higher profits.
• It gives struggling people all over the world an opportunity for a better life. This country was built on immigrants who sought opportunity, political & religious freedom, etc.

Stance: Opposing illegal immigration

1. More immigrants means more opportunity for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to enter the country.
2. Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes.
3. The national identity and language is disappearing. The great "melting pot" is being replaced by divisive multiculturism.
4. The emigration to the United States hurts the home country, as much of the male population, workers, and top intellectuals often leave their country.
5. Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/immigration.htm

The Impact Of Affirmative Action

These statistics provide a general idea on who is benefited and who is harmed by affirmative action. According to these statistics, this is the impact of affirmative action:

• Only a small fraction of the public (16%) reports having been directly affected by affirmative action programs. 
• Overall, 11% say they’ve been hurt, 4% have been helped. 
• Among blacks, 14% say they have been helped by such programs, while 5% say they’ve been hurt. 
• Among other non-whites, about equal numbers have been helped (11%) and hurt (13%).
• Most Hispanics say they’ve been unaffected , but 4% say affirmative action has helped them and 8% say it’s hurt them. 
• By a margin of 13% to 2%, whites say they’ve been hurt rather than helped ­ and more white men (17%) than women (9%) say this. 
• Overall, 27% of Americans ­ including 26% of whites and 37% of blacks ­ say that most people connect minorities’ successes in business and education to racial preferences, rather than their own skills, and hard work.

What I understand from this data, from the Pew Research Center, that it has benefited blacks more than harmed, and it harmed Hispanics and whites more that benefited. So is is okay to have affirmative action just to benefit the black and let whites be harmed? Now I understand why some people call affirmative action reverse discrimination. Instead of being racist towards minorities, could affirmative action be considered racist towards whites? This data makes me begin to doubt my initial stance on affirmative action. Does this data make you want to change your opinion too? 

Food for Thought

Here are some cartoons about affirmative action that might help you in forming your opinion on the overall issue. Have fun!!! :)

An Inside Look at the Senate's Votes on State Question 759

OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE

                    

SENATE JOINT RES 15 Constitutional Amendment:

Prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex

YEAS:   31

Aldridge       Brown         Johnson, R.       Reynolds

Allen          Coates        Jolley            Russell

Anderson       Crain         Justice           Schulz

Barrington     David         Marlatt           Shortey

Bingman        Fields        Mazzei           Stanislawski

Branan         Ford          Myers             Sykes

Brecheen       Halligan      Newberry          Treat

Brinkley       Holt          Nichols   

NAYS:   15

    

Ballenger      Ellis         Laster           Sparks

Bass           Garrison      Lerblance        Wilson

Burrage        Ivester       Paddack          Wyrick

Eason Mc       Johnson, C.   Rice

EXCUSED: 2

Adelson        Simpson

: ( SQ 759 Passed in the Senate! 

Rep. Sally Kern Against Minorities

Read this, and then tell me that you didn't gasp! 

Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said minorities earn less than white people because they don’t work as hard and have less initiative.

“We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”

Wait, what!!!! This is exactly why we need affirmative action programs, to prove these kind of people wrong! Minorities can work just as hard as whites, and we know it! 

Anyways, this created a huge outburst and a lot of media coverage. Later on she apologized for her comment.

The Debate on Affirmative Action

The Pros and the Cons

Argument Against

Argument For

Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. Students admitted on this basis are often not prepared to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. It would help lead a truly color-blind society. It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Once enacted, affirmative actions are tough to remove, even after the underlying discrimination has been eliminated.

Diversity is desirable and won't always occur if left to chance. Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. Affirmative action draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise. Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action. Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression.

Anti-Affirmative Action Advocates (that's a lot of a's)

Ward Connerly

The Leader of Anti-Affirmative Action 

Why would an African American, a minority, be fighting against programs that are helping him and other African Americans? Why would he be against programs that are increasing minority representation? Isn't affirmative action fighting against racism and prejudice by enforcing equal opportunity? 

Honestly, I think he needs to have a reality check and realize that he is hurting himself and other minorities. But to be fair, lets try and understand his twisted reasoning.                                         Connerly believes affirmative action is a form of racism and that people can achieve success without preferential treatment in college enrollment or in employment. He thinks that selective affirmative action discriminates against minorities such as Asian Indians and South East Asians, because some of their people have experienced discrimination in the past, but they do not receive the benefits of race-based admissions. 


On a program on PBS, Connerly said, 
"I think that in some quarters, many parts of the country, a white male is really disadvantaged… Because we have developed this notion of women and minorities being so disadvantaged and we have to help them, that we have, in many cases, twisted the thing so that it's no longer a case of equal opportunity. It's a case of putting a fist on the scale." --------> What in the world is that suppose to mean? It makes absolutely no sense! 
This an inside look of what goes on inside the brains of Ward Connerly and his fellow anti-affirmative action advocates. How does that make any sense? They believe that affirmative action harms the people by encouraging racism and prejudice and discredits minorities hard work and achievements. 

Why Oklahomans Need Affirmative Action

Now that we all understand what affirmative action is, the votes and stance of the member of the House of Representatives, and what exactly State Question 759 states, we can move on to the benefits of affirmative action.

Affirmative action programs are enacted in so many different parts of our lives. Without them, the minority representation in those parts could very likely begin to decrease, like we've seen in California and Washington State. These programs make a difference in employment in many fields. For example, in Oklahoma, there are affirmative action programs in all the following:
Oklahoma. Dept. of Public Safety, Office of Personal Management, Oklahoma. Office of the State Auditor and Inspector, Oklahoma District Attorneys Council, Oklahoma Real Estate Commission, Oklahoma. Dept. of Transportation, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, Oklahoma. Dept. of Human Services, Oklahoma. Dept. of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and Oklahoma Water Resources Board. So imagine what would happen to the number of minorities in these fields if affirmative action programs were banned? 
To answer this question, lets look at statistics on the number of minorities in Oklahoma. Minority children are now the majority among children in 11 Oklahoma counties, including Oklahoma County, the state’s largest county. That’s a big change from a decade ago, when just four Oklahoma counties had “majority-minority” child populations. Hispanic children and children of two or more races accounted for most of the state’s under-18 population growth in the last decade, according to an analysis of census data by The Oklahoman. Overall, 44 percent of Oklahoma’s children were minorities in 2010. That compared to 27 percent of adults who identified themselves as minorities. Since 2000, the number of Hispanic children (of any race) grew by more than 62,000, or 89 percent. At the same time, the number of children of two or more races grew by almost 27,000, or 49 percent, and the number of Asian children increased by 4,400, or 41 percent. The number of American Indian children grew by more than 6,300, or 7 percent. To contrast that, the state’s population of white children fell by nearly 57,000, or 10 percent, during the last decade. The number of black children fell by more than 6,700, or 8 percent. From this we can see that the percentage of minorities in steadily increases by the year. That is why affirmative action programs are more important than ever now because of the growth in minority population across the state. Without such programs, will the minorities be equally represented? Probably not. 

A Quick Look at Oklahoma State Question 759

This past summer, state Sen. Rob Johnson, R-Kingfisher, and Rep. Leslie Osborn, R-Tuttle were busy trying to ban affirmative action programs throughout the state. Because of their hard work and the majority vote seen in the previous post, Oklahomans will vote on the 2012 ballot on whether or not to prohibit special treatment based on race or sex in public employment, education or contracts. Here is how it is expected to look like in the 2012 ballot: 

“This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new section 36 to Article II. It will not allow special treatment or discrimination based on race or sex in public employment, education or contracts. It gives exceptions for some situations. It sets out remedies for violations.”

The attempt to ban equal opportunity is not new to Oklahoma. In 2008, Oklahoma faced this same problem backed up by the same groups. Ward Connerly, a conservative, rich, African-American, has made it his mission to ban such important programs throughout the state. He has been successful in California and Washington State. Both California and Washington State witnessed devastating changes in women and minority representation after a similar ban was enacted there.

Specifically, California saw a dramatic decline in the enrollment rates of minority students in the University of California. At UC-Davis, before the enactment, women comprised 52% of new faculty hiring. The year after the law was enacted, that percentage dropped to 13%. Washington State saw a decrease of over 25% in the share of Seattle public words contracts awarded to women or minority-owned firms.

Now you can see what a difference this ban could do to the minority representation in the state of Oklahoma. So look for State Question 759 in the 2012 ballot and vote against the ban of affirmative action!

An Inside Look at Who Voted For and Against Banning Affirmative Action

Oklahoma House of Representatives

SENATE JOINT RES 15 Constitutional Amendment: prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex in public

YEAS:   59

    Armes              Grau               McNiel             Sanders           

    Billy              Hardin             Moore              Schwartz           

    Blackwell          Hickman            Mulready           Sears             

    Brumbaugh          Holland            Murphey            Shannon           

    Casey              Jackson            Nelson             Shoemake          

    Cockroft           Johnson            Newell             Sullivan          

    Condit             Jordan             Nollan             Terrill           

    Coody              Joyner             Ortega             Thomsen           

    Cooksey            Kern               Peterson           Tibbs             

    Dank               Kirby              Proctor            Trebilcock        

    Derby              Lockhart           Quinn              Vaughan           

    DeWitt             Martin,Sc.         Richardson         Wesselhoft        

    Dorman             Martin,Sc.         Roberts,D.         Wright            

    Farley             McCullough         Roberts,S.         Mr.Speaker        

    Faught             McDaniel,R.        Russ              

    NAYS:   14

    Cannaday           Hoskin             Pruett             Virgin            

    Denney             McDaniel,J.        Rousselot          Williams          

    Fourkiller         Morrissette        Scott             

    Hamilton           Pittman            Sherrer           

    EXCUSED:   28

    Banz               Hall               McPeak             Ritze             

    Bennett            Hilliard           Morgan             Roan               

    Brown              Inman              Osborn             Shelton           

    Christian          Key                Ownbey             Shumate           

    Cox                Kouplen            Peters             Stiles             

    Enns               Liebmann           Renegar            Walker            

    Glenn              McAffrey           Reynolds           Watson 

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SJR15_VOTES.HTM