Arizona Immigration as demonstrated by Pink Floyd

I’ve been reading an increased about of chatter concerning the Arizona Immigration law and how many people are in support of deportations.  The amount of vitriol has reached an amazing level and therefore I feel a response is required.

It suddenly occurred to me that I’ve seen something similar to this before.

If folks are serious about deportations, then that involves the police going to a family’s house and forcibly removing the occupants and shipping them off, women, children and all.  This requires force.  Certainly there are many reasons we could think of for people to be deported and I wonder why stop with just the illegals?  In fact, this has been demonstrated by a recent Tea Party rally,,, er maybe Pink Floyd (I couldn’t tell the difference) in a movie that was made.  No further explanation is needed, I’ll just post the video.

Estoy bromeandoooooo.  La verdad es que yo odio lo que esta pasando aqui en los EEUU.  Parece que la intolerancia ya es muy alto y muchas personas no estan pensando con claridad.  Este video es solamente para demonstrar lo que puede pasar si seguimos este trayectoria.  Es una cosa bien triste no solamente para los deportados pero para los EEUU en general.

*Note to those that used translation programs:  あなたたちはばかですよ!

Author: Mateo de Colón

Global Citizen! こんにちは!僕の名前はマットです. Es decir soy Mateo. Aussi, je m'appelle Mathieu. Likes: Languages, Cultures, Computers, History, being Alive! (^.^)/

3 thoughts on “Arizona Immigration as demonstrated by Pink Floyd”

  1. Your argumentation is interesting in that your dreams of a borderless world as something morally superior and your associations of the opposite as something fascist, is very common here in Denmark. You will not believe how often people are branded closet nazis here.
    What I have yet to see here, however, is your combination of “open borders” and great confidence in own culture.
    When you describe your ideal world, the US is in a leading position and you expect other nations such as Canada to hardly “even notice” if they were to give up autonomy and let the US run the show.
    Here in Denmark the open-borders-position is always coupled with an antipathy towards what is traditionally Danish and a strong determination to carve out space for other cultures in society. Immigrants from poor countries (only poor countries!) are victims that need to be nurtured, subsidized, protected from bad publicity and looked up to for their unspoiled nature and colourful charm, which we have sadly lost in our cold materialist culture.
    Should anyone mention religion, ethnicity or cultural background in connection with e.g. one of the terrorist attempts that come every once in a while from followers of a certain Religion-of-Peace, then the knee-jerk reaction from these people is always that “not everyone is a terrorist”. The implication being that we can only discuss the issue in Marxist terms: terrorism is a natural consequence of poverty and oppression by rich white people. It was very interesting to notice how the motivations of the would-be Times Square bomber were also immediately confined to financial troubles with his house. Poverty->terrorism.
    In my mind: Marxism->intellectual poverty.

  2. I have heard more individuals discussing that the law is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids state and local laws that contradict federal laws in matters exactly where the federal government has authority to act.
    Once again it only applies in situations where the law contradicts the current law. Arizona’s law requires that State/Local authorities hand over suspect illegals to the proper federal authorities. Maybe you’ve forgetten (since we haven’t enforced these laws) but it’s still a crime to enter our country illegally.
    But as long as we are talking about Constitutionality let’s talk about the Commerce Clause with the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This clause prohibits states and localities from passing laws that burden interstate or foreign commerce by, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with particular foreign nations.”
    Boycotting Arizona is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so knock it off already. Also to the Arizona government, how about we step up and actually file suit against these cities?

  3. Mateo,

    What Pink Floyd was talking about is nothing even related to this situation. They were speaking more along the lines of freedom of speech/action and against a “moral majority” position. They weren’t talking about arresting those who are breaking the law. That’s a major difference.

    As for Common Sense – the boycott is only illegal if it’s law or if the actions of a state actually hinder interstate commerce. Telling people to boycott Arizona isn’t illegal nor is boycotting it yourself. Preventing others from transacting business is. Key difference.

Comments are closed.