Arizona's folly; A law that twists the Constitution in pursuit of illegal immigrants

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2021045901&sid=4&Fmt=3&clientId=9417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

This article is an editorial on the Arizona Immigration law, which allows polices to search those with reasonable suspicion of being possible immigrants. Because Arizona is a border state and there is a huge immigration problem, the law was passed so that police could better target possible immigrants and take proper measurements of action. The author mentions that one third or the population of Arizona is Hispanic, causing significant debate to the law. The author states that this law "will force local police to use skin color, accent or limited proficiency in English as the basis for suspicion." This puts the police in an awkward position because citizens can sue police officers who fail to enforce immigration laws; however, this immigration law almost requires racial profiling. The author addresses that another negative consequence of this law is the effect that it has on our neighboring countries "By fomenting the justified fear among immigrants that any contact with law enforcement agencies will lead to questions about their status, the law makes it increasingly unlikely that immigrants will report crimes, cooperate as witnesses or provide tips to police." The author concludes that the law "preempts federal law. Federal law treats illegal immigration as a civil violation; Arizona law criminalizes it by using the legally dubious mechanism of equating the mere presence of undocumented immigrants with trespassing."

I feel that this article is accurate and brings some key issues in the Arizona Immigration Law to the reader’s attention. The flow of the article seems to be logical and is organized in a simple and easy to read style. The support is not documented, but all of the author’s statements are backed up with some sort of support. The argument is very persuasive and tends to focus on only the negative aspects of the law. Because of this the reader is clearly persuade to not favor the law. The intended audience is undefined, but by publishing in the Washington Post, almost any intended audience is reached. Overall the author has made an appealing article supporting his opinion.

This article makes me feel that there are a few major flaws in the new law. I feel that the grounds for searching those with reasonable suspicion are very undefined and therefore will target a large group of people including many who are in fact US citizens. This will cause negative relations with the police and will encourage racism. Although I f eel that these issues are not right I still feel that there is some of the full story missing. I do not understand how the government would pass such a law unless rigid rules and regulations existed so that there would be no major problems. Because this is an editorial article it only expresses one opinion of the situation. If I were to draw conclusions on this law I would likely find another source stating either the pro and cons of the law, or just the benefits of the law just so that I could compare.

The CRAAP Test

http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/steroids.html

The article appears to be credible and valid. The information is posted by the National Institute of Drug Abuse and includes information from scientific journals, medical journals, and studies from the National Institutes of Health. The article is well-edited and written, clearly showing that it has been published by professionals.

Because this is a government website it is used to inform and educate viewers with facts, rather than opinions. The article is recent (published in 2008) and has been revised (7/2009), which shows new facts and statistics. The information presented is relevant to my topic and can be used in my research paper. The article clearly passes the CRAAP test.

Thesis Statement

Steroid abuse is an unfortunate and growing problem in the United States that must be eliminated. Although there is not a simple solution to the crisis, an increase in steroid education, testing, and severe punishments, will help diminish the current problem and also decrease the likelihood that potential users will begin to use steroids.

Kicking Osama Off The Island

If I could vote one person “off the island” it would be Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden is the founding leader of Al Qaeda, the ruthless terrorist group responsible for September 11^th and many other violent crimes. Osama bin Laden has been one of the main targets in the War on Terrorism and has still somehow managed to survive. Bin Laden is still an active terrorist and continually sends out videos urging Al Qaeda members to commit acts of crime against the United States and other groups. The fact that the United States has failed to kill or capture Osama bin Laden suggests that Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks are still winning the War on Terrorism.

The death or capture of Osama bin Laden would have drastic positive benefits to the United States and other nations. The containment would be a very positive and motivating point for U.S. troops and the citizens of the U.S. demonstrating that America is winning the War on Terrorism. Terrorist networks would begin to see their structure crumble as the most well-known member becomes inactive. This would send a great message to other terrorists letting them know that no one is invincible, and that all terrorists will be hunted down.

The acts of Osama bin Laden are horrid and the dismal of his being would be beneficial to the entire world. I feel that such a prominent terrorist figure stands for pure evil and the elimination of such would be a positive thing. Osama bin Laden stands for the exactly the opposite of what I stand for. Anyone who has any sense of morals or and values would be ecstatic to see the disappearance of Osama bin Laden from today’s media.

Four Topics

1. Military

The current military decisions in the war overseas are highly debatable. Many people feel that the war is unnecessary, but some feel that America needs to finish what it started. The topic is important to me because it will affect many Americans, including my friends and myself, who will be joining the various branches of the military.

2. Nuclear Energy

America is looking to find it's next source of efficient energy and one of the best options is nuclear energy. Some Americans fear that nuclear reactors are far too dangerous to control, but in reality they can produce effective energy with very little waste. If America pursued nuclear energy options, our country would become less dependent on oil and coal.

3. Gun Control

As part of the second amendment citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms. Many people feel that legal gun sales lead to violent events and that further restricting the sales of guns would be beneficial to the nation. By tightening security measures there can be a lower crime rate, while still providing citizens with an opportunity to bear arms.

4. Steroid Use

Many athletes have tested positive for the use of steroids, or have admitted that they have used such stimulants. Should the penalties of steroid usage become more severe? If the penalties were more severe, young adults would understand that they really do not need steroids to enhance their performance.

Runaway Jury Hypothesis

I think the outcome of "Runaway Jury" will result in the gun company being charged and possibly shut down. I also think that the couple controlling the jury will have a huge impact on the movie. It is unlikely that either group, the gun company or the anti-gun supporters, will be able to win the case without the support of the couple. Many signs in the movie suggest that the anti-gun supporters have the weaker case in the matter. The movie even stated that anyone going against a gun company has never won. It is unreasonable to assume that the the gun company is 100% shielded from the possible affects of the court case.

Because it would so monumental for the gun company to lose a battle, I feel that it will happen. Movies are designed to have outrageous plots and intrigue the readers. Most people are likely to take side with the victims of violence associated with the negligence of the gun company. The movie drew in attention and emotion to some of the lives that were taken due to guns. This subconsciously built a negative impression of the gun company in the viewer's minds. Because of this, it is unlikely that the movie writer would want the gun company to win and leave a sour taste in everyone's mouths. The movie is likely to end in a punishment for the gun company or a situation which favors the anti-gun supporters.

Ordinary Super Powers

If someone told you that they viewed themselves as a superhero, what would you assume about that person? Perhaps you would assume that they are egocentric and think of themselves as an all-powerful force to be reckoned with. The fact is that not all superheroes have villain like attitudes. Superman is an example of a good natured superhero that has admirable ideals which are widely respected by all. Despite the fact that Superman is a fictional superhero and I am only an ordinary human being, we both incorporate helping others into our lifestyles and have many unnoticed actions.

Super heroes are known for having far more daring and dangerous lifestyles than ordinary humans; however, there are still some similar features in our lifestyles. Superman seems to always find the most perilous and world altering situations to be involved in. Superman has managed his super powers and physical strength well enough to survive a nuclear blast and even save the world. I, on the other hand, am limited to ordinary human strength and tend to rely on my mental abilities. I try to help others when I come across a situation when someone is in need and I know that I can make a difference. Because I lack ‘Superman senses’ I am unable to foresee dangerous events where I can help; therefore, most of my actions are far more safe than those of Superman but do not impact the anywhere near the same number of people. Superman’s actions can be viewed as sometimes overly destructive and unnecessary. An example that shows this is when the government decided that they would not help low income housing sections unless a disaster occurred. Because of this Superman made a disaster destroying many buildings and forcing the government to help the housing projects. If I were to approach the same situation I would use a far different approach. My actions tend to be more subtle and mild mannered. I would try to approach the situation with a more civil approach that would appeal to governmental and community leaders. Both Superman and I try to use our personal strength’s to help others and our lifestyles are remarkably similar mainly due to our resemblance of values.