All men are created equal... except, of course, those who aren't

There's been all this talk about the importance of completing Census 2010 and the effect that it will have on how the nation develops with those data in mind.  What I'm wondering is, how it fits in with the status of immigrants.  Especially considering the unconstitutional (not to mention inhumane) legislation recently passed in Arizona, I got to thinking whether the census would include that population in its count.  If not, it wouldn't be an accurate reflection of who is in this country, which would mean the United States would have to wait 10 more years until the next one for there to be a reasonable estimate of the country's demographics.  If so, then shouldn't the government be acting in the best interests of all those represented in the census, regardless of immigration status?  It turns out that immigration status is not a question that appears on the census.  What that means, then, is that everyone is included equally.  On the Census website itself, there is a whole section dedicated to why the census is "so important."  The website states the following:

----

"Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives. And people from many walks of life use census data to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more. When you do the math, it's easy to see what an accurate count of residents can do for your community. Better infrastructure. More services. A brighter tomorrow for everyone. In fact, the information the census collects helps to determine how more than $400 billion dollars of federal funding each year is spent on infrastructure and services like:

• Hospitals
• Job training centers
• Schools
• Senior centers
• Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects
• Emergency services

Participation isn't just important—it's mandatory.
----- 
So let me see if I have this straight.  The government wants to know exactly who is in the country (and participation is "mandatory") and then they want to use that information to help decide how federal funding should be spent in ways that best cater to the nation's denizens.  But people who fill it out might be those very people who are discriminated against when passing through states like Arizona.  What motivation would they have, then, to oblige the same government that allows such segregation and discrimination to occur? Our nation's system of checks and balances needs to be seriously checked...and balanced.

A couple of months ago, I saw an advertisement on the side of a bus encouraging people to complete the Census.  The ad said, "If we don't know how many people we have, how do we know how many buses we need?"  When I saw that, I actually thought of my personal job hunt.  Since I am applying for a teaching position in a local public school system, it occurred to me that everyone -- whether legally here or not -- is eligible for schooling.  School officials (teachers, administrators, etc.) are not allowed to ask about status, which means that those students are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.  It goes back to that whole equality thing...to Thomas Jefferson's whole, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" spiel in that little-acknowledged 1776 document called the Declaration of Independence.  It's as if the government uses immigrants productively when it's convenient and discriminates against them when it's not.  Where's the equality in that?

I'm not really sure how much "sensus" the Census makes.  Should the Census ask about immigration status?  If so many people are undocumented, then wouldn't asking the question on this survey give the government an idea of how many immigrants are actually here?  Immigrants, after all, create such a formative part of the United States economy, that perhaps it is time to give credit where credit is due rather than ignore it altogether, and the government should act in every individual's best interests.  I realize that's a lot of interests to target, but people need to get off their high horses and acknowledge that a country made up of immigrants is approaching unchartered territory in the 21st century.  If immigrants declare their status as non-citizens, then the U.S. should consider, rather than condemn, their pursuit of citizenship.

New Arizona law? Big problemo!

So let's talk about this Arizona immigration nonsense. And I say "nonsense" because it makes about as much sense as, well, NON. A country that is founded on the principle of equality, one that -- constitutionally -- supports life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Well, how constitutional is it for one of the fifty states to institute a statewide policy that so drastically and so negatively affects one's life, restricts one's liberty, and separates one from the pursuit of happiness (we're not even talking about achievement of happiness here) based on arbitrary measures, left up to the discretion of local police officers?  Since when do police officers occupy a civil service position that challenges the U.S. Constitution?  What kind of civility actually lies therein?According to a New York Times article from April 23, 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer (of Arizona) "acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law."  Let me ask you, Ms. Brewer: how do you define "proper" training?  How does one teach someone how to "properly" engage in racial profiling? Doesn't that go against the very principles upon which our melting pot country was founded?

In the same article, the author mentions that Senator John McCain -- the former presidential candidate who stressed his desire to help immigrants -- was under pressure to support this bill (SB 1070) and only mere hours before its signing came out in favor of it.  Let's take a quick glance at the track record of a few of our nation's recent supposed "leaders."  George W. Bush: had unsatisfactory grades throughout his undergraduate career and was, let's face it, a cokehead.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney: has an openly gay daughter, but somehow the press doesn't let that affect his "Republicanism" or his platforms.  Don't personal opinions about these issues comprise the essence of platforms?  John McCain: says he'll help immigrants, but then turns his stance to supporting legislation that targets illegal immigrants and people who look like illegal immigrants.  Right there, you have three quick examples of people in power who have less than stellar histories of demonstrating their upstanding citizenship.  And now these people are going to be responsible for ensuring the "proper training" of police officers, so they are "better" equipped to execute racist practices?  We are trusting THEM to make judgment calls?  What even makes their judgment trustworthy?  It's like we're back to pre-Brown v. BOE times.  Pre-Martin Luther King, Jr.  Even pre-Abraham Lincoln!  What's wrong with this picture?  Oh, right, and maybe I should also mention since people may not know....the President of the United States of America is a biracial man with roots in Kenya and in the U.S.  We live in a country led by someone who, under the newly-enacted Arizona law, could be approached and arrested for looking the way he does and acting in ways deemed illegal immigrant-like....whatever that means. What is our world coming to?! Or, since it seems like our world is already "there," what has our world become?

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is Austrian-born, ardently opposes illegal immigrants and their being in the U.S.  But, it seems that, once again, an elected official boasts a notable disparity between his theory and practice.  After all, he may have violated the terms of his own visa more than three decades ago.  I realize that laws are laws and it is important to be mindful citizens who abide by the law.  However, when the law itself goes against the well-being of all people [what ever happened to equal opportunity?], it makes me wonder why we should have to abide by the decisions that these elected leaders make...especially when they are elected without disclosing important information that would undoubtedly affect the voters' choice.  It hardly seems fair.

I think I might be belaboring my point, so I'll try to wrap this up...just after I point out a couple of fallacies in Ms. Brewer's (lack of) logic.  After reviewing the complete text of the governor's statement regarding SB1070, it seems that a game of "She says/She means" is in order.

She says:   This bill, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, strengthens the laws of our state. It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid -- stable and steadfast.
She means: Constitution Shmonstitution.

She says: There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.
She means: All Americans [which, clearly, only include the North Americans from the U.S.] are good.  Americans don't participate in drug cartels or take drugs at all. All immigrants are bad.  They are responsible for all the drop houses, kidnappings and violence in the U.S.  So, if we kick them out, life will be perfect...but wait? Who will mow my lawn?  Hmm...
She says: Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both AGAINST illegal immigration AND against racial profiling. 
She means: So what if I didn't declare the three cases of Jose Cuervo I bought on my last Mexican getaway? That doesn't make it illegal...[um, lady, that's exactly what it means.]

She says: I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. 
She means:...unless people start running out the back door of Chipotle before they finish making my burrito.

She says: Importantly, this training will include what DOES – and DOES NOT – constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is not legally present in the United States.
She means: If you order a taco with extra hot sauce, you better watch out. If you breathe while undocumented, you better think twice.

Ms. Brewer, you contradict yourself. You tell people one thing and you do another. You say you've thought long and hard about what you signed into law, but can you discuss what you actually considered? It seems like you have created a much bigger problem than there actually was beforehand.  Can we knock a little sense into you?  Can we actually treat the immigrants -- illegal and legal alike -- *not* as aliens?  Just as Stephen Colbert says, the answer should be, "No problemo."