The New York Times
that the anti-illegal immigrant sentiment has had such a negative effect in Arizona that even legal Hispanic immigrants are leaving the state. This is to be expected since almost all politicians of both political parties at almost every level of government have bought in to this.
As a result, the immigrants exercise their best and only option: leave.
One side of this overall debate wants the borders shut down completely while another wants government to manage immigration in some manner.
However, politicians of both parties are united for one thing alone on this issue: money. By cracking down on illegal immigration the less productive (i.e. politicians) get tax money for pet programs (like more Border Patrol officers) on the backs of the those who produce. They also recieve contributions from PACs friendly to their stance on this issue as well to keep the jobs and money flowing.
No matter what manner government regulates immigration, such laws trample on the rights of immigrants coming to the U.S. seeking work and employers wishing to hire them. Like the issue of gay marriage, the battle cry of protect our borders and cracking down on illegals and penalizing the employers who hire them is yet another wedge issue politicians use to justify enacting measures to manipulate and control people which enriching themselves in the process.
Imagine how much harder it would be for employers if the situation was if the U.S.'s immigration policy was to hire natives only or that people born in the U.S. must be given first consideration for hiring before anyone else who applies for a job. Due to the anti-immigration sentiment that exists in the U.S. and Arizona, employment practices may come down to scaring employers into hiring only natural-born citizens of the U.S. leading to even more unemployment.
The main reason for our country's immigration laws is based on the claim that, rather than earning it, an American has a right to a particular job. As a result of this irrational idea, an employer's right to hire the best employees (no matter where they are from) is sacrificed in favor of potential laziness and a sense of entitlement. Another form of affirmative action if you will.
Essentially, opponents of immigration (like Frosty Wooldridge) are really against the idea of people achieving The American Dream since immigration has, and always will be, a hallmark of American prosperity.
Aside from the many companies, products and services created by immigrants, opponents claim that times are different or have changed and point to many countries (like China) that have over population and state the same can happen here.
Never mind that the problems they point to are really the result of government planning and controls on their example country's economy and not immigration itself.
Short of terrorists, criminals and people carrying contagious diseases, any immigrant who wants to come to this country should be free to do so and any employer should be able to hire them.
It is not only un-American but immoral to deny a fellow human being the ability to better themselves so they can not only live and survive but prosper too.