I have no desire to see this man deported to Mexico...none. His entry into the U.S. was not his choice, and this is his home. It is his classification of anyone who wants to stop illegal immigration as racist that I find to be objectionable. This is a common tactic of my fellow Americans on the left: to dismiss anyone with a differing point of view or more conservative outlook as racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, intolerant, Islamophobic, or bigoted. (Dennis Prager points this out on a regular basis on his radio talk show...credit for this list must go to him!!!). Rather than actually try to argue the issues on their merits, progressives will almost automatically resort to charging their opponents with one of these labels. After all, racists don't need to be argued with; they simply need to be rebuked and ignored. This is a very convenient way of not having to come up with a logical argument to support one's viewpoint...simply end the argument by labeling the enemy as a hater, and you've won.
My personal point of view is that the new Arizona law is flawed: it has some good points and bad points, like most human-generated laws, but overall, it could have been more effectively drafted. My point is not to defend the law. But the charge that the 51% of Americans who support the law (Gallup Poll, April 29, 2010), including 70% of Arizonans, are all right-wing racists, is a vile slander and reflects an inability to formulate a cogent argument against the law. Racism has NOTHING to do with support for this bill...and those who disagree with the law should stop charging those who disagree with them with it. Instead, come up with some ideas that reflect your point of view, and express them in a civil way. Yeah, it requires more thought and hard work...hopefully, that's not too strong a deterrent.
