On May 1, 2010, an estimated 25,000 protestors marched in downtown Dallas. They met to rally at City Hall against the state of Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration. The vocal refrain: “NOT IN TEXAS!”
I know, because I was on the street with the protestors trying to get a sense of the real issue. I watched, I listened, I took photos with my iPhone (see as the heading for this article), and I began to wonder about the word intolerance.
Webster’s Dictionary defines intolerance as: 1) Lack of tolerance, esp. of others’ opinions, beliefs, etc.; 2) bigotry; intolerable; adj. not tolerable; unbearable; too severe, painful, cruel, etc. to be endured.
So how does this word intolerance play out in the bill signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer? The law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally, and it requires police to question people about their immigration status and demand to see their documents if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the nation illegally. The law (which was modified on April 30 for clarity and to address some of the public’s concerns) and the changes will go into effect July 29, 2010 unless blocked by a court or referendum filing.
According to an article in the May 2, 2010 Dallas Morning News:
Proponents say … the law is needed because the federal government has not secured the state’s border, which is a major gateway for human trafficking and drug smuggling from Mexico.
Opponents say … the measure will lead to racial profiling; they consider it an unreasonable and unconstitutional attempt to regulate immigration, federal responsibility.
What to do? What are the priorities of conflict? Where is the balance point of scale of justice with human trafficking/drug smuggling on one side vs. respecting each other as human beings? It seems to me that we are torn between two things: fighting the worst of human action and appreciating the wonderful attributes that other cultures bring us.
What do YOU think? Is the Arizona issue about intolerance or not?
Petey