Democratic debate
The Young Democrats have sent numerous letters and talked to a multitude of the College Republicans, requesting a debate to further stimulate debate in these challenging times.
What was the response we were given? An absolute dud.
I and the other fellow Democrats charge the Republicans at West campus with being “chicken,” and all evidence proves it to be true.
On Dec. 3 from noon to 1 p.m., we will be holding a debate. If they would like to show, they will be more than welcome.
Until the debate, I will pressure them into attending, but do not think this is all for show.
Our country is facing dire circumstances, and in an hour we cannot fully address all of them in due time. The debate will focus on four topics: the economy, immigration, education and health care.
Anyone is welcome to attend, and if the Republicans do not show, then we will ask for your participation. Whether you agree with us or not, everyone at ASU should have a voice. If the Republicans are not willing to raise their voice, I ask you to.
Christopher Klugman
Undergraduate
Author’s Arpaio logic flawed
(In response to Brian Anderson’s Nov. 6 column, “America’s toughest scapegoat.”)
This article is dangerous. To state one’s opinions is a noteworthy exercise of free speech, but, from what I gather, this article is simply too one-sided to be sound. I have a few problems with the reasoning presented. The author’s argument that a bank robbery is, in essence, the same idea as crossing a border, seems to be farfetched. The author said, and I quote: “It’s basically as if I were to try to rob a bank, and after doing so unsuccessfully, the bank just gives me a ride back to my house. If that were the case, who wouldn’t rob banks?” My answer to that is simple: I, for one.
There’s something called morality that just might or might not influence people’s actions. The author is looking at this issue with the premise that, as long as there’s no punishment, it’s OK to do just about anything, and people will do just about anything. This does not ring true to me.
It simply does not follow that just because an immigrant is not incarcerated, but returned to their homeland, that they will attempt to cross over again. Of course, it might occur, but not with the certainty the author claims logic tells him. The author said: “If they didn’t feel like going through the naturalization process the first time, logic tells us they won’t hesitate to try again if there is little to no risk.” I, for one, could not imagine the hardship that crossing through the desert must entail. These illegal immigrants risk their lives. This decision is not one they take lightly.
The “cherry on top” of this mess of a column comes with this assertion: “How are the citizens of the United States supposed to believe illegal immigrants are going to follow the laws of our country when they didn’t even follow the first one when they crossed the border without any permission?”
When I read this, I marveled at this sentence, as if it were a rare astronomical occurrence I’m likely to never see again. The amount of nonsense contained in this one single sentence is mind numbing.
Because I’m beginning to doubt the author’s capacity to reason competently, I will break this down for him in numbered points:
Why would any citizen of the United States expect anyone to follow the laws of our country? In that case, I’d be hard-pressed to find a reason for such an ever-present law enforcement system.
Let me use his logic on you. Have you ever jaywalked/been out after curfew/skateboarded a prohibited zone/driven over the speed limit? If you responded “yes” to any of these, then, using the author’s logic, I could say that I cannot trust you to follow the laws of our country. How patronizing and arrogant does that sound?
Let’s move on, this next quote is too good to pass up: “At such a crucial time in our history with the recession, we’re a long way away from being able to offer up jobs for immigrants, let alone anybody at all.”
Really? Now the economy is what vindicates Arpaio? So now since we cannot afford to offer jobs, according to the author, to anybody, we must incarcerate illegal immigrants instead of deporting them. I don’t yet hold such a technical and professional knowledge about the economy as the author, so forgive me if the breadth and depth of my knowledge about the economy does not allow me to make such sweeping statements as his.
And finally, the people of Arizona electing Arpaio for Sheriff does not equate to letting him do what he jolly well chooses. His powers were vested in him by the state, and ultimately, by the federal government. He answers to someone. Arpaio’s duty is law enforcement; he is not the law.
Ian Contijoch
Undergraduate
