21196
Post by: agnosto
Fateweaver wrote:Well duh. But it's not just tea partiers, it's conservatives as a whole.
Mandatory insurance is wrong no matter what. Requiring ID's if it keeps this countries citizens safe is not wrong in the eyes of many conservatives.
The government protecting it's citizens should be first and foremost. Anything to do that is not going to piss off conservatives. That's why they didn't bitch about the illegal wire taps on phones of people suspected of or knowing to have ties to terrorist networks.
ummmm, ok. So....... what exactly was the problem with what I posted earlier? Nevermind.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Fateweaver wrote:Wrexasaur wrote:If I have to spend an extra 5 minutes during a traffic stop to prove my citizenship, I can deal with it. I mean, the basic problem most people are having, is that they dont seem to have any faith in the police to fairly enforce the law.
If that happened to me twice a week, making me late for work both of those days... every week; I could lose my job. It isn't a problem until it is your problem.
"Forgot your papers? Let's just go down to the station for a bit."
Its sad, as that really seems to be a bigger form of discrimination than the racial profiling(which hasnt even happened) , as it implies all the police are racists.
No, it doesn't. It assumes that mistakes are made, and that the chances to make those mistakes should be as limited as possible.
Theyre just people that are doing an already difficult job to help us, and help our communities. Alot of you dont seem to comprehend that and seem to be casting the police officers into a worse light than the people who are knowingly commiting a crime when they enter our country.
I have a good amount of faith in my local police force, but I know that they make mistakes, and regularly do so. Any police force does so...
It falls on the federal government to take action, via their resources. The local cops should not be dealing with this, and it is likely to be a recipe for disaster. It only takes a few cops to make big mistakes, and mistakes in this area could get their asses sued with a vengeance. National news, not local.
If you are getting routinely pulled over twice a week for traffic violations perhaps you shouldn't have a license to drive........just saying?
As far as cops checking to see who's driving a car, when they are behind you they don't know who's driving or why. They can stay tailing you for around 30 seconds, run your plates and be on their way if everything is kosher without ever having to talk to you. They don't care WHO is driving unless they can get next to you or approach you and/or they get a call on a car spotted who's occupants were doing something illegal.
I can guarantee your plates are checked dozens of times in a year without you ever knowing.
Again, this is only being made an "issue" by the legal citizens who are afraid they'll be harassed unfairly. Will it happen? Probably. Is it an issue so long as everything is in order? Nope. It's only an issue because people want to make it an issue.
Essentially you agree that the authority of government overrides the rights and wishes of the people.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
It doesn't override peoples rights. If I must sit through being carded (assuming I was a legal immigrant in AZ) because a law is in place that ensures the rights and safety of everyone in the state that are here legally or are citizens than I'd have no problem with it.
Again, it's only a problem because people want to make it a problem.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Fateweaver wrote:It doesn't override peoples rights. If I must sit through being carded (assuming I was a legal immigrant in AZ) because a law is in place that ensures the rights and safety of everyone in the state that are here legally or are citizens than I'd have no problem with it.
Again, it's only a problem because people want to make it a problem.
Yeah card away boys. Thats my motto.
I got my backpack searched going through Leeds station a few years back when i was on leave, i was a serving royal marine with short hair, no sideys and a military ID and they still demanded to search it. I went through the charade (how many white english soldiers have blown themselves up on trains?) with no issues. Doesnt bother me. As long as it means they are pulling over the people they should be.
I despair of how PC and ineffectual our security forces are in Europe. I actually admire the guts of the red states in the USA for passing this slightly militant law. Rightly or wrongly its firm action at least.
If it wasnt for the fact that so many of you guys are gun crazy science denying God botherers who make me take my passport out for ID when i want a pint i think id move.
As it stands.. well.. i guess i just dont fit in anywhere! 
21196
Post by: agnosto
mattyrm wrote:
If it wasnt for the fact that so many of you guys are gun crazy science denying God botherers who make me take my passport out for ID when i want a pint i think id move.
As it stands.. well.. i guess i just dont fit in anywhere!
You just won this thread. Congratulations.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Wrong, Matty - you are built for Boro!
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I still say id have voted for McCain if he didnt have that zany VP of his...
I digress. I think id be all for this law if i was an Arizonian.
14828
Post by: Cane
Apologies if this was posted already but I agree with the sheriff's statements. Seems like a dumb law thats only going to bite them in the ass and reeks of just being a bad political statement in general; sort of like how they did or are trying to pass a bill where all presidential candidates have to show their birth certificate in order to be on the ballot. You understand why they'd do it and while there are potentially legitimate concerns, the execution seems horrible, insulting, and lacking towards solving such.
Seems destined to only clog up the courts, jails, etc and will greatly anger the public particularly in the inevitable instances where good citizens get exploited by the government they pay for.
TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."
Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9's Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisions of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free. "We're going to keep doing what we've been doing all along," Dupnik said. "We're going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol."
The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn't comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."
Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. "If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."
But if Dupnik feels the law is stupid, its sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa, has the same label for Dupnik. In an e-mail exchange with KGUN9 News, Pearce characterized Dupnik's comments as "the stupidest statement... someone who takes an oath to enforce the law has ever made."
Pearce insisted that SB 1070 prohibits racial profiling. He repeated a phrase he's used in the past, writing, "Illegal is a not a race, it is a crime." And he added, "I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist."
SB 1070 criminalizes illegal immigration. But it will be up to county attorneys to prosecute complaints. That raises an obvious question: will Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall also refuse to comply with the law? If she joins Dupnik's rebellion, then SB 1070 would be effectively DOA in Pima County.
In answer to that question Tuesday afternoon, LaWall told KGUN9 News that it's too early to tell. LaWall said her position will depend on standards yet to be developed to determine what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in asking someone for their papers.
SB 1070 is in fact silent on the issue of racial profiling in determining the circumstances under how and when police can stop someone and demand proof of citizenship. When she signed the immigration measure into law on Friday, Governor Jan Brewer also signed an executive order to go with the law. That order requires such standards to be drawn up and for local law enforcement officers to receive training on them. The executive order does not specify what those standards should be, and does not specifically address the issue of racial profiling. But in signing the bill and issuing the order, Brewer stated that she is determined to prevent racial discrimination.
Late Tuesday afternoon, Paul Senseman, spokesman for Governor Jan Brewer, sent KGUN9 this statement in response to a query about Dupnik's stance: "Since the new Arizona law simply regulates immigration the same way that federal law and federal authorities currently regulate, it seems misguided to be angry or react negatively about this bill. Racial profiling is specifically written in the state law to be illegal. No additional documents are needed for anyone in Arizona, other than what federal law currently requires."
The fact that the governor's office was able to get back to KGUN9 News on Tuesday with a response is remarkable, in light of the volume of calls that are pouring in. An office assistant told KGUN9 earlier Tuesday afternoon that over the past five days, the office has received 160,000 phone calls, and is having a hard time keeping up.
KGUN9 has also received very heavy viewer traffic on this issue, although not at that kind of level. E-mails and web postings continue to heavily favor implementation of the law. By viewer request, KGUN9.com is running another "Question of the Day" web poll on this issue. Viewers can find that poll on the KGUN9.com home page, about halfway down on the right, and may cast votes through midnight on Tuesday.
http://www.kgun9.com/global/story.asp?s=12386648
22783
Post by: Soladrin
I love America at times like these.
Also, everyone here has to carry a legal ID (unless underage). And they can refuse driver's license.
14828
Post by: Cane
Soladrin wrote:I love America at times like these.
Also, everyone here has to carry a legal ID (unless underage). And they can refuse driver's license.
Wrexasaur wrote:Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It isn't a big deal to be forced to carry papers. Its responsible. I hope every single mother fether in the US of Goddamn A is forced to carry some form of ID at all times. I have had too since I was 10, it isnt hard, suck it the feth up and drive the feth on.
Why should you resent having to prove who you are? If anything itll help you out immediately, unless of course, your hiding something.
The 4th amendment I assume.... CHECK HIM, HE IS HIDING THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!!
The ease which complications involving the law surrounding this, get brushed aside in this debate, is getting a bit annoying.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
It is a complicated issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
A very complicated one.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html
Why not just stick these in everyone? It would seem to be a more effective way to monitor civil society. One that would appear to be based on racially profiling a large section of society, simply because the cops can pick on this part without fear of angering the rest.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Why not just stick these in everyone? It would seem to be a more effective way to monitor civil society. One that would appear to be based on racially profiling a large section of society, simply because the cops can pick on this part without fear of angering the rest.
How is that not shattering your 4th amendment?
Also, I don't see how being forced to carry papers breaks it. Your carrying the papers, your not stapling them to your forehead.
221
Post by: Frazzled
4th amendment protects against illegal searches and seizures. If they meet reasonable suspicion its a legal search.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Thats my point, your forced to have them on you, not to show them to everyone and their great grand mother.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Soladrin wrote:Thats my point, your forced to have them on you, not to show them to everyone and their great grand mother.
OK not sure what you're arguing to here, so I'll just note as additional info, you are only required to show your ID to law enforcement. Tat is not considered an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Oh, I must have misinterpreted something then, I thought someone said it was.  My bad...
On a side note, i want cops like this everywhere:
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/927471/330ca8a4/agent_gaat_los.html
221
Post by: Frazzled
Very impressive.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
In the USA citizens are not forced to carry ID, and have the right to not provide it to the police. Officers can require us to give our names, but that’s it. They can only detain us if they have reasonable suspicion that we have committed a crime.
A friend of my sister’s is a Libertarian activist here in NH, a big gun rights guy and also a big supporter of individual liberties in general. There’s a pretty famous youtube video of him refusing to provide ID to a state trooper who stopped him on the street in Manchester legally open-carrying a handgun, because the Trooper wasn’t very familiar with our handgun laws here in NH.
A someone previously observed, “papers please” or “let me see your papers” used to be (during the Cold War) quick and easy movie shorthand to show the action was taking place in a police state. It is ironic that anyone who claims to support individual liberties would support a law that functionally forces legal citizens to carry ID or risk being locked up for no crime.
No one is claiming that all cops are racists, but a LOT hinges on what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” for the purposes of this law. How are you supposed to suspect a person of being illegally in the country? What signs do you look out for?
It does seem obvious that at least SOME cops will stop Hispanic people they don’t personally know, and it does seem obvious that Hispanic people will be disproportionately impacted by this law. Legal US citizens who appear to be Hispanic are going to wind up getting stopped and questioned with no other basis. And under the terms of this law will get locked up if they don’t happen to have their ID on them. That’s a functional loss of the individual liberty I described above. And it’s one suffered by a particular ethnic group, so I can certainly understand why some people would call the law racist.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
I still see absolutely no problem with being forced to carry papers. So you can present these when the proper suspicion is there. But yea.. I admit that American laws are bogus to me and I get like 50% of the ones I know a little about.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Frazzled wrote:4th amendment protects against illegal searches and seizures. If they meet reasonable suspicion its a legal search.
It appears as if this law has not made clear what that actually means, within the law.
Entire Supreme Court cases are debated over the meaning of a term like that, not a simple issue at all.
Soladrin wrote:Why not just stick these in everyone? It would seem to be a more effective way to monitor civil society. One that would appear to be based on racially profiling a large section of society, simply because the cops can pick on this part without fear of angering the rest.
How is that not shattering your 4th amendment?
Also, I don't see how being forced to carry papers breaks it. Your carrying the papers, your not stapling them to your forehead.
I am not sure how it wasn't clear that I was joking... I'll stick an orkmoticon (  ) into every joke from now on.
Here is the pic from the link that was left out of your quote...
And another orkmoticon...
Mannahnin wrote:It does seem obvious that at least SOME cops will stop Hispanic people they don’t personally know, and it does seem obvious that Hispanic people will be disproportionately impacted by this law. Legal US citizens who appear to be Hispanic are going to wind up getting stopped and questioned with no other basis. And under the terms of this law will get locked up if they don’t happen to have their ID on them. That’s a functional loss of the individual liberty I described above. And it’s one suffered by a particular ethnic group, so I can certainly understand why some people would call the law racist.
Even more reasonable, why it could be seen as a very controversial issue, with no easy answers.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Again it goes back to the police in the community knowing the people around them.
A cop sees a something suspicious, walks over and starts talking to the people around. Not one person admits to speaking english.
OR He approaches and the group scatters. He gives chase and catches one.
In either case the officer would be justified to ask for id or proof of residency.
Is the ability to speak english always going to be a deciding factor? NO. But it would be a good indicator that maybe the person/s do not have the right to be there.
15894
Post by: Mistress of minis
Cane wrote:Apologies if this was posted already but I agree with the sheriff's statements.
TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."
Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9's Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisions of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free. "We're going to keep doing what we've been doing all along," Dupnik said. "We're going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol."
The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn't comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."
Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. "If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."
But if Dupnik feels the law is stupid, its sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa, has the same label for Dupnik. In an e-mail exchange with KGUN9 News, Pearce characterized Dupnik's comments as "the stupidest statement... someone who takes an oath to enforce the law has ever made."
Pearce insisted that SB 1070 prohibits racial profiling. He repeated a phrase he's used in the past, writing, "Illegal is a not a race, it is a crime." And he added, "I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist."
SB 1070 criminalizes illegal immigration. But it will be up to county attorneys to prosecute complaints. That raises an obvious question: will Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall also refuse to comply with the law? If she joins Dupnik's rebellion, then SB 1070 would be effectively DOA in Pima County.
In answer to that question Tuesday afternoon, LaWall told KGUN9 News that it's too early to tell. LaWall said her position will depend on standards yet to be developed to determine what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in asking someone for their papers.
Late Tuesday afternoon, Paul Senseman, spokesman for Governor Jan Brewer, sent KGUN9 this statement in response to a query about Dupnik's stance: "Since the new Arizona law simply regulates immigration the same way that federal law and federal authorities currently regulate, it seems misguided to be angry or react negatively about this bill. Racial profiling is specifically written in the state law to be illegal. No additional documents are needed for anyone in Arizona, other than what federal law currently requires."
Ole Sheriff Dupnik, is doing nothing more than saying what his voters want to hear. Hes in Pima county, thats where Tucson is. Its just a short jaunt up I-19 from Nogales. A large portion of his votes came from the latino community. Its politics.
But the last part of the article repeats what I mentioned before- "Racial profiling is specifically written in the state law to be illegal. No additional documents are needed for anyone in Arizona, other than what federal law currently requires."
So, by enforcing this law- which has the same requirements as the federal law, when someone tries to sue for it being enforced, it would set a precedent and open the floodgates for challenging the federal law of the same ilk. And I really dont see that being a successful venture.
5470
Post by: sebster
Mannahnin wrote:It does seem obvious that at least SOME cops will stop Hispanic people they don’t personally know, and it does seem obvious that Hispanic people will be disproportionately impacted by this law. Legal US citizens who appear to be Hispanic are going to wind up getting stopped and questioned with no other basis. And under the terms of this law will get locked up if they don’t happen to have their ID on them. That’s a functional loss of the individual liberty I described above. And it’s one suffered by a particular ethnic group, so I can certainly understand why some people would call the law racist.
Cheers Mannahin, that was a really well written piece. It's going to fall on deaf ears though, as the efforts from those supporting SB 1070 in this thread have been, well, woeful at best.
There has been so much nonsense in this thread that, much like the homosexuality threads of way back when, I'm left with just stepping back and having to look at what underlying, unstated positions are leading people to happily accept and post arguments that are obviously complete nonsense. I mean, the one about people being bigots for apparently assuming all policemen were racists was the classic, but it was one of a about a dozen instances.
The easy answer would be to assume racism, but I've been here a while and never picked up a racist vibe, there is plenty of unexamined privilege but no racism that I've detected. I think more likely the underlying cause is the same things that sees the usual suspects rush in to defend the police in every incident of reported police brutality - there's a fixation over police and military power that leads a lot of people to accept any and all use or increase of police power. A few people, including myself, have pointed out the odd fit of chicken little calls over healthcare reform from people being simultaneously alright with gitmo, wiretapping, and now a law requiring people to present ID. But thinking about it it I suspect it isn't hypocrisy - what they oppose is government that helps or supports other people, what they like is government that controls or combats other people. Government support is bad, government power is good.
Now, it isn't bad to support stronger police powers when you believe they'll be effective. But when you hold a belief an internal belief in police power so strongly and so emotionally that it produces the kind of nonsense that we've seen in this thread, well then there's an issue. I tried a few times to shift this thread towards a discussion of what effective border control would be but this was ignored.
It's a shame, because it's a real issue that is getting people on both sides of the border killed, but the quality of debate in this thread is representative of the quality of debate across the US, and that means a solution will be a long time coming.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
mattyrm wrote: If it wasnt for the fact that so many of you guys are gun crazy science denying God botherers who make me take my passport out for ID when i want a pint i think id move.
Join the club. I'm obviously over 21 (obviously over 40 actually) and I still get carded. It's the law here. You get carded for alcohol unless you aren't breathing. Automatically Appended Next Post: IceRaptor wrote:So yes, those are both issues to be concerned about, but I would argue that you do need to carefully consider them instead of making the blanket assumption they are bad.
Sorry dude but that's spin. I said it when GW was in office and I'll keep saying it... our country can't keep spending money like a drunken sailor chasing skirts. It's not going to end well. Social Security is just the tip of the entitlement iceberg. We can't keep up just throwing money at everyone and everything.
To get back on topic: This AZ law is a reaction to the inaction of Washington. In my opinion the real reason no one in DC is going to get tough on border jumpers because they just see a 11+ Million pool of potential voters to whore out to. To hell with the poor citizens of Arizona and other border states who have to put up with the increases in crime.
Riddle me this you libs: What's the kidnap capital of the US and the second highest kidnap prone city in the world? That's right... Phoenix, AZ. But don't let that change the shade of your rose colored glasses. You just keep telling yourself this is angry Whites wanting to keep the poor undocumenteds from squeeking out a living. Have some more Kool-Aid.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
sebster... Unfortunately you are in a country that has less than 3% population growth from LEGAL emmigrants.
This country sits at the top of the emmigration ladder at 20%.That is just the LEGAL emmigrants.
The problem is that the US governmant office that is supposed to be dealing with maintaining Secure Borders and overseeing immigration are saying "There is no problem".
Fact is that even though it is not in effect as yet, it is having an impact.
PHOENIX – Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.
Arizona's sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won't take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state's underground economy.
"Nobody wants to pick us up," Julio Loyola Diaz says in Spanish as he and dozens of other men wait under the shade of palo verde trees and lean against a low brick wall outside the east Phoenix home improvement store.
Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.
Supporters of the law hope it creates jobs for thousands of Americans.
"We want to drive day labor away," says Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's sponsors.
An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years as it cracked down on illegal immigration and its economy was especially hard hit by the Great Recession. A Department of Homeland Security report on illegal immigrants estimates Arizona's illegal immigrant population peaked in 2008 at 560,000, and a year later dipped to 460,000.
The law's supporters hope the departure of illegal immigrants will help dismantle part of the underground economy here and create jobs for thousands of legal residents in a state with a 9.6 percent unemployment rate.
Kavanagh says day labor is generally off the books, and that deprives the state of much-needed tax dollars. "We'll never eliminate it, just like laws against street prostitution," he says. "But we can greatly reduce the prevalence."
For the full story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_day_labor_3
5534
Post by: dogma
The Green Git wrote:
Riddle me this you libs:
See, this is why people wonder about your understanding of the words 'bigotry' and 'stereotyping' when you attempt to argue that they are being used in the course of argument. Additionally, your used example presented on the previous page was not an example of bigotry.
The Green Git wrote:
For example, "All you people for AZ SB1070 are stupid and wrong".
Bigotry relates to the obstinate, or intolerant devotion to a prejudice or preference; especially when they relate to, or cause aggression towards, a racial or ethnic group. The example you've presented is a case of stereotyping, not bigotry.
The Green Git wrote:
What's the kidnap capital of the US and the second highest kidnap prone city in the world? That's right... Phoenix, AZ. But don't let that change the shade of your rose colored glasses.
The kidnapping is related to the Mexican drug cartels operating along the border. Why are you worried about detaining illegal aliens, in general, when taking a more aggressive approach to drug crime seems to be closer to the mark?
The Green Git wrote:
You just keep telling yourself this is angry Whites wanting to keep the poor undocumenteds from squeeking out a living. Have some more Kool-Aid.
No one made that argument here.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:sebster... Unfortunately you are in a country that has less than 3% population growth from LEGAL emmigrants.
This country sits at the top of the emmigration ladder at 20%.That is just the LEGAL emmigrants.
The problem is that the US governmant office that is supposed to be dealing with maintaining Secure Borders and overseeing immigration are saying "There is no problem".
Fact is that even though it is not in effect as yet, it is having an impact.
Heh, Australia has between 1,000 and 2,000 people arrive by boat each to claim asylum. A total of around 6,000 people each year arrive and claim refugee status. Around 5% are found to be illegitimate claims, so you’re looking at something like 300 people who arrive that shouldn't. To combat this Australia spends more than $600 million on border protection. So to control each person coming into the country who doesn’t have a legitimate claim, we spend about $2 million (sort of, there's other stuff in that border protection program, but there's also a lot of navy stuff that doesn't get attached).
It’s given me something of an insight into the craziness of immigration debates and policy. The US isn’t that crazy – you have a land border with a poor country so you couldn’t afford to be that crazy. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of crazy in the debate in your country as well.
Meanwhile, your figure above compares Australia immigration per year of 3%, which is about right, with a US figure of 20% - which reads as the US growing it’s population by 20% each year from immigration – which is nonsense. Are you really saying 60 million people are arriving in the US every year? The population would be doubling every five years.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I hate the concept of "anchor babies" as much as the next person, but this is just getting silly.
http://www.alan.com/2010/04/28/duncan-hunter-jr-would-even-deport-some-american-citizens/
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Its less than 2000 miles but lets go with that and further adjust to 1700 meters per mile (a little off).
The US-Mexico border is 1,969 miles long. That comes out to 3,169 km, or 3,169,000 meters.
Frazzled wrote:
A fence.
A camera every 200 meters. Thats 17,000 cameras.
Its actually lower than that, 15,845 cameras.
Frazzled wrote:
One person can watch 10 cameras. Thats 1,700 people or 5,100. Thats a 3rd of the new hires the IRS is starting up to implement the fine provisions of the healtchare bill.
You could probably get away with twice that if you used basic computer recognition technology. You don't need to find specific people in a crowd, just people crossing the border at a non-designated point.
The real expense is the construction, and maintenance of the wall, which would be quite prohibitive. Additionally, maintaining a large enough force to patrol that wall presents inherent problems. Setting up a guard station every 200 meters would be ridiculously costly, and not doing so raises issues with respect to response time with respect to attempted breeches.
We're looking at a project costing 70-150 billion dollars, based on the proposed figures for a double steel barrier alone. This cost will do up when taking into account the necessary surveillance equipment, staff, housing and maintenance issues.
Frazzled wrote:
Or inversely, and what should be done. Pull US forces back to US territory. That will take care of it, plus have the niceness of pulling us out of all those entangling wars and events. Let the rest fo the world go its own way.
Roughly 3/4 of active duty personnel are stationed in the United States. Eliminating all of our foreign deployments does not effectively solve the problem, unless you also intend to fully militarize the border, which will be even more expensive than increasing the size of the border patrol as full-time soldiers are not cheap.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
70-150B is peanuts compared to the Trillion+ the HCR Bill will add to the debt.
I know quite a few of my friends would be far happier in Tx/Az guarding the border than sitting on a base in Afghan/Iraq.
15894
Post by: Mistress of minis
Fateweaver wrote:70-150B is peanuts compared to the Trillion+ the HCR Bill will add to the debt.
I know quite a few of my friends would be far happier in Tx/Az guarding the border than sitting on a base in Afghan/Iraq.
Wait, someone needs to point out we should hire the illegals to build the wall for less, THEN kick them out 
Seriously though, just in Az, theres 400 milion dollars a year in un recovered medical expenses thansk to illegal immigrants. Thats just one facet of the economy they harm. They arent paying taxes(except sales tax), they obtain benefits from state and federal agencies by fraudulent means (not all of them- but enough to make a substantial drain), and then theres the legal cost of prosecuting the ones that actually do commit crimes (aside from just being here) as nearly 1/4th of the Arizona Dept of Corrections population are mexican nationals.
If effective legislation is enacted, these expenses wont keep recurring. The ones that legitimately want to immigrate and can be useful/contributing members of our society, can still do so, just like the vast majority of european immigrants(and those from other countries) have done for years.
This bill may not be popular, it may not be perfect. But theres nothing better and the problem is escalating. If nothing else it has succeeded in being a catalyst that has accelerated action and put the issue back in the forefront.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Sebster... My error.... the figues were portions of the emmigrant population as a whole. The US takes in 20% of the total people "on the move". Australia's number is closer to 2% of that total. Plus you have to account for people moving OUT of the US. The US has had more than 5.8 million Legal immigrants.. Australia has had 500,000.
But back on topic. The issue is people who enter this country via points other than established border crossings and points of entry. This is the first criteria to establish if a person is "Illegal". Not skin color or national origin.
But how do you know? you check ID and "papers". Many illegals do not have such documentation and thus would be unable to provide such even if provided a chance to do so.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:70-150B is peanuts compared to the Trillion+ the HCR Bill will add to the debt.
That's true, but that doesn't mean we should spend the money anyway. Spending a lot of money on one thing doesn't indicate that you spend less money on another. You wouldn't buy a $20,000 car just because you bought a $300,000 house.
Additionally, the true cost of the wall is in the upkeep and staffing, not the initial construction. Also, I'm not convinced that the wall addresses the most pressing issue tied to illegal immigration: the cartels. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a military presence in selected areas, for when things get really hairy. But it strikes me as a waste of resource to use them for general police activities.
Fateweaver wrote:
I know quite a few of my friends would be far happier in Tx/Az guarding the border than sitting on a base in Afghan/Iraq.
Well, obviously.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
My problem with it is this:
That somewhere, in America, there's going to be brown uniformed, jack booted thugs, asking 'Papers, Please?"
They're just an armband away from 'you know who'.
And people wonder why the more paranoid fringe elements in this country are convinced that there's a New World Order.
America, the Fourth Reich?
24865
Post by: DiRT52
i live in az and basically it says if you cant prove your a citizen with whats on your person you can be detained but there was already a law saying you must have state id on your person so ya it just a little more fierce
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
there was a town in southern Arizona i have read about that passed a law stating that any business operating within the city's jurisdiction found to be employing illegal immigrants would have its business license revoked then and there, with no appeal. If the rest of the state would adopt a law similar, then you would have another way of controlling the immigration problem.
Additionally, we (the American gov't.) should disband the Department of "Homeland Security" and all those jobs "lost" be taken over by the Department of Defense, after all, its what we military folks do "Secure" the country from all enemies. I may sound quite pompous but I truly doubt that an illegal alien trying to cross the border from Mexico would think twice or three times if he were face to face with the business end of an M1 Abrams sitting at the border.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Let Frazz sit at the border with a shotgun and his wiener dogs.
If I was in the Abrams I'd back the feth up if faced with that.
LOL.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
... if we're tossing illegal immigrants out of the country, can we start with all these Europeans I see everywhere?
7150
Post by: helgrenze
According to FEDERAL Law...."Hiring illegal immigrants carries a maximum penalty under federal statute of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine."
That puts the hiring problem on the Judges to ensure that such large fines are common place. They do not because the ones that can afford that much money are the ones paying for their re-election bids.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Let us recall the FBI's 'Operation: Rollback' when they raided Wal-Mart's nation wide and found something like 19 illegal's working in Wal-Mart HQ.
They paid the fines, but frankly it was chump change compared to what they make. Since no single individual could be fingered as the person who hired them, and the FBI didn't have enough evidence to prove conspiracy to get a RICO charge, Wal-Mart continues to operate much as they did before.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:Sebster... My error.... the figues were portions of the emmigrant population as a whole. The US takes in 20% of the total people "on the move". Australia's number is closer to 2% of that total. Plus you have to account for people moving OUT of the US. The US has had more than 5.8 million Legal immigrants.. Australia has had 500,000.
Okay, but now your figures are getting you in trouble. The US population, roughly 300 million, is a tick under 15 times bigger than the Australian population of 22 million. So in taking 5.8 million people a year, you’re looking at 1.9% of the population as new immigrants each year. Australia, taking 500,000 per your figures, is looking at 2.2% We’re taking a greater proportion of the people as immigrants each year, although the difference is fairly trivial.
Mind you, I don’t believe the Australian intake is as great as 500,000, I believe it’s closer to 300,000, which would put the US ahead. Either way it’s a wash, both countries take on a roughly equivalent number of immigrants every year. It’s an odd thing, this US insistence that it is unique in the world as a nation of immigrants – we’re as multicultural as you are.
However, we aren’t talking about legal immigration, we’re talking about illegal immigration. In this issue the US has a massive problem as you share a land border with a much poorer country, whereas Australia is an island and has nothing like the same problem. Despite that, illegal arrivals in Australia are a constant fixture of debate here, and is just a politicised and emotional as it is in the US, and sees just as much money spent on elaborate border protection schemes. This is because a lot of people debate the issue without any reference to the actual issues, there’s some underlying primal issue going on.
The near refusal to discuss control on demand as a possibly cheaper, more practical approach is a classic example of how irrational this debate is. The talk that’s started popping up about militarising the border and adopting Iraqi RoE are another. It’s bonkers.
But back on topic. The issue is people who enter this country via points other than established border crossings and points of entry. This is the first criteria to establish if a person is "Illegal". Not skin color or national origin.
But how do you know? you check ID and "papers". Many illegals do not have such documentation and thus would be unable to provide such even if provided a chance to do so.
And again, given that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and other Central American countries, the people identified as being reasonably suspicious of being illegal aliens will be predominantly people of Hispanic appearance. Do you disagree with that? Automatically Appended Next Post: helgrenze wrote: According to FEDERAL Law...."Hiring illegal immigrants carries a maximum penalty under federal statute of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine."
That puts the hiring problem on the Judges to ensure that such large fines are common place. They do not because the ones that can afford that much money are the ones paying for their re-election bids.
There’s an issue with the size of the fine, but the bigger problem is the level of enforcement of the law. If a greater proportion of the 20,000 dedicated to border protection were instead dedicated towards identifying and persecuting the hiring of illegal immigrants you’d see real progress.
Unfortunately if you only used legal labour then the agricultural sector wouldn’t be as profitable. And we can’t have that. Better to pretend that is happening while dedicating local police to checking for ID.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
BaronIveagh wrote:Let us recall the FBI's 'Operation: Rollback' when they raided Wal-Mart's nation wide and found something like 19 illegal's working in Wal-Mart HQ.
They paid the fines, but frankly it was chump change compared to what they make. Since no single individual could be fingered as the person who hired them, and the FBI didn't have enough evidence to prove conspiracy to get a RICO charge, Wal-Mart continues to operate much as they did before.
Have any facts to back that statement?
Walmarts "illegal" issue had to do with a third party company hired to supply people to clean floors. They were not direct employees of Walmart. It should also be noted that the Illegals they found were primarily Russian.
You can read the original complaint file in court here:
http://www.walmartjanitors.com/staticdata/Complaint.pdf
You will note that the Complaint states that it was a Contractor Hired by Wa-mart that actually hired the illegal workers.
Walmart paid $11 million in fines even though they could have fought it with a fair chance of winning, in part due to what they termed "Corporate Accountability." They now REQUIRE extensive background checks on new hires and have moved the Janitorial services in house.
But if you actually look at the situation in Arizona you will find it is not the "Big Bad Corporations" that are hiring day labor in front of Home Depot.
Day laborers do jobs including construction, landscaping and household work for cash paid under the table. Those jobs have been harder to find since the housing industry collapsed here several years ago.
Standing near potted trees and bushes for sale at a Home Depot in east Phoenix, Diaz, 35, says he may follow three families in his neighborhood who moved to New Mexico because of the law. He says a friend is finding plenty of work in Dallas.
And sebster, My numbers were not meant as % of current national population... but % of Legal Immigrant Population world wide, which is close to 30 million people a year. Arizona has about as many Illegal Immigrants as Australia has Legal ones per year.
And the article I quoted earlier and above states that even though the law is not yet in effect it is doing exactly what you said... Controlling the Demand. The US Govt does not sue every joe yard work for hiring the illegals, Under the table and tax free. The State Can and Will and people in AZ know it. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
Unfortunately if you only used legal labour then the agricultural sector wouldn’t be as profitable. And we can’t have that. Better to pretend that is happening while dedicating local police to checking for ID.
There are provisions within the US Code for hiring Agricultural workers for seasonal/harvest help. There is actually a special status for Nonresident migrant workers.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:And sebster, My numbers were not meant as % of current national population... but % of Legal Immigrant Population world wide, which is close to 30 million people a year. Arizona has about as many Illegal Immigrants as Australia has Legal ones per year.
Yes, but that'd be a nonsensical comparison. You don't measure the impact on a society by measuring total numbers, you measure it as a proportion of total population.
Let's say you have two towns. One is Butbugg, WA, has 100 people, of which three are serial killers. The other one has six serial killers, and is New York, New York. Which society is more impacted by serial killers each year?
And the article I quoted earlier and above states that even though the law is not yet in effect it is doing exactly what you said... Controlling the Demand. The US Govt does not sue every joe yard work for hiring the illegals, Under the table and tax free. The State Can and Will and people in AZ know it.
And if that was the emphasis of the bill then I'd be all for it. Perhaps it is, and the debate going on around it is completely wrong. It wouldn't be the first time hard on crime policies with little actual enforcement have been put front and centre to mask more substantial reform underneath.
At this point I'm just commenting on the debate, to hopefully bring people back to a point where they can think about things a little more.
There are provisions within the US Code for hiring Agricultural workers for seasonal/harvest help. There is actually a special status for Nonresident migrant workers.
Yes. And yet there are still a huge number of undocumented workers, because the labour is cheaper and the risk minimal.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
helgrenze wrote:BaronIveagh wrote:Let us recall the FBI's 'Operation: Rollback' when they raided Wal-Mart's nation wide and found something like 19 illegal's working in Wal-Mart HQ.
They paid the fines, but frankly it was chump change compared to what they make. Since no single individual could be fingered as the person who hired them, and the FBI didn't have enough evidence to prove conspiracy to get a RICO charge, Wal-Mart continues to operate much as they did before.
Have any facts to back that statement?
Walmarts "illegal" issue had to do with a third party company hired to supply people to clean floors. They were not direct employees of Walmart. It should also be noted that the Illegals they found were primarily Russian.
You can read the original complaint file in court here:
http://www.walmartjanitors.com/staticdata/Complaint.pdf
You will note that the Complaint states that it was a Contractor Hired by Wa-mart that actually hired the illegal workers.
Walmart paid $11 million in fines even though they could have fought it with a fair chance of winning, in part due to what they termed "Corporate Accountability." They now REQUIRE extensive background checks on new hires and have moved the Janitorial services in house.
Achem:
"Some of the information in the investigation was gathered through the recording of conversations between store managers and contractor executives, the officials told CNN.
Investigators are concerned that Wal-Mart has kept using contractors who have been convicted of hiring illegal workers in the past. The latest sweep stemmed from a 1998 investigation that also targeted janitorial contractors at Wal-Marts, federal sources said. " -CNN
"On November 10, some of the arrested immigrant janitorial workers filed a federal racketeering class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that Wal-Mart violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. According to the allegations in the complaint, all of the plaintiffs were undocumented aliens who worked for a contract cleaning service hired by Wal-Mart. All of these workers claim they were paid weekly compensation of $350-500 in cash, worked at least 60 hours per week, and were obligated to work 7 days a week. They also claim they received no overtime compensation, workers' compensation, or other benefits, nor did they have taxes or Social Security (FICA) withheld from their earnings.
The workers' complaint includes claims that Wal-Mart (a) engaged in federal "racketeering activity," including mail fraud, wire fraud, and bringing in and harboring aliens; (b) engaged in a federal racketeering conspiracy "for the purpose of defrauding and injuring the plaintiffs"; (c) conspired to violate the workers' civil rights by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime, and by failing to provide them with workers' compensation and Social Security coverage; (d) failed to pay minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and (e) committed other violations under New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and Anti-Discrimination Law.
The basis of the claims against Wal-Mart is that the company, as a joint employer of the workers, "engaged in and profited from a nationwide fraudulent scheme designed to defraud the United States government." In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Wal-Mart "routinely makes use of the labor of undocumented immigrants" and that these workers "present a ready pool of easily exploited labor." -Carol A. Entelisano of Tanner & Guin, L.L.C.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
sebster wrote:
Yes, but that'd be a nonsensical comparison. You don't measure the impact on a society by measuring total numbers, you measure it as a proportion of total population.
Let's say you have two towns. One is Butbugg, WA, has 100 people, of which three are serial killers. The other one has six serial killers, and is New York, New York. Which society is more impacted by serial killers each year?
Bad example really. For it to count you would have to know the total number of murders in each city attributted to Serial Killers. It only takes 3 identical murders over a given time period to qualify as a serial killer. Another Factor would be fequency of the kills, how often each killer commits his crime. Even if those in both locations were identical, The impact would be about the same to the social structure of each town. NYC would have such murders front page news and a large percentage of the population would know about it. A small town would have the same effect by word of mouth. True a larger % of the smaller town would be victims, but the sociatal impact would be the same.
sebster wrote:There are provisions within the US Code for hiring Agricultural workers for seasonal/harvest help. There is actually a special status for Nonresident migrant workers.
Yes. And yet there are still a huge number of undocumented workers, because the labour is cheaper and the risk minimal.
Because people are not told about the H-2A Visa and how to make it work for them year round. As long as they have jobs to go to, they can travel the country freely. besides, which is more attractive: Working for $20 a day, or having full employee benefits and decent pay for basically the same work? Automatically Appended Next Post: BaronIveagh wrote:[
Achem:
"Some of the information in the investigation was gathered through the recording of conversations between store managers and contractor executives, the officials told CNN.
Investigators are concerned that Wal-Mart has kept using contractors who have been convicted of hiring illegal workers in the past. The latest sweep stemmed from a 1998 investigation that also targeted janitorial contractors at Wal-Marts, federal sources said. " -CNN
"On November 10, some of the arrested immigrant janitorial workers filed a federal racketeering class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that Wal-Mart violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. According to the allegations in the complaint, all of the plaintiffs were undocumented aliens who worked for a contract cleaning service hired by Wal-Mart. All of these workers claim they were paid weekly compensation of $350-500 in cash, worked at least 60 hours per week, and were obligated to work 7 days a week. They also claim they received no overtime compensation, workers' compensation, or other benefits, nor did they have taxes or Social Security (FICA) withheld from their earnings.
The workers' complaint includes claims that Wal-Mart (a) engaged in federal "racketeering activity," including mail fraud, wire fraud, and bringing in and harboring aliens; (b) engaged in a federal racketeering conspiracy "for the purpose of defrauding and injuring the plaintiffs"; (c) conspired to violate the workers' civil rights by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime, and by failing to provide them with workers' compensation and Social Security coverage; (d) failed to pay minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and (e) committed other violations under New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and Anti-Discrimination Law.
The basis of the claims against Wal-Mart is that the company, as a joint employer of the workers, "engaged in and profited from a nationwide fraudulent scheme designed to defraud the United States government." In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Wal-Mart "routinely makes use of the labor of undocumented immigrants" and that these workers "present a ready pool of easily exploited labor." -Carol A. Entelisano of Tanner & Guin, L.L.C.
Please note that the investigation took place in 2003, There is still a class action suit pending but the original judge has been moved to a higher bench and a new judge will need to be named.
As for the claims that Walmart "Knew of the Undocumented Aliens" It has yet to be proven in court.
And Walmart ended the contracts of all the cleaning services, partly due to the multiple layers of shell companies involved, including one that had 12 such companies collecting over $100 Million in just a 3 year period.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:Bad example really. For it to count you would have to know the total number of murders in each city attributted to Serial Killers. It only takes 3 identical murders over a given time period to qualify as a serial killer. Another Factor would be fequency of the kills, how often each killer commits his crime. Even if those in both locations were identical, The impact would be about the same to the social structure of each town. NYC would have such murders front page news and a large percentage of the population would know about it. A small town would have the same effect by word of mouth. True a larger % of the smaller town would be victims, but the sociatal impact would be the same.
Are you just screwing with me now? Seriously? Do actually think that stuff about frequency is relevant at all to the point behind the example? Make it ten serial killings in the town of 100 or 20 serial killings in New York, both occurring through the same calendar year. It doesn’t matter.
The point is that simply taking the total number of immigrants/serial killings in a year does not give any indication of the effect on the population, you need to compare the number of killings/migrants with the total population.
Surely you get that. This isn’t just a weird kind of trolling exercise, is it?
sebster wrote:Because people are not told about the H-2A Visa and how to make it work for them year round. As long as they have jobs to go to, they can travel the country freely. besides, which is more attractive: Working for $20 a day, or having full employee benefits and decent pay for basically the same work?
Of course, and we know why the company is happy to pay the wage of an illegal worker and not the wage of a seasonal worker, because the savings are worth the risk. But if the risk was greater (because the penalty was greater and more importantly the chance of being caught was greater) you’d see a marked decrease in demand.
This is the big thing to remember. The illegal workers coming here get jobs. If there weren’t jobs to be had with US employers they wouldn’t come in anywhere near the same numbers. Those that did come could be more easily identified as being attached to drug cartels.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mistress of minis wrote:Fateweaver wrote:70-150B is peanuts compared to the Trillion+ the HCR Bill will add to the debt.
I know quite a few of my friends would be far happier in Tx/Az guarding the border than sitting on a base in Afghan/Iraq.
Wait, someone needs to point out we should hire the illegals to build the wall for less, THEN kick them out
Seriously though, just in Az, theres 400 milion dollars a year in un recovered medical expenses thansk to illegal immigrants. Thats just one facet of the economy they harm. They arent paying taxes(except sales tax), they obtain benefits from state and federal agencies by fraudulent means (not all of them- but enough to make a substantial drain), and then theres the legal cost of prosecuting the ones that actually do commit crimes (aside from just being here) as nearly 1/4th of the Arizona Dept of Corrections population are mexican nationals.
If effective legislation is enacted, these expenses wont keep recurring. The ones that legitimately want to immigrate and can be useful/contributing members of our society, can still do so, just like the vast majority of european immigrants(and those from other countries) have done for years.
This bill may not be popular, it may not be perfect. But theres nothing better and the problem is escalating. If nothing else it has succeeded in being a catalyst that has accelerated action and put the issue back in the forefront.
Don't worry, once amnesty is given, they will be covered under Obamacare.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
Ensis Ferrae wrote:there was a town in southern Arizona i have read about that passed a law stating that any business operating within the city's jurisdiction found to be employing illegal immigrants would have its business license revoked then and there, with no appeal. If the rest of the state would adopt a law similar, then you would have another way of controlling the immigration problem.
No arguments there. I personally believe there is no punishment too harsh (short of bodily harm) for hiring under the table, illegal or no. You're going to run a business? Do it above board.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Additionally, we (the American gov't.) should disband the Department of "Homeland Security" and all those jobs "lost" be taken over by the Department of Defense, after all, its what we military folks do "Secure" the country from all enemies. I may sound quite pompous but I truly doubt that an illegal alien trying to cross the border from Mexico would think twice or three times if he were face to face with the business end of an M1 Abrams sitting at the border.
Ensis Ferrae for President! 
here is that whole Posse Comitatus thing to be worried about, though with the rate of kidnappings and murders occurring on the border we'd probably be able to justify an exception under the Insurrection Act.
15894
Post by: Mistress of minis
Frazzled wrote:
Don't worry, once amnesty is given, they will be covered under Obamacare.
Well, Oblahblahcare makes people have to buy health insurance. So at least they'll have to pay for some of the services. And if they are given amnesty, as citizens they can then accrue debt just like the rest of us (and pay taxes!)
5534
Post by: dogma
The Green Git wrote:
here is that whole Posse Comitatus thing to be worried about, though with the rate of kidnappings and murders occurring on the border we'd probably be able to justify an exception under the Insurrection Act.
The Insurrection Act doesn't allow for a permanent deployment. However, since the border fence everyone has been discussing would need to be constructed on federally owned land, a military force operating there would be exempt from Posse Comitatus.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
... you know, it's funny, but people have been building boarder fences for a long time. Some are visible from space. None of them have worked yet. Just ask the Ming Dynasty.
24489
Post by: Orky-Kowboy
As an outsider, I have to say it seems strange that in the US both right-wingers and left-wingers have very strong ideas about the extent of government regulatory powers, but in practice both end up giving the government more and more authority over their lives. The problem of illegals is certainly dire. We have a similar situation here with illegal immigrants from Zimbabwe and other African countries. But the way in which the laws which deal with these problems are phrased and the potential for abuse of power they represent should be an issue of great concern. I mean, no offence but politicians aren't Boy Scouts, you really should react critically to any law that can impair your freedoms.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its not impairing our freedoms. It has more protections than the EXISTING FEDERAL LAW. Freedoms of illegal aliens yes.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
Orky-Kowboy wrote:I mean, no offense but politicians aren't Boy Scouts, you really should react critically to any law that can impair your freedoms.
100% agree. Our Founding Fathers recognized this and cautioned generations to come to keep government limited. As someone once said:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have".
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think this sums up a lot of the frustration on the border.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
The Big Alienation
Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
By PEGGY NOONAN
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."
It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."
All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.
This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.
None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.
Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.
Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.
Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.
But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.
Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."
He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.
The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.
The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.
But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?
No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.
In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.
Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.
Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.
If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.
The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.
Vote them out in 2010 and 2012. Viva La Bull Moose Party!
4977
Post by: jp400
Frazzled wrote:I think this sums up a lot of the frustration on the border.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
The Big Alienation
Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
By PEGGY NOONAN
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."
It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."
All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.
This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.
None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.
Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.
Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.
Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.
But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.
Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."
He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.
The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.
The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.
But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?
No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.
In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.
Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.
Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.
If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.
The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.
That sums it up pretty damn good. +1!
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
The real problem, though you'll never hear a politician (other then myself) admit it, is simply that the boarder is too large to effectively patrol. It's huge, and much of it difficult terrain to keep under observation.
Therefor: we annex Mexico. It solves the problem in one fell swoop. We shrink our southern boarder dramatically, we crush the drug trade, we force companies to buy American, and raise the standard wages in Mexico, so we don't have this problem, and improve the lives of the average Mexican citizen in the process as well.
The downside, of course, is that people might have to learn a second and third language for business, and 'Mexican' restaurants would have to become 'Southwest' Restaurants.
15894
Post by: Mistress of minis
BaronIveagh wrote:The real problem, though you'll never hear a politician (other then myself) admit it, is simply that the boarder is too large to effectively patrol. It's huge, and much of it difficult terrain to keep under observation.
Its not impossible to patrol. The government doesnt want to patrol it effectively due to the media image that militarizing the border would bring. And cost.
Eyes in the sky are more cost effective than planting thousands of agents/troops. You dont have to put a couple infantry battalions on the ground to patrol it. You know them drones that are flying over Iraq feeding intel to our troops? The same things can work on the border. You can even use simpler ones. Theres several electric/solar charged platforms that can remain aloft for a couple days. Most drones run pretty autonomously, and only alert the operator if theres an incursion.
Once an alert is made, if its a vehicle incursion they can track the vehicle and coordinate with local law enforcement. If its a foot incursion, the drone can show how many there are, so a single patrol agent doesnt show up when theres 50+ illegals, and a team of agents doesnt show up to grab 3 or 4. Having the right number of people in place at the right time, is one of the biggest challenges the border patrol has.
One option that may also be necesarry in the future, is providing an actual military element/deterrent. This is because of the cartels and their growing influence. These guys are no joke, theyre often well trained former military from a variety of countries, and theyre better armed than our border agents and local law enforcement. They've shown NO hesitation in Mexico about killing the ENTIRE families of police and politicians. If those guys start butting heads with our border agents, our guys will need help. In Arizona, theres a few military bases near the border, Fort Huachuca, the Yuma Marine Corp Air station, and a lil farther off is Davis Monthan and Luke Air Force bases. If the cartel thugs knew a couple Apaches from Fort Huachuca, or some angry Marine Cobras from Yuma were only a radio call (and 15-20 minutes) away, that might be a tangible deterrent(if they arent scared of the helos- roll the A-10's out of DM ). Sadly, it will take the deaths of many Americans to get to that point. I hate knowing the people enforcing the border to keep us safe are so overwhelmed, and get minimal support- and that many would have to die to show just how bad the situation has gotten.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
You do know that they run drones along the border, right?
Even with the UCAVs in the air--it's still a buttload of border to patrol, and drones do require refueling, etc.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:You do know that they run drones along the border, right?
Even with the UCAVs in the air--it's still a buttload of border to patrol, and drones do require refueling, etc.
So what? Its still cheaper then the constant killings going on in Arizona.
Here's an idea. Lets rescind all Homeland security expenditures related to North Carolina. If you're fine with an open border here, I'm fine with an open border there. Thats about fair.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Frazzled wrote:
Here's an idea. Lets rescind all Homeland security expenditures related to North Carolina. If you're fine with an open border here, I'm fine with an open border there. Thats about fair.
That's it, I'm building a border fence at the red river and change the bridge to a toll bridge.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You'd make some many if anyone actually wanted to go to Oklahoma.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote:Kanluwen wrote:You do know that they run drones along the border, right?
Even with the UCAVs in the air--it's still a buttload of border to patrol, and drones do require refueling, etc.
So what? Its still cheaper then the constant killings going on in Arizona.
Here's an idea. Lets rescind all Homeland security expenditures related to North Carolina. If you're fine with an open border here, I'm fine with an open border there. Thats about fair.
Did I say anything, whatsoever about cost?
No. I didn't. So please, don't try to put words in my mouth 
The point:
Even with them deploying drones along the border and even with them operating the drones 24/7 in support of the Border Patrol:
There is a delay between relaying the information and actually acting upon it. It's not realtime and there WILL be people who get by the Border Patrol even if they're alerted by the UAVs or directly controlling them.
Unless, of course, you're saying we should start having Hellfire armed drones circling the border and opening fire on anyone crossing at anywhere other than checkpoints.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Just pass a law to make everyone carry an ID card and have done with it.
As long as the police stop all racial groups at the statistically correct rate, there won't be any basis to accusations of racist bias.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Kilkrazy, I'm not sure if Arizona does. There was a Supreme Court decision several years ago and it was left up to the states to decide but there is no national requirement.
To my knowledge no state has such a requirement and I would argue that it would be against the 4th Amendment to require carrying an ID:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
Currently, police have the right to ask after a person's identity and may hold them for up to 24hours if their identity can not be established but the right is still with the person to not provide any identity verification if they so wish.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's silly to expect the police to ID people if people are not required to carry or have available a reliable form of ID.
Therefore an ID card scheme is needed and it must be nationwide or anyone wishing to evade it can siply say they live in a different state.
221
Post by: Frazzled
yep
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
jp400 wrote:Frazzled wrote:I think this sums up a lot of the frustration on the border.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
The Big Alienation
Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
By PEGGY NOONAN
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."
It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."
All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.
This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.
None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.
Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.
Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.
Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.
But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.
Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."
He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.
The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.
The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.
But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?
No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.
In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.
Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.
Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.
If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.
The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.
That sums it up pretty damn good. +1!
+10. My thoughts exactly on the situation.
5534
Post by: dogma
Mistress of minis wrote:
Eyes in the sky are more cost effective than planting thousands of agents/troops. You dont have to put a couple infantry battalions on the ground to patrol it.
You still need thousands of agents, with supporting tactical units, to cope with the sheer number of people crossing the border. UAVs don't stop people all by themselves, not unless the intent is arm them, which isn't a terrible idea under certain circumstances: not general patrol, but tactical support of units on the ground. Remember, ground forces don't move well over difficult terrain, so you need regular deployments along the border to ensure an acceptable response time. Not to mention places to base short range UAVs for extended tracking, as re-tasking the endurance models on extended patrol defeats the purpose of having them up there.
This all needs to be supplemented by ground based surveillance systems, in order to catch targets which the endurance UAVs miss while scanning the terrain. Of course, these will themselves require some degree of protection from sabotage.
And, even after all that, you still won't have a completely secure border. Earlier, I used the example of Israel vis a vis the Gaza Strip, and the problems they have in securing a border that's roughly 50 miles long. However, there are other steps that can be taken to help in that regard: enforcement of employment regulations, legalization and restriction of profitable narcotics, guest worker programs, and increasing the number of yearly legal immigrants, to name a few.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Just take every redneck in Tx, offer them a daily supply of beer and Tex-mex and pay for the ammo and let them shoot the illegals as they come across.
Vastly cheaper too. I and a few friends would even go down there to help.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
As a white guy of foreign descent (I'm actually English even though I speak like a Chicagoan) I just wanted to point out that the requirement for I.D. has long been a problem for me. I had my wallet stolen with my drivers license, social sec card, and green card in it.
That was all of my I.D. that means I fall through the cracks and cannot get another I.D. without furnishing 2 other forms of I.D. (immigration department is pretty anal about that and you always get the inevitable answer "well since 9/11". Funny how the cops can I.D. you in a random traffic stop and even tell you your DL number, but the desk jockeys at immigration just tell you you have to go to social security, who then tell you to go to immigration, who then close their shop because you have been waiting in line for 8 hours... repeat the next day.
Several hours of lines later and $800 dollars in fees after being homeless and employed under the table by necessity since I had no social security card, I finally got 'legit' again, with a passport I actually had to go to Europe to get and use my company's lawyer to pull the strings, I finally had my British passport... step 1 complete.
$400 dollars and many months later I got a re-issued greencard, this after unsuccessfully attempting a border crossing in Canada because I didn't have the paperwork to get back in (at the time I didn't want to), however if I was NOT a permanent resident status, they would have let me in no questions asked because I am British, and the commonwealth is like that.
The reason I was turned away at the border was because I was a LEGAL alien without my greencard. If I was an illegal Englishman they would have let me right on through. (which incidentally a simple greencard takes about a year to process, when the cops can I.D. you in 2 minutes at a traffic stop... hmmm... communication?)
So yeah... immigration law is screwy in the first place. I couldn't get back to my apartment and had to spend a week in Rome waiting for my embassy appointment just to get a stamp on my passport so I could actually get on a plane back to NYC.
These people are not 'invaders' to be feared (anyone can rear-end your girl's minivan and not have insurance @OP doesn't have to be a mexican, just in that case it was) They are coming over here for work at jobs that need to be done. United Statesians take their citizenship for granted, and like to scapegoat those who weren't born here with their economic failings, poor life decisions, or perhaps just general laziness. If I had to, I would husk corn or pick tomatoes for $2 an hour, but thats because I've been there... through no fault of my own, just by the simple fact of having my wallet stolen.
Evidently having your wallet stolen is punishable by 5 years of illegal employment and about $2000 worth of expenses to get myself to exist again. Not cool to tack a fine on to that. Actually just plainly dumb. How would you pay a fine if you are not technically allowed to work?
Dumb I tell you.
Get rid of borders and let people find work where they can says I.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
@Fateweaver-
Hey, there are a lot of Texas rednecks that do not want the border closed.
We know that borders are not made soley to keep people out but are just as often made to keep people in.
We also realize what would happen to the economy should every illegal suddenly be deported.
Edit for poster notification
221
Post by: Frazzled
Guitardian wrote:They are coming over here for work at jobs that need to be done. United Statesians take their citizenship for granted, and like to scapegoat those who weren't born here with their economic failings, poor life decisions, or perhaps just general laziness.
1. Except for the criminals of course, the ones robbing, killing, kidnapping, and raping, but yea other than those guys you're right.
2. Those jobs used to be worked by US citizens. Again, you cannot on the one hand argue for a minimum wage, while on the other hand having an open border.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Understandable. I don't like minimum wage either. If I am willing to work for a buck that's my decision. Minimum wage actually causes unemployment because (frinstance) a McDonalds that used to hire 30 people now hires 25 because they can't afford the min wage for 30 and still keep their numbers in the black.
If someone offers me 5 bucks to do something and I need money I'll take the money and do the job. Many people work under the table, it need not be illegals even. I was legal and still had to work under table because of the requirement for paperwork. And I always paid my taxes too, whether or not it was "taxation without representation" (woot go tea party!)
(edit to add)
Oh yeah... why fear foreign criminals robbing/killing/kidnapping/raping when we have plenty here? You don't believe me you're welcome to come visit me in Detroit. And those people are U.S. Citizens.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
focusedfire wrote:@Fateweaver-
Hey, there are a lot of Texas rednecks that do not want the border closed.
We know that borders are not made soley to keep people out but are just as often made to keep people in.
We also realize what would happen to the economy should every illegal suddenly be deported.
Edit for poster notification
It would get better?
Seriously, the ones not over here to work are a drain on the economy. Hell, the ones working over here are a drain on the economy because of how they abuse the system. Stop providing social programs for illegals and that money could go back into medicare or medicaid or use it to help fund the border patrol.
Law enforcement officials and even innocent civilians have been killed by illegals trying to sneak into Arizona. Close the damn border I say. Again, I'll do border patrol for beer and tex-mex and ammo reimbursement.
5534
Post by: dogma
The real incentive in hiring illegals isn't so much that they will work for less than minimum wage, though in many cases they certainly do. Rather, hiring an illegal means paying under the table, which means not paying payroll taxes.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Frazzled wrote:1. Except for the criminals of course, the ones robbing, killing, kidnapping, and raping, but yea other than those guys you're right.
2. Those jobs used to be worked by US citizens. Again, you cannot on the one hand argue for a minimum wage, while on the other hand having an open border.
1)That is fear mongering Fraz. Please tell me you have not succumb to the media inspired woosification of this nation by indulging in the fear based thought process. Honestly, There is no legitimate study that has proven immigrants are any more likely to commit crimes than say citizens with lower income. This is a hot button topic that is being used to generate xenophobic thought patterns within our populace.
2)What Jobs, Frazz? The ones that everyone gripes about having been sent to mexico and other countries. These people come up here chasing outdated job information and hoping that the U.S. lives up to its propoganda of being a freer nation than the ones they are leaving. When they get here, they go to work doing jobs that the local citizenry are unwilling to do and for poeple that are unwilling/unable to pay what the current socialist laws dictate.
I have no problems with immigration because I refuse to be afraid of any group of people. If an individual comes over here and screws up, deal with him. If he flees the country, then find him. If there is no extradition, then find out what we are doing that people do not trust our judicial system.
21678
Post by: Karon
Don't know if anyone noticed this, but, the law DOES say that you can say "No" to the officer, or "Yes, I am here legally" and he can't do anything about it.
Loopholes ahoy!
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
It's not necessarily about fear. It's about cutting the problem off at it's source.
If your neighbors dog keeps getting into your chickens and killing them you don't get rid of the chickens just to keep the dog away; you call the dog pound or in some states you should the sumbitch.
The best way to prevent the problems that come with letting illegals into the country is to cut the problem off at it's source. Tighten border security and keep them out, NOT change the laws of the US to accommodate the people breaking US laws.
I think the fear lies not in those wanting the border closed but that it lies in the people wanting to have an "open" border out of fear of what the rest of the world thinks of us.
In 1787 the US gave the finger to the British. In 2010 the US is now sucking the man-pole of every country in existence.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Fateweaver wrote:
Seriously, the ones not over here to work are a drain on the economy. Hell, the ones working over here are a drain on the economy because of how they abuse the system. Stop providing social programs for illegals and that money could go back into medicare or medicaid or use it to help fund the border patrol.
Law enforcement officials and even innocent civilians have been killed by illegals trying to sneak into Arizona. Close the damn border I say. Again, I'll do border patrol for beer and tex-mex and ammo reimbursement.
1)Do not agree that Illegals working here are a drain on the economy, to much evidence to the contrary.
2)Agree, absolutely. Get rid of the social welfare programs. Not just for the illegals, either.
3)And innocent people are being killed in the desert by law enforcement and military. Something does need to be done but erecting a high-tech version of the Iron Curtain is not the way to go.
4)Beer and Ammo, huh. This last line indicates the effect of the modern media campain on this subject. You have just as much admitted that you do not equate these people as to being human but would treat this as sport hunting. THIS, is why we must back away from this xenophobic thought process.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Your argument is irrelevant. You're confusing immigration with ILLEGAL immigration.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Death to all Xenos. Die Eldar scum. Oh, wrong xenos.
Perhaps, maybe if the illegals, you know, walked up to the border gate and said "I'd like to become a citizen here; tell me what I must do" then perhaps we wouldn't need to risk US men and women on protecting an invisible line in the sand.
Fine, if AZ wants to pay me actual money I'd take that too. Afterall, I could use a job.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
@Frazz-
Not confusing the two. No credible studies have pointed to the percentages being higher per capita. Anyone claiming other wise would be claiming to know the exact number of illegals in the country and no one has that number.
Legislating out of fear is a bad idea and never irrelevant.
@Fateweaver-Many of the illegals have done just that. Thing is we have Immigration limits that are somewhat outdated. The whole process does need overhauling, I'm just not a fan of the unrealistic zero immigrant levels the current political enviroment would foster.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Not legislating out of fear of what others think of you is a bad idea to.
AZ got it right. Perhaps the rest of the US should follow suit.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:It's not necessarily about fear. It's about cutting the problem off at it's source.
If your neighbors dog keeps getting into your chickens and killing them you don't get rid of the chickens just to keep the dog away; you call the dog pound or in some states you should the sumbitch.
The best way to prevent the problems that come with letting illegals into the country is to cut the problem off at it's source. Tighten border security and keep them out, NOT change the laws of the US to accommodate the people breaking US laws.
Per that analogy, cutting the problem off at its source would involve the invasion of Mexico, or at least efforts to develop its economy. In any case, it is certainly possible for present laws to be the root of the problem, rather than the people breaking them. I'm not arguing that's the case here, but its certainly been the case in the past.
Fateweaver wrote:
I think the fear lies not in those wanting the border closed but that it lies in the people wanting to have an "open" border out of fear of what the rest of the world thinks of us.
There are many reasons for favoring an open border. One is concern with respect to human rights abuses. Another is a desire for open borders everywhere. The economic benefits, net and/or otherwise, of illegals are a third.
International opinion may also be a concern, but I don't imagine its very far up the hierarchy.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
International opinion wasn't a huge concern to the conservative Presidents (Both Dubyas and RR didn't give a gak what the world thought of our policies).
It's only been Clinton and the big O who have started sucking the man-poles of other countries.
Human rights, sadly enough, are abused in regards to citizens of the US. It doesn't last long for obvious reasons but it does exist.
The problem with an open border is that not while everyone coming into the country would be unlawful enough of them would to still cause problems.
I mean you could leave your house unlocked while at work and while you might not have a problem with thieves you are also encouraging thieves to take advantage of your generosity and kindness.
That is what attracts illegals in the first place to the US. A huge part of the attraction is the jobs and the social programs that ensure they live an alright life even though they have no business being here.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
@Fateweaver-
If enough people are screaming that you are going the wrong way maybe it is time to lift the nationalist blind fold and seriously look at where your standing.
Like your stance on the AZ law. It was to fight policies exactly like this I joined the military. Watching this country turn into a Police State of this magnitude is very difficult for those of us who fought against such.
Edit composition
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Letting it go to the dogs is why I'm all for the AZ immigration law.
Perhaps if the Federal government were to do something about it then AZ wouldn't feel it had to take up the slack.
Most of my friends are conservative militants and they are all for a bill like this. It's not turning the country into a police state, it's the states doing what the Constitution allows them to do. Make their own laws when the Federal government can't or won't do it's job.
If Eisenhower hadn't ordered the nuking of Hiroshima things would have been a lot worst for Japan and the US. It didn't make us popular but then again Eisenhower wasn't worried about giving handjobs to the rest of the world either.
The one critique I have of Bush is that he had the same attitude about immigration as Billy Boy. He did nothing about it.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:International opinion wasn't a huge concern to the conservative Presidents (Both Dubyas and RR didn't give a gak what the world thought of our policies).
It's only been Clinton and the big O who have started sucking the man-poles of other countries.
That's nonsense.
Reagan was very heavily influenced by international opinion, as were all Cold War Presidents. Clinton didn't really allow himself to be influenced by international pressure, at least not domestically, his international choices (especially vis a vis the Middle East) were so affected, but that's the case with all international decisions. And Obama has only been influenced internationally in the sense that he uses conciliatory rhetoric. Most of his policies regarding international affairs are closely tied to those of the Bush administration. The only reason that Bush was seen as insensitive is the Iraq debacle, in other regards he was no different from Clinton; not withstanding the rhetorical shift, of course.
Fateweaver wrote:
Human rights, sadly enough, are abused in regards to citizens of the US. It doesn't last long for obvious reasons but it does exist.
That doesn't mean that we should allow the human rights of others to be abused. Or that we should create laws which would enhance the abuses against US citizens.
Fateweaver wrote:
The problem with an open border is that not while everyone coming into the country would be unlawful enough of them would to still cause problems.
I mean you could leave your house unlocked while at work and while you might not have a problem with thieves you are also encouraging thieves to take advantage of your generosity and kindness.
That is what attracts illegals in the first place to the US. A huge part of the attraction is the jobs and the social programs that ensure they live an alright life even though they have no business being here.
Mexico has a lower unemployment rate than the United States. The issue they have is underemployment, due largely to the absence of effective social programs and other amenities. Wage increases from coming to America are largely offset by higher costs. The solution then is to place citizenship controls on social services offered here; locking the door as it were. We can also place controls on employment, but that is deleterious to market competition. That's the argument which is frequently offered, anyway.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
So you are saying no social programs for illegals, only the legals?
While that's a better solution the welfare system in it's current state is a joke (and no I don't mean UI. Those benefits are harder to obtain then the rest of the gak that makes up the welfare system).
Like I said, neither Bush handled the immigration problem very well (or not at all). PresBO is doing the same. It's about damn time someone stepped up and did their job. Kind of sad it had to be a state governor.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:
The one critique I have of Bush is that he had the same attitude about immigration as Billy Boy. He did nothing about it.
Actually, he doubled the size of the Border Patrol and started the ball rolling on the US-Mexico barrier.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
It really obviously wasn't enough.
You have to start somewhere but what he did hasn't had any real discernible effect.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:So you are saying no social programs for illegals, only the legals?
While that's a better solution the welfare system in it's current state is a joke (and no I don't mean UI. Those benefits are harder to obtain then the rest of the gak that makes up the welfare system).
Yes, no social programs for illegals.
Fateweaver wrote:
Like I said, neither Bush handled the immigration problem very well (or not at all). PresBO is doing the same. It's about damn time someone stepped up and did their job. Kind of sad it had to be a state governor.
Well, assuming we consider this law to be a positive measure, and I'm not saying it isn't (though I will say that it will lead to racial discrimination), the cooperation of state law enforcement would be necessary for border security. There's no way to keep everyone from crossing, and it seems silly to create a Federal agency to patrol the streets looking for illegals when existing police forces can do the job. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fateweaver wrote:It really obviously wasn't enough.
You have to start somewhere but what he did hasn't had any real discernible effect.
That's debatable. I'm not sure what the statistics on benign border crossing currently are, they may have dropped. But what I do know is that, when challenged by law enforcement, criminal groups with a profit motive generally become more violent. Its likely that the increase in resistance to illegal crossings lead directly to the surge in violence in border states. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't attempt to secure the border.
Also, the border wall has been held up in Congress by both Republicans, and Democrats. Both groups want to revise the plan
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
My cousin was driving to visit a friend on the Navajo Nation, when he saw a boy laying by the side of the road. The car ahead of him did not even slow down. He stopped, and took the boy to the hospital. He was told there that the boy was dehydrated, and probably illegal, and that by helping the child, my cousin had committed a crime. However, the doctor said, the hospital would not report him for it.
My question is: How is this moral? How can anyone call themselves an American, a patriot, or a Christian that would mandate a law to leave children die by the side of the road?
“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same." - Gospel of Luke
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" - Inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Look, it's simple: Jobs need done, people are willing to work them and people are willing to pay them. Paperwork just gets in the way and leads to bureaucrats getting full time jobs being completely unhelpful because they have a state job so they just don't care, they got theirs already. Some Mexican lady who 'sneaks over the border just to gak her kid out' taking food stamps shouldn't be pissing you guys off. Plenty of trash who were born here live off of food stamps (or sell them under table) and I still pay my taxes and don't begrudge them. How are you going to deny somebody FOOD or the ability to WORK FOR YOU AND MAKE YOU MONEY unless you are just too nationalistic or racist or just a douche.
Who's gonna build the giant fence across texas anyways if you kick out all the mexicans?
The arguement that they are illegal is bunk, because plenty of legal people here are also doing illegal things regularly.
The arguement that it costs 'us' tax money to support 'them' is also bunk because if you haven't noticed your latest paycheck... quite a sum is taken out that is given to social sec checks to useless grouchy old bastards who don't help me in the slightest.
The arguement for national security is just hunters with little dicks and big guns wanting to be manly. You are never going to stop me from crossing a border if I am determined enough, and can blend in when I get there, I don't give a damn how many drones or border patrol people are keeping watch. Wanna talk about waste of tax money, and immigrants costing the American jobs and gak, how much wasted tax money is wasted on these friggin drones and border cops who serve no purpose other than to be scrutinizing donkey-caves to beaners.
Arizona sucks. I've been there. The cops are jerks in the first place... and this was my experience before I had my skin changed to mexican color, and still talked like a white dude.
Eat yer taco bell and get over yourselves you Arizona bumpkins.
5534
Post by: dogma
Guitardian wrote:
Who's gonna build the giant fence across texas anyways if you kick out all the mexicans?
Another argument against the wall focuses on the way physical barriers tend to force people to those who are willing to work to circumvent them. In Gaza those people are Hamas, in Mexico those people are the cartels. If the issues of human and drug trafficking, along with the accompanying violent activity, are thought to be bad now, then I can only imagine what will be thought if the problem worsens.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Four words Mr. Gorbachev... "tear down that wall", right?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
2 words Mr. Obama:
"Double tap"
18176
Post by: Guitardian
I don't think Arizona and the Mexico border are anything to do with President Obama, although it does seem quite trendy lately to blame the administration. That's why my Ramen Noodles cost 3 cents more and why we are at war with invisible enemies half the world away and why 'dey tuk are jerbs' and why Walmart customers are fat and so on, right?
Arizona has a big capita of rich retired old white people, and idiot college kids who quite probably were raised by such. I've seen Mesa, Phoenix, and Flagstaff and its the same each time. The people with the voices live in the dense areas, the people it affects work out in the sticks, and their presence angers the "true" Americans (HA! what a concept!) whether or not there is a definite cause and effect provable. It's always easier to grab a gun and keep dem dang fererners out, because they are OBVIOUSLY the reason why I get about a quarter of my paycheck taken so it can be given to those very same rich retired old people and spoiled college kids, right?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?
I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.
The ones opposed say it'll lead to more prejudice. Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?
18176
Post by: Guitardian
We are all here illegally. Maybe if you were 'technically' illegal for a while you would realise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
People down in AZ and TX and NM are often brownish. Their cops aren't, and the people in their larger cities aren't. Is it any wonder it's fairly obvious I could drive through there with my chicago/brit accent and get away with it but Jose Sanchez doesn't have that luxury. Cop sees a beaner drive by and thinks "cool... another potential ticket for my quota". Sorry I don't trust cops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the brown dude is not running polygraph tests chances are. "PROVE ME WRONG BY MY OWN CRITERIA" is not that smart.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hell when it comes down to it, I am a European here LEGALY who would prefer not to see other Europeans here illegally. The problem is redefining what is legal and illegal because I have dealt this ever since my P's brought me here when I was TWO. 33 years of payin taxes, attending school, workin jobs, etc and you want to know what's LEGAL?! how bout gimme my money back you jerks! I never got a DIME! I can pay in, just not take out. You wanna call 'legal' because that's the law I say that's pawn-speak. Laws change when people finally realize how fethed up they are (civil rights movement anyone?).
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
The question is also: How do they tell the difference between a brownish Mexican here illegally without ID and a brownish Native American, who under the law, aren't required to carry ID?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Again, there is going to be "TFG" cop who will pull over a beaner for being a beaner.
But "TFG" probably won't last long if the department gets too many complaints about him/her.
I still don't see the issue. I have to be 21 to buy booze but most bars/liquor stores actually require employees to card buyers if they appear to be 30 or less (or sometimes 40 or less) just as a precaution (since sometimes college kids can appear older than they are). I get carded for alcohol a lot because I don't appear 40.
Know how I get around it? I make sure I have my proper ID at all times. Granted I won't go to prison for it but it's still the same idea.
If MN passed a law saying that if I don't have my DL on me when I'm pulled over I go to jail do you know what I'd do? I'd make damn sure that even if I was taking a quick jaunt to the convenience store that is 1 mile down the road I'd have my DL on me.
Again, far as I know a proper ID is a Visa or a state issued ID. You aren't carrying around Websters Unabridged dictionary so there is no excuse to not have one on you at all times if you have one to begin with.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
TFG makes lieutennant in AZ. The minority that get to vote see to it. (look up sherriff joe, maricopa county) What if you lose all your stuff? I've been robbed before... where's your answer to that fate?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Not sure the impossibility of getting a replacement but I have to assume once you have a legal Visa or state ID it's in the system. Not hard to prove you had one at some point so a replacement might take some time and some extra money.
My DL gets stolen I just go to DMV, tell them what happened, sign some papers and in 10 days I have a new one.
Not too many racist cops get promoted to lieutenant. Most are ousted real fast.
So again I ask is it really the fear of "TFG" or is it that you think them dern fereners should be able to enter this country free of will without having to become citizens first?
If it's the first I'm sure it's not going to be any bigger of an issue than it already is; if it's the second well then I can't take you seriously anymore with that thinking.
TFG is TFG right now, even before the law takes effect. TFG is out now pulling "beaners" over just for the sake of them being beaners. The difference is in July the beaners not here legally go back to mexico.
I still don't see the problem (and no, I'm not blind to the fact they are stereotyped). The law WON'T change the number of "TFG's".
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?
I think, in general, people who are against the bill fall into two camps.
1. They don't believe the bill will be effective in addressing the problem of illegal immigration.
2. They consider immigration laws to be tough enough as is, and see the issue as one of poor enforcement.
Fateweaver wrote:
Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?
That's impossible to prove without data. First there would have to be hard numbers on the number of detentions which turned out to be unnecessary.
5470
Post by: sebster
Karon wrote:Don't know if anyone noticed this, but, the law DOES say that you can say "No" to the officer, or "Yes, I am here legally" and he can't do anything about it.
Loopholes ahoy!
Good ol' Sheriff Arpaio has said if someone tries that he'll find something to arrest them for.
Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps, maybe if the illegals, you know, walked up to the border gate and said "I'd like to become a citizen here; tell me what I must do" then perhaps we wouldn't need to risk US men and women on protecting an invisible line in the sand.
Yeah, if only people would spontaneously stop trying to move to a new location to earn more money. Damn that personal incentive that underpins the entirety of the market economy!
Or perhaps, maybe the companies, you know, didn't employ illegals then you wouldn't have US men and women protecting an invisible line in the sand.
Unfortunately that doesn't fit very well with the guns & ammo and tough on crime like a manly, manly country approach, and so it will continue to be sidelined.
Fateweaver wrote:2 words Mr. Obama:
"Double tap"
Dude, settle down with the crazy. I'm pretty sure you're skirting the borders of a crime there, if nothing else.
Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?
No, the point is there are less costly, less troublesome ways of controlling illegal entry. Unfortunately these aren't tough on crime solutions and therefore don't appeal to popular sentiment.
I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.
Actually, it'd be like if you were coming in to my house illegally at night to clean my pool and do with dishes and all the stuff the people in my house didn't want to do. It's just that, instead of building a wall around the house, I'd think the best solution would be tell the other people living in my house to stop paying you for showing up.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Double tap phrase was meant to be toward illegals, not a borderline death threat on the president.
Don't like the guy as Pres but sure as hell don't want him dead.
5470
Post by: sebster
Fateweaver wrote:Double tap phrase was meant to be toward illegals, not a borderline death threat on the president.
Don't like the guy as Pres but sure as hell don't want him dead.
Fair enough, not close to a crime then. About as crazy, but not a crime.
You didn't respond to my point on your home entry analogy. You should.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
You raise a fair point but you forget about the social programs that they abuse.
Making it impossible for illegals to work in this country (and it is illegal to hire them) would reduce the number but you honestly think they are living on $2/hour to mow someones lawn?
Cut off the welfare program for illegals and they might leave. Of course most of your hardcore leftists/humanitarians would complain about that too.
Again, until this law has been in effect for a few years nobody can know how fairly or unfairly "brownies" will be treated.
The reason for the opposition is fear. TFG exists right now. Will there be more "TFG's" because of the law? Maybe but no one knows. Opponents have nothing to stand on because I'm pretty sure no human can predict the future.
It'd take way more resources and money to closely monitor EVERY business in those states to make sure employers aren't hiring illegals than it would to make the border more secure. Of course we know the feds won't do that because so long as that airhead Napalitono keeps telling BO that the border is secure he'll keep buying her BS. I mean, you'd trust your head of security and defense, right?
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Fateweaver wrote:
Again, until this law has been in effect for a few years nobody can know how fairly or unfairly "brownies" will be treated.
... well... dunno, about Arizona, but New York it means you can be taken and beaten by several NYS Troopers for being brown (native, as opposed to African American or Hispanic). They can also kill you without facing charges. Or even being reprimanded. (Trooper Sean Pierce was unusual in that there was an investigation at all. Then again, shooting a man five times in the back and then refusing to allow the ambulances to go to his victem while his vic bled out in a field may have been a bit much. Got Bucky?)
And they complain because they're no longer permitted on our sovereign territory.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?
I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.
The ones opposed say it'll lead to more prejudice. Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?
1) Nice attempt to set the paradigm's for what the people who disagree with you believe.
To answer the question-No, A lot of us are against the bill because it is a violation of the very fabric upon what our free republic was built. What AZ is in effect attempting, is to operate as a soveriegn state under a form of martial law where the police are allowed to act as a para-military force that does not have to follow the basic rules of civil law and can circumvent habeas corpus for indeterminate periods of time. This is a guilty until proven innocent law and that is not right.
2)Nice smear tactic but I've already covered that no credible study has been made that proves illegals are any more prone to criminal behavior than legal immigrants or native citizens from low income areas.
Your question seems to state that a criminal behavior from native citizens is more acceptable than from other groups. Is this what you are saying? That a murder wouldn't be as bad if committed by someone who was born in the country?
3)Your own words earlier about the beer and ammo have answered your last question. It may or may not increase the numbers of racists but it will create an enviroment where those who have those tendencies will feel free to act forcefully towards those percieved as illegal immigrants. Case in point, a few years back some marines working the border in Texas shot and killed a Hispanic Texas Native.
Fateweaver wrote:Again, there is going to be "TFG" cop who will pull over a beaner for being a beaner.
Your free use of this particular vernacular leaves you open to accusations of being a racist. Just thought that I would warn you before others jump your case about it. I assume that you were talking from the cops POV but there are others here who might not see it as such.
Fateweaver wrote:I still don't see the issue. I have to be 21 to buy booze but most bars/liquor stores actually require employees to card buyers if they appear to be 30 or less (or sometimes 40 or less) just as a precaution (since sometimes college kids can appear older than they are). I get carded for alcohol a lot because I don't appear 40.
Know how I get around it? I make sure I have my proper ID at all times. Granted I won't go to prison for it but it's still the same idea.
Actually they are completely different ideas as one is a state law regulating a misdemeanor and the other is a state attempting to regulate international immigration.
The misdemeanor still has to follow the basic laws that protoct your civil rights where the AZ law would be able to ignore those rights.
Fateweaver wrote:If MN passed a law saying that if I don't have my DL on me when I'm pulled over I go to jail do you know what I'd do? I'd make damn sure that even if I was taking a quick jaunt to the convenience store that is 1 mile down the road I'd have my DL on me.
Again, far as I know a proper ID is a Visa or a state issued ID. You aren't carrying around Websters Unabridged dictionary so there is no excuse to not have one on you at all times if you have one to begin with.
You will have your ID on you 24/7 no matter what? You will never lose your ID, have it stolen, suffer a personal tragedy where it gets destroyed, or just plain forget it?
One heckuva gated community you live in.
So in essence you believe that we should model our internal security after other prominent police states by requiring papers.
You know, the commies are trying to take back the former U.S.S.R. and they might be hiring. Think about it.
Fateweaver wrote:Not sure the impossibility of getting a replacement but I have to assume once you have a legal Visa or state ID it's in the system. Not hard to prove you had one at some point so a replacement might take some time and some extra money.
My DL gets stolen I just go to DMV, tell them what happened, sign some papers and in 10 days I have a new one.
Can tell you have never moved state to state and have no world traveling experience. There are states that will not accept others states ID's as valid proof of identity. Seriously. CO will not accept another states ID as valid if it uses your middle initial.....Even if your middle names is only an initial. Women have to bring in all marriage and divorce certificates if attempting to move state to state. Despite what they've shown you on TV it can take days to establish your identity. Sorry to disenchant you if you tought all those cop shows were telling the complete truth. Also, States sometimes loose the information:
Know a trucker that Fla lost the packet from tennessee after Ten had removed him from their state records but before entering him into the Fla. database. That was a month and a half lost going in circles.
Fateweaver wrote:Not too many racist cops get promoted to lieutenant. Most are ousted real fast.
So again I ask is it really the fear of "TFG" or is it that you think them dern fereners should be able to enter this country free of will without having to become citizens first?
I still don't see the problem (and no, I'm not blind to the fact they are stereotyped). The law WON'T change the number of "TFG's".
1)Statement is full of fail as can be proven by the number of problems Harris Co. Texas has had with Sherrifs and police being involved in scandals dealing with such.
2)Again I will refer you to my prior answer of this question.
3)Covered at the top of the post.
Edit spelling and spacing
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Fateweaver wrote:It's not necessarily about fear. It's about cutting the problem off at it's source.
If your neighbors dog keeps getting into your chickens and killing them you don't get rid of the chickens just to keep the dog away; you call the dog pound or in some states you should the sumbitch.
The best way to prevent the problems that come with letting illegals into the country is to cut the problem off at it's source. Tighten border security and keep them out, NOT change the laws of the US to accommodate the people breaking US laws.
I think the fear lies not in those wanting the border closed but that it lies in the people wanting to have an "open" border out of fear of what the rest of the world thinks of us.
In 1787 the US gave the finger to the British. In 2010 the US is now sucking the man-pole of every country in existence.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
5470
Post by: sebster
Fateweaver wrote:You raise a fair point but you forget about the social programs that they abuse.
No, I didn't forget that. I think it is perfectly reasonable to restrict social programs to people who are part of your country. Emergency medical treatment is a different matter, the whole thing about 'emergency' is that you already have to be in the country.
Making it impossible for illegals to work in this country (and it is illegal to hire them) would reduce the number but you honestly think they are living on $2/hour to mow someones lawn?
Yes. They are. It is amazing how little money it takes to live off the grid.
Do you honestly believe they're working for less than a living wage and making up the difference with sweeping abuses of social programs?
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Yes. They are. It is amazing how little money it takes to live off the grid.
Do you honestly believe they're working for less than a living wage and making up the difference with sweeping abuses of social programs?
Well... migrant workers in construction usually make more than minimum wage, but the standard pay for legit staff is easily twice that. I honestly never had much of a problem finding work before the recession hit. There were up and down times, had to scrape together moving jobs and what not; but I certainly wasn't running into all that much competition from illegal immigrants.
5470
Post by: sebster
Fateweaver wrote:It's not necessarily about fear. It's about cutting the problem off at it's source.
If your neighbors dog keeps getting into your chickens and killing them you don't get rid of the chickens just to keep the dog away; you call the dog pound or in some states you should the sumbitch.
Yeah, and the dog that comes in and kills chickens should be arrested, face trial and punished to the full extent of the law.
But most of the dogs coming across the border are coming across to mow chicken's lawns and work on the chicken's farms. The answer there is to punish chickens who pay dogs to work for them.
It's a lot easier than building a wall a little under 2,000 miles long. Or stopping a whole lot of dogs in the expectation some of them might be illegal dogs.
I think the fear lies not in those wanting the border closed but that it lies in the people wanting to have an "open" border out of fear of what the rest of the world thinks of us.
No, that's silly. This idea of yours, 'everything secretly knows that the things I think are bad are really bad, they just want to please nebulous outside parties' is anti-thought and really needs to go away if you're going to start forming reasonable ideas. Automatically Appended Next Post: Wrexasaur wrote:Well... migrant workers in construction usually make more than minimum wage, but the standard pay for legit staff is easily twice that. I honestly never had much of a problem finding work before the recession hit. There were up and down times, had to scrape together moving jobs and what not; but I certainly wasn't running into all that much competition from illegal immigrants.
And a whole lot of that money goes back into Mexico. The point remains if you aren't paying a mortgage or insurance, or spending money on consumer crap living can be really, really cheap.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
And a whole lot of that money goes back into Mexico.
I have no idea how much money illegal immigrants send to Mexico.
The point remains if you aren't paying a mortgage or insurance, or spending money on consumer crap living can be really, really cheap.
It depends on where you are living, and in California, it isn't very cheap. It turns out to be pretty expensive.
If people can live in large groups, it does get much cheaper. All I know is that very few people are finding work nowadays, and I don't feel like illegal immigrants have a huge advantage over me.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
focusedfire wrote:Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?
I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.
The ones opposed say it'll lead to more prejudice. Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?
1) Nice attempt to set the paradigm's for what the people who disagree with you believe.
To answer the question-No, A lot of us are against the bill because it is a violation of the very fabric upon what our free republic was built. What AZ is in effect attempting, is to operate as a soveriegn state under a form of martial law where the police are allowed to act as a para-military force that does not have to follow the basic rules of civil law and can circumvent habeas corpus for indeterminate periods of time. This is a guilty until proven innocent law and that is not right.
2)Nice smear tactic but I've already covered that no credible study has been made that proves illegals are any more prone to criminal behavior than legal immigrants or native citizens from low income areas.
Your question seems to state that a criminal behavior from native citizens is more acceptable than from other groups. Is this what you are saying? That a murder wouldn't be as bad if committed by someone who was born in the country?
3)Your own words earlier about the beer and ammo have answered your last question. It may or may not increase the numbers of racists but it will create an enviroment where those who have those tendencies will feel free to act forcefully towards those percieved as illegal immigrants. Case in point, a few years back some marines working the border in Texas shot and killed a Hispanic Texas Native.
Fateweaver wrote:Again, there is going to be "TFG" cop who will pull over a beaner for being a beaner.
Your free use of this particular vernacular leaves you open to accusations of being a racist. Just thought that I would warn you before others jump your case about it. I assume that you were talking from the cops POV but there are others here who might not see it as such.
Fateweaver wrote:I still don't see the issue. I have to be 21 to buy booze but most bars/liquor stores actually require employees to card buyers if they appear to be 30 or less (or sometimes 40 or less) just as a precaution (since sometimes college kids can appear older than they are). I get carded for alcohol a lot because I don't appear 40.
Know how I get around it? I make sure I have my proper ID at all times. Granted I won't go to prison for it but it's still the same idea.
Actually they are completely different ideas as one is a state law regulating a misdemeanor and the other is a state attempting to regulate international immigration.
The misdemeanor still has to follow the basic laws that protoct your civil rights where the AZ law would be able to ignore those rights.
Fateweaver wrote:If MN passed a law saying that if I don't have my DL on me when I'm pulled over I go to jail do you know what I'd do? I'd make damn sure that even if I was taking a quick jaunt to the convenience store that is 1 mile down the road I'd have my DL on me.
Again, far as I know a proper ID is a Visa or a state issued ID. You aren't carrying around Websters Unabridged dictionary so there is no excuse to not have one on you at all times if you have one to begin with.
You will have your ID on you 24/7 no matter what? You will never lose your ID, have it stolen, suffer a personal tragedy where it gets destroyed, or just plain forget it?
One heckuva gated community you live in.
So in essence you believe that we should model our internal security after other prominent police states by requiring papers.
You know, the commies are trying to take back the former U.S.S.R. and they might be hiring. Think about it.
Fateweaver wrote:Not sure the impossibility of getting a replacement but I have to assume once you have a legal Visa or state ID it's in the system. Not hard to prove you had one at some point so a replacement might take some time and some extra money.
My DL gets stolen I just go to DMV, tell them what happened, sign some papers and in 10 days I have a new one.
Can tell you have never moved state to state and have no world traveling experience. There are states that will not accept others states ID's as valid proof of identity. Seriously. CO will not accept another states ID as valid if it uses your middle initial.....Even if your middle names is only an initial. Women have to bring in all marriage and divorce certificates if attempting to move state to state. Despite what they've shown you on TV it can take days to establish your identity. Sorry to disenchant you if you tought all those cop shows were telling the complete truth. Also, States sometimes loose the information:
Know a trucker that Fla lost the packet from tennessee after Ten had removed him from their state records but before entering him into the Fla. database. That was a month and a half lost going in circles.
Fateweaver wrote:Not too many racist cops get promoted to lieutenant. Most are ousted real fast.
So again I ask is it really the fear of "TFG" or is it that you think them dern fereners should be able to enter this country free of will without having to become citizens first?
I still don't see the problem (and no, I'm not blind to the fact they are stereotyped). The law WON'T change the number of "TFG's".
1)Statement is full of fail as can be proven by the number of problems Harris Co. Texas has had with Sherrifs and police bbeing involved in scandals dealing with such.
2)Again I will refer you to my prior answer of this question.
3)Covered t the top of the post.
1) AZ is doing what the constitution allows it to do. The Federal governments job is to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. Not all mexican immigrants are violent criminals but the illegal ones are here illegally, obviously. The Constitution gives states the power to form their own laws and regulations unless they are needed by the Federal government. AZ is exercising it's constitutional authority to act in behalf of the betterment of it's state and citizens. It is not operating under martial law. The revised bill strictly lays out was is acceptable and what is not. False arrests will not be tolerated. Will it always fly? Of course not, even my city has crooked cops but it seems to me as if AZ plans to cover their tail as well as they can without PresBO's help.
2) Illegals are here illegally. Don't care if they are here to suck the system, work honestly or be criminals. I'm not suggesting that crimes by citizens are less punishable.
3) Case in point, some rancher in AZ (or maybe Tx) was killed by illegals trying to cross his land. AZ officials are searching for a BP agent who was wounded by an illegal who shot him with an AK-47. Perhaps the people of AZ have a reason to fear illegals? Or is our Secretary of Homeland Security, who by the way wouldn't know her head from her ass, right in that AZ/Mexico border is the safest it's ever been?
AZ is not trying to regulate immigration. It is protecting itself and it's citizens by upholding the law the Federal government won't uphold itself. Regulating would mean that it would only let certain people in legally, change the regulatory guidlines set forth by the government in making citizenship possible. Kicking illegals out of the country, ideally ONLY after being arrested/stopped for something else (driving like an idiot, shoplifting, etc...) is not regulating immigration; it's doing the job that PresBO won't do because he'd rather suck the man pole of every other country in the world.
For the 12th time or so. There will be " TFG" but " TFG" exists right now. The new law won't change things. If some cop is going to falsely arrests immigrants after the bill passes he would have anyway, he is doing so now. You might think AZ is becoming a police state but that implies AZ is trying to control it's citizens. It is not. It is trying to control the illegals, you know? "NON-Citizens."
Never had a reason to move state to state. Mn is my home and until such a reason exists for me to have to move I'm going to be staying here for the foreseeable future. Not to mention my DL has first, middle name and last name in full so I don't have to worry about the "middle initial" fiasco, do I? Also, if an immigrant is in AZ legally and they travel to another state and find it impossible to transfer everything over I guess they have no choice but to stay in AZ. So internally, within the state, replacing a lost ID is normally not an issue and if it is then you'd better write a letter to your congressman/woman, shouldn't ya? Only part of the world I been in has been Canada. Last time there? 1990. Guess what? Pre-911 I didn't need to have a passport to enter Canada. In fact up until 911 it was common for 19 and 20yr old college kids to drive 30 minutes across the Canadian border to drink because in Canada legal drinking age then was 19.
You aren't answering my question. Do you honestly feel it's okay for immigrants to be here illegally? Or should they have to get citizenship? If you answer yes to the former, well, I don't want you in my country; if you answer no to 1 but yes to the latter statement than what is the big deal with allowing police to arrest "illegals" for being here "illegally" during routine investigations? I answered yours, you answer mine.
Leftists use the excuse we don't have the man power or the money to fund securing the borders and tightening them, yet somehow we have 1T+ dollars to ensure the illegals can afford to get health care on their $2/hour salaries or that welfare moms and dads can get insurance? The job of OUR government is to protects IT's people. The government isn't doing that. The government is not doing that. Our own Secretary of Homeland Security blames the country that she is in charge of protecting for the guns going into Mexico and arming the cartels. News flash. The numbers lie. Obamanation is kissing the ass of the rest of the world, letting Mexico and it's people run amok unchecked in our own back yard just so that we can be "friends" with GB or Oz or any other country that isn't trying to nuke us (or are in some cases because apparently denying terrorists exist and editing out any references to Islamic extremists in official reports) is more important that making our country safe.
Great job PresBO. Perhaps you ought to treat the people who voted your ass into office as Commander in Chief a little better than you treat your enemies. Just saying.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
dogma wrote:Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?
I think, in general, people who are against the bill fall into two camps.
1. They don't believe the bill will be effective in addressing the problem of illegal immigration.
2. They consider immigration laws to be tough enough as is, and see the issue as one of poor enforcement.
Fateweaver wrote:
Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?
That's impossible to prove without data. First there would have to be hard numbers on the number of detentions which turned out to be unnecessary.
Yea well lucky fething you. You just don't get it. If I lose MY I.D. I go at least a year and through several offices and pay about $1500 bucks of various 'fees' and at one point had to fly to Europe to get a new one. We ALIENS who you want to 'double tap' do not have the luxury of taking a mere I.D. card for granted like fat spoiled American citizens who like to vote conservative because guns are cool but abortion is killing and they know the guy in the white house is just trying to steal their money because he's a [ see forum posting rules] and so on mentality. And its mexicans fault that we lost out lazy redundant uncreative jobs too, right? "well heck all ah gotta do is go to the DMV". Well that's great. Lucky fething you. Some people do not have that convenience. Quit being so selfish.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Well, guns are cool but I'm pro-choice so I don't think abortion is necessarily killing.
You are also here legally. I've got no problem with you being here as a citizen.
I'll use a trespassing analogy. You enter my house illegally I reserve the right to kill you dead. If you walk up my driveway in broad daylight and ring the doorbell I'll most likely welcome you into my home (unless you are a Jehovah of course).
I wouldn't double tap you for walking through the proper gates after being allowed in legally. If I lived in AZ and you tried sneaking through my field or over my fence you will get double tapped.
Relax man. I've got no problem with you so don't give me a reason to have one.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Oh and another thing... cutting off welfare programs will not discourage illegals from coming onto "your" land (HA!) it will just means (all the selfish conservative types who kill off social programs) -edit content- will be the first ones that get eaten when the world ends.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Relax man.
Tell you what. I like the bill and approve for reasons I stated. You don't like it for reasons you stated. Arguing it with you won't change the stance for either of us so I'm done with "our" conversation.
I expect to get attacked by my usual antagonists in the future and I'll have my hands full with them so lets just agree to disagree.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
... and everyone totally ignores every statement I've made on this thread, in favor of engaging the troll.
Is there a point to this, anymore?
5534
Post by: dogma
Guitardian wrote:
Well that's great. Lucky fething you. Some people do not have that convenience. Quit being so selfish.
Umm, sorry dude? I haven't said anything about legal immigration, I've only made statements regarding the what would be necessary for border control.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Would be a true statement if I was a troll.
Too bad I'm allowed to express opinions and beliefs on a public forum.
Trolling implies I say gak to get a rise from people. People don't like my opinion that's too bad. Saying "all Mexicans are criminals" is trolling; saying "this new immigration law will help prevent illegals from staying in this country" is my opinion.
If someone takes offense at my opinion and it's not a trolling or flame-baiting statement that is their problem, not mine.
If you have issue Baron report my post but I've been watching my P's and Q's and the mods have nothing on me and you don't have proof I'm trolling. Nice try though.
5470
Post by: sebster
Wrexasaur wrote:And a whole lot of that money goes back into Mexico.
I have no idea how much money illegal immigrants send to Mexico.
According to the Washington Post around 20 billion a year is sent from all Mexican workers back to Mexico - that's the second biggest source of revenue for Mexico behind oil. I don't know what portion of that would be illegal immigrants, but I think it'd be a reasonable portion.
Fateweaver wrote:Tell you what. I like the bill and approve for reasons I stated. You don't like it for reasons you stated. Arguing it with you won't change the stance for either of us so I'm done with "our" conversation.
Yeah, you know how I keep pointing out that there are basic problems that keep your opinions so simplistic and wrong... it's because of the above attitude. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fateweaver wrote:Would be a true statement if I was a troll.
I don't think you're a troll. Though to be fair to the good Baron, it's fairly easy to mistake a wingnut for a troll.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
How is my opinion wrong? No such thing as a righ or wrong opinion.
If it is my opinion the sky is pink it is not wrong because it is my opinion of what color I think the sky is.
Problem is sebster is that if I keep going back and forth threads get locked, names get called and I get banned because I am the one flame baited into responding to personal attacks.
It is YOUR opinion that the bill is bad and will make things worst. That is NOT fact; that is opinion. It is my opinion (and apparently that of the AZ governor) that it will improve the situation in AZ. I don't claim that as fact, I have stated many times it is opinion.
If I stated "Fact is......." then you could call me out on it and try to belittle my intelligence or reasoning skills. But it's impossible to call someones opinion "wrong" as opinions are based on personal feeling and beliefs, not on facts.
Comprende` or should I draw a picture?
I don't have the clout some posters have to be able to flame and attack so I have to watch what I say. It's been the Fate/Guitardian show for about 8 pages. I'm ending it and not because you believe I'm wrong and won't admit to it. I'm ending it because I don't really want another vacation from dakka again.
This time I've done nothing to catch the ire of Red or Frazz and I'm keeping it that way.
5470
Post by: sebster
Fateweaver wrote:How is my opinion wrong? No such thing as a righ or wrong opinion.
No, but that doesn't make all opinions equal. There are better and poorer methods of developing opinions. Proper research of the facts, re-assessment of assumptions, and proper consideration of the arguments of others will produce better opinions, and you consistantly ignore those things in favour of falling back on the same old political beliefs.
If it is my opinion the sky is pink it is not wrong because it is my opinion of what color I think the sky is.
If that opinion was based on having been told the colour of the sky by a pundit on television working for the 'we need money to paint the sky blue because it's pink' PAC, and you've rejected all suggestions that the sky might in fact be blue right now, it's a crap opinion. If it's based on going out and looking at the sky and seeing it was pink, it's a more reasonable opinion.
It is YOUR opinion that the bill is bad and will make things worst. That is NOT fact; that is opinion. It is my opinion (and apparently that of the AZ governor) that it will improve the situation in AZ. I don't claim that as fact, I have stated many times it is opinion.
My opinion, as stated many, many times in this thread, is that the debate is defined by a focus on guns & ammo solutions by almost all supporters of the AZ bill. My issue that makes me consider those opinions poor is that they have failed to address on any level the idea that other approaches might be cheaper and more effective.
I don't have the clout some posters have to be able to flame and attack so I have to watch what I say. It's been the Fate/Guitardian show for about 8 pages. I'm ending it and not because you believe I'm wrong and won't admit to it. I'm ending it because I don't really want another vacation from dakka again.
While heated, this thread has managed to steer clear of personal attacks to the best of my memory. If you haven't got any warnings it strikes me as an odd reason to back out of the thread.
My point is plain and has been for a while now, you and other posters in this thread have simply refused to consider alternatives to big walls and dudes with machine guns. If you consider other options and reject them that is one thing, but ignoring them entirely does in fact mean that your opinion is poor.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
I hate to say it, but requiring everyone to carry papers with them, and arresting those who cannot produce them, is an earmark of a fascist state. Particularly when it's to weed out a certain group of people. Historically, it's not a big jump from there to sewing yellow stars on people's clothes that read 'juden'.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Ihren Paiper Bitte everyone, at least if you're a brown-american. It's already happened. A truck driver, U.S. citizen born and raised in Fresno CA was stopped at a weigh station in Arizona, and then detained because his driver's license and social security number were not enough to prove his legal citizenship. He wasn't released until his wife came, bearing his CA birth certificate, and this shows exactly how this law will work.
As it now stands, if you're brown-american, a passport or birth certificate is now required for interstate travel through Arizona because otherwise the color of your skin means the driver's license that's all the ID white-americans need is not adequate for you.
Welcome to Arizona. Ihren Paiper Bitte.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
The feds wouldn't let me back in without the right papers last time I went overseas (to WORK mind you) and once I got back in, wouldn't let me out until I shelled out approx $1500 and a year on a waiting list. All over a stolen wallet. Anyone who thinks this is just, please raise your hand and I'll show you why immigrants are prone to desperate actions in desperate times. And I'm not even brown looking, and I have an American accent too. Yay for laws! Lets make more of them so we can fine more people for random stuff, to pay the ever increasing cost of maintaining a work force to enforce them. Great idea.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Fateweaver wrote:How is my opinion wrong? No such thing as a righ or wrong opinion.
If it is my opinion the sky is pink it is not wrong because it is my opinion of what color I think the sky is.
You are being disingenuous. Why bother to state an opinion if you have no idea if it is right or wrong? Of course you think you are right.
21196
Post by: agnosto
A note on the abuse of entitlement, "welfare" programs from a former social-worker.
The only such program that illegal residents are eligible for is medical care for an expecting mother. I don't know about you all but since the child is going to be an American citizen, I don't really have a problem with this one. It's cheaper to provide office visits, regular care for the mother than it is for an emergency room visit when the child comes. Again, the mother may not be a citizen but the child is and it's the child that is receiving the direct care. It's no worse than "Tammy", the third generation (white) welfare baby that came into my office and demanded more food stamps because she couldn't be bothered to get off her arse and work.
By federal law, only American citizens are able to receive benefits from entitlement programs. Medicaid is a state-run, federally subsidized program so it may vary a bit from state to state. Food Stamps (now called SNAP) are directly, federally monitored and funded to each state. As such, the law states that only citizens receive food assistance so when people go on and on about free food to illegals, etc; they're full of crap. A household of illegal parents may include citizen children who would be eligible for assistance based upon the family's income but it's a pro-rated amount, meant to benefit the citizen child. Keyword, citizen.
I could spend a great deal of time attempting to convince the haters that as a whole, the hispanic community abuses the system much, much less than the caucasian and african-american population. Not to mention all the free services american-indians receive as a direct result of white guilt.
My personal experience. I managed a case load of over 630 families and only a fraction of them were hispanic (citizen or otherwise) and a fraction of that fraction received food stamp (SNAP) assistance. You want to stop welfare abuse? Kick all the lazy, free-loading white and black people off the system and we'd be in much greater financial shape because the biggest liars I dealt with as a case worker were not hispanic/latino.
But I know, many people don't want to hear that.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Yeah I for one never got a handout even though I've been here 33 years and pay taxes for about half of those years. 'Tis tru, we don't get anything. And I can't vote to change it either. Color me bitter about this arguement yet? You know what we do? We WROK/WORK whatever job is available. Makes us horrible people, right?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You could become a citizen.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Sure I could. If you were given the option during the Reagan years, Bush round 1 or round 2 years, to claim "I want free food so I agree with what this country is doing and want to be part of it" would you go for it? I just make my own way as I go, rather than signing on for financial ease. If every citizen was actually law abiding, upstanding, and benevolent then maybe I would consider the $1000 more bucks for a right to food stamps and votes that don't matter after recounts. Until United Statesians can learn to behave I cannot count myself as one of them even if it means I get food stamps or easy I.D. process. Sorry. Advice heard, just not taken.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Folks, you have to remember that the British government screwed over the people under Bloody Marge using the tricks that he alludes to, so Guitardian is not exactly unbiased. Though he has a point.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Wait, so you have been here for 33 years but won't become a citizen because that means taking handouts? I is confused. Your reasoning seems spurious at best, but perhaps I am missing something.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I'm just saying that you complain you don't have the right to vote and influence the decisions. If you became a citizen you would have the right to vote.
You don't have to give up your British citizenship to acquire US citizenship. You could hold both passports if you wanted.
https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/dual-citizenship.html
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/dualnationality/
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
My question is: can you have three nationalities? I've been thinking of picking up Irish in addition to my Seneca and US citizenships. Or possibly trading in the US one for Dutch Antilles. Not sure about that yet.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Yes in theory. It is harder in practice. It depends on circumstances. In some nations you can become a citizen by marrying a citizen.
There can be disadvantages too, for example if a nation has conscription you become liable once you become a citizen of that nation.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ahtman wrote:Wait, so you have been here for 33 years but won't become a citizen because that means taking handouts? I is confused. Your reasoning seems spurious at best, but perhaps I am missing something.
No, it's because the choices of US citizens don't meet his own standards of morality. Which is probably more odd, thinking about it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Sometimes you have to compromise.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
sigh.... If the issue is "probable Cause"... Truck drivers are required to show proper ID when stopped at a state run weigh station. in the example above, we are not given any information other than the driver was brown skinned. Was there something about his DL or SS card that red flagged him? Like, was his SS card Laminated? That's a no no. Was the laminate on his DL seperating? Too many questions arise from lack of information in that instance. Also, was he the only one or were others that looked just like him also detained? A one-off incident is not a trend.
Acting beligerant when approached by police is borderline for PC. Running or attempting to run is considered in most jurisdictions as PC. Innocent people do not typically run from police, nor do they get mouthy.
Imagine this.. you are hanging out infront of YLFGS just before it opens. There are clearly visible signs saying "No Loitering". You have your gaming gear with you in cases. An officer approaches. If you get stupid and mouth off he will probably start asking for ID... no matter where you happen to be.
However if you remain conversational he will probably just ask what you are doing and explaining could not only fill the time but may actually help promote the hobby and spark the officers interest.
Even if that does not happen He will know what people go to that store for and will then be better able to assess the situation if he sees a small crowd there later.
The Az law allows police officers to use their own judgement and local knowledge to assess whether suspicion exists to approach some-one and proceed from that point.
A crowd of people hanging near a home improvement/DIY store looking for day work would not be seen as the same as a similar group waiting at the local Day Labor provider. (Able Body is one such that I know of.) So there are Legal ways to get day labor jobs Other than standing by the roadside and waiting for a truck to stop.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:
If it is my opinion the sky is pink it is not wrong because it is my opinion of what color I think the sky is.
No, oh god, no. Opinions don't work that way. If you believe that the sky is pink, then any statement regarding your belief would be true if it correlated with a that belief. However, the content of that statement would still be false.
Edit for clarity: A statement of opinion is a true statement, most of the time, with respect to the opinion of the speaker. However, it is not necessarily a true statement with respect to the world as defined by the set of: [reality - the speaker].
Opinions are not always true. Truth only governs empirical fact.
Sorry, but that was a horrible crime against logic.
Fateweaver wrote:
It is YOUR opinion that the bill is bad and will make things worst. That is NOT fact; that is opinion.
Actually, it seems to be that his stated opinion regards only the potential for racial discrimination created by this legislation. I do not believe that Sebster has said anything about the bill being bad, or its potential to make things worse.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Fateweaver wrote:
1) AZ is doing what the constitution allows it to do. The Federal governments job is to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. Not all mexican immigrants are violent criminals but the illegal ones are here illegally, obviously. The Constitution gives states the power to form their own laws and regulations unless they are needed by the Federal government. AZ is exercising it's constitutional authority to act in behalf of the betterment of it's state and citizens. It is not operating under martial law.
This is very incorrect. The states do have the right to set their own laws as long as they do not overstep their bounds. This is a state attempting to dictate immigration policy to the federal government and in someway for other states. The Fed Government was created to govern 4 very specific areas. These areas were to:
1)Insure, protect, and regulate the national and international boundries
2)To regulate interstate and international trade in orger to protect our nation from being destroyed economically by powers both within and with out.
3)To insure public safety
4)To protect and insure the rights of the individuals against possible abuses by individual states or the nation as a whole.
This Law steps all over 3 of the 4 primary powers of the fed gov. I can't beleive I'm having to support the fed gov's position in this. Yet another reason for me to detest this bill.
Fateweaver wrote:2) I'm not suggesting that crimes by citizens are less punishable.
Good to know, it was starting to sound otherwise.
Fateweaver wrote:3) Case in point, some rancher in AZ (or maybe Tx) was killed by illegals trying to cross his land. AZ officials are searching for a BP agent who was wounded by an illegal who shot him with an AK-47. Perhaps the people of AZ have a reason to fear illegals? Or is our Secretary of Homeland Security, who by the way wouldn't know her head from her ass, right in that AZ/Mexico border is the safest it's ever been?
There are just as many stories of US citiens robbing and killing those trying to make their way to or across our borders.
Safer? No it is not safer, it will never be safer. Paranoia dictates that the brown hoarde will always be an increasing threat. Seriously, read what you type. This is how you are coming off.
Fateweaver wrote:AZ is not trying to regulate immigration. It is protecting itself and it's citizens by upholding the law the Federal government won't uphold itself. Regulating would mean that it would only let certain people in legally, change the regulatory guidlines set forth by the government in making citizenship possible. Kicking illegals out of the country, ideally ONLY after being arrested/stopped for something else (driving like an idiot, shoplifting, etc...) is not regulating immigration.
Edited out the Anti-Obama rant and BTW. Dude, illogical rants like yours do tremendous damage to what others are trying to accomplish in the 2012 election.
Anyway, This entire sentence is complete non-sense. Of course it is an attempt to regulate immigration, this is because the bill targets only "immigrants".
Your grasp of where the law currently stands in this country is.........somewhat idealistic and out of date. Cops can pull you over for a random safety check, claim your mudflaps were flapping in the wind, detain you for wearing dark clothes at night, and the good ol catch all(Drum Roll Pls)..................................Felony Suspicion. This last one is a exploitable loophole in that the officer has the right to pull you over if he feels that you are in someway committing or going to imminently commit a felony.
Fateweaver wrote:For the 12th time or so. There will be "TFG" but "TFG" exists right now. The new law won't change things. If some cop is going to falsely arrests immigrants after the bill passes he would have anyway, he is doing so now. You might think AZ is becoming a police state but that implies AZ is trying to control it's citizens. It is not. It is trying to control the illegals, you know? "NON-Citizens."
And again, It will create an enviroment that will foster such abuse.
Fateweaver wrote:Never had a reason to move state to state. Mn is my home and until such a reason exists for me to have to move I'm going to be staying here for the foreseeable future. Not to mention my DL has first, middle name and last name in full so I don't have to worry about the "middle initial" fiasco, do I? Also, if an immigrant is in AZ legally and they travel to another state and find it impossible to transfer everything over I guess they have no choice but to stay in AZ. So internally, within the state, replacing a lost ID is normally not an issue and if it is then you'd better write a letter to your congressman/woman, shouldn't ya? Only part of the world I been in has been Canada. Last time there? 1990. Guess what? Pre-911 I didn't need to have a passport to enter Canada. In fact up until 911 it was common for 19 and 20yr old college kids to drive 30 minutes across the Canadian border to drink because in Canada legal drinking age then was 19.
Ah no wonder there is a language barrier. Your from Southern Canada.
The letters have been written and what happens is that the laws get ammended and become even more muddled. Colorados ID laws are funny and are just starting to realize the headache they created. In Co, your Birth cert. only establishes age and does not count towards verfiying identity, Niether do SS cards, School records, medical records and such. CO recognizes its own and a handful of other states DL's, Military ID's, and Passports as the only legitimate means of proving your identity in order to get a CO. Kids have to have both parents signature to get theirs because the state doesn't accept oth childhood documentation as ID. Now think about the number of families that are split and you'll see the problem. CO. may have fixed this in the past year but I haven't read up on it lately.
Fateweaver wrote:You aren't answering my question. Do you honestly feel it's okay for immigrants to be here illegally? Or should they have to get citizenship? If you answer yes to the former, well, I don't want you in my country; if you answer no to 1 but yes to the latter statement than what is the big deal with allowing police to arrest "illegals" for being here "illegally" during routine investigations? I answered yours, you answer mine.
The question is not worth answering because it is a trick question that imposes overly limiting paradigms and is an over simplification of the issue. As to the big deal about this law, I covered that in a previous post, Please pay attention.
Tell you what, I will humour you with a what if?
If I said I had a problem with illegal immigration I would still have huge issues with this law. My problem has to do with the steady devolving of a free Republic into a Police State.
Now if the question better reflected the issue at hand, I would have a more solid answer. If asked something like this:
If immigration laws were updated and changed to more accurately respond to the needs of the situation by allowing those who arrive at our borders a time period to earn there citizenship, would you deport those whom failed to meet the requirements? Then I'd say yes, deport them.
After all of these changes, I would still condemn the AZ law as a terrible leap towards totalitarianism.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
I found this motivator and thought it sums up my opinion of the whole thing perfectly.
Remember folks, Hitler was the Constitutionally elected leader of Germany.
Though I admit it puts a new spin on 'Work Makes You Free'...
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Okay, so what seems like the best solution to illegal immigration to me so far:
1. Don't let illegal immigrants claim food stamps, welfare, or similar benefits (note: how much they can actually do so right now is contested, this may largely be a non-issue)
2. Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants (or employers who pay their employees under the table regardless; if the immigrants are paying taxes they sound sort of nice to have around, really)
3. Make it easier to enter the country legally (as far as I know, there are virtually no spots open for a Mexican immigrant who doesn't have any family in the United States, and doesn't have any unique skills. And even when things are better it can take fifteen years to get citizenship. We're eventually going to end up keeping out all of the people who actually have respect for American immigration law, which is surely as unfair as letting in those who don't have any respect for it, right?)
4. Something about the drug cartels (their relation to illegal immigration seems similar to the relationship between tax evaders and Al Capone, really.)
5. Get rid of minimum wage (possibly replacing it with some sort of tax-financed income for the employed poor, if you're concerned they'll suffer for it). Mostly because I hate minimum wage for reasons unrelated to immigration, but it would help to put illegal immigrants on equal footing with legal workers too.
6. Possibly get rid of citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil. This unlikely to feasible politically, however, as it requires a constitutional amendment to be made to the 14th. If this was done, it would probably be best to allow a person born on U.S. soil to stay in the U.S. indefinitely without citizenship (since that's where they've been their whole life).
Most of these require action from the federal government.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Wrexasaur wrote:Kanluwen wrote:The point is:
This law is ENTIRELY ridiculous. It's racial profiling at its very core.
Being Hispanic in Arizona might be pretty crappy for a while...
I'd just like to say, as an AZ native, that most of the americans of mexican descent I know (which is quite a few) are 100% behind this law. They're just as fed up with illegals as anyone else.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Lordhat wrote:
I'd just like to say, as an AZ native, that most of the americans of mexican descent I know (which is quite a few) are 100% behind this law. They're just as fed up with illegals as anyone else.
At least until they're rounded up and deported by 'mistake'.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
How many times do I have to say it? YOU ARE ALL ILLEGAL!
Plenty of legal people break laws and take handouts.
People are people.
At least these people are willing to work for a job that needs doing instead of sitting on their fat butts with their unemployment or SSI check watching their satellite TV in a trailer park.
mmm... I want some taco bell now.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Guitardian wrote:How many times do I have to say it? YOU ARE ALL ILLEGAL!
And yet, despite all those laws we natives have passed, they continue to refuse to go back to Europe. Or wherever.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Federal Law makes it a crime for a foreign national to be in this Country by entering through a point other than one established by ...Federal Law.
The Government Office in charge of border regulation is also charged with the issue of those in this country "illegally".
The head of that Office has stated that "there is no problem".
The States have the Right to enforce Federal Laws within their jurisdiction. (Car Insurance is a Federally Mandated Law, enforced by the individual States.)
Arizona has the Right to enforce Federal Immigration Standards within its own borders.
And that is what the law in Arizona is doing. Enforcing a Standard set by the Federal Government concerning Lawful and unlawful entry into this country.
Not long ago a person needed a passport to travel from France to England, or Germany to France. The last time a few hundred thousand people migrated from Germany to France without passports, A war was under way. (Ok, true the Germans came with tanks but the numbers similar.)
10279
Post by: focusedfire
helgrenze wrote:Federal Law makes it a crime for a foreign national to be in this Country by entering through a point other than one established by ...Federal Law.
The Government Office in charge of border regulation is also charged with the issue of those in this country "illegally".
The head of that Office has stated that "there is no problem".
The States have the Right to enforce Federal Laws within their jurisdiction. (Car Insurance is a Federally Mandated Law, enforced by the individual States.)
Arizona has the Right to enforce Federal Immigration Standards within its own borders.
And that is what the law in Arizona is doing. Enforcing a Standard set by the Federal Government concerning Lawful and unlawful entry into this country.
Not long ago a person needed a passport to travel from France to England, or Germany to France. The last time a few hundred thousand people migrated from Germany to France without passports, A war was under way. (Ok, true the Germans came with tanks but the numbers similar.)
There is a difference between enforcing an existing set of statutes and writing into existence a set that oversteps state jurisdiction and circumvents due process.
They want to enforce the existing laws then do so, but don't write up a order to commence crystal nacht and try to sugar coat it as protecting our populace and freedoms.
Funny you mention Europes border changes. Why is it all over the world, borders are coming down while the U.S. is erecting them?
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Murdering Millions of Jews = Legal under German law at that time.
The Crucifixion = Legal under Roman Law.
The Trail of Tears = Legal under US law at the time.
Andersonville Prison Camp = Legal under the laws of the US/CSA at that time. (Wurtz was tried for murdering individual POWs, rather then the conditions at the camp)
The Entire Reign of Vlad Tepes = Legal.
Death Squads = Legal
Claiming that something is 'legal' does not equate 'right'.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
I believe your last question can be answered by the statue of liberty and the inscribed words at her base. Maybe they should just take down lady liberty.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Guitardian wrote:I believe your last question can be answered by the statue of liberty and the inscribed words at her base. Maybe they should just take down lady liberty.
... great, now they quote me from pages ago, having ignored me the rest of the time.
And don't give them ideas. True to form, they'll also take down the cross from all the churches, and supplant it with the symbol of the immortal Reich. (Law passed in Germany under Hitler)
7150
Post by: helgrenze
And Visiting a foreign Country and Moving To the same Country are exactly the same under the law?
Those that "followed Lady Liberty" entered the country under the legal statutes of the time. Ellis Island exists for a reason.
And if you READ the federal Statutes concerning immigration and just what constitutes "illegal" you will find that the AZ law simply reiterates the Federal one. It simply empowers the state law enforcers to do what the Feds say they lack the manpower, money, and resources to do.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Don't waste your breath helgrenze.
Some people just won't be convinced.
5534
Post by: dogma
Most likely because, at this point, both sides are talking past each other.
The pro side seems to be discussing the bill itself, while the con side seems to be interested in the larger of immigration.
It may be moot at this point, but how do people feel about the elimination, or reduction, of the fees associated with immigration processing? Perhaps as an extension of a larger effort to limit the citizen costs of all bureaucratic processing, save those related to crime of course.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:Not long ago a person needed a passport to travel from France to England, or Germany to France. The last time a few hundred thousand people migrated from Germany to France without passports, A war was under way. (Ok, true the Germans came with tanks but the numbers similar.)
Congratulations, that may be an even sillier comparison than the efforts by other posters to compare the Arizona law to the Nazis.
And again, I'm just going to ask you to consider that physically blocking a border and tracking and investigating people for legal citizenship is an extremely costly and largely ineffective measure for stopping illegal immigration, and consider the idea of removing the reason for illegal immigration. No jobs no border crossings.
And I fully expect to have this point ignored, again, in favour of more of the above. Honest debate and the internet, is it too impossible a dream?
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:
And if you READ the federal Statutes concerning immigration and just what constitutes "illegal" you will find that the AZ law simply reiterates the Federal one. It simply empowers the state law enforcers to do what the Feds say they lack the manpower, money, and resources to do.
Are you talking about reasonable suspicion of illegal status when occupying Federal property, and the associated ID requirement?
If so, the change in language from Federal property, to public property is a significant expansion of the requirement.
Additionally, many states have passed statutes which prohibit the implementation of the act in question (REAL ID Act of 2005); including Arizona.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
dogma wrote:It may be moot at this point, but how do people feel about the elimination, or reduction, of the fees associated with immigration processing? Perhaps as an extension of a larger effort to limit the citizen costs of all bureaucratic processing, save those related to crime of course.
It would be hard to argue with that. I've heard from quite a few sources that bureaucracy in the immigration department has gotten really bad, both from a standpoint of fees and especially waiting periods.
5534
Post by: dogma
sebster wrote:
Congratulations, that may be an even sillier comparison than the efforts by other posters to compare the Arizona law to the Nazis.
And again, I'm just going to ask you to consider that physically blocking a border and tracking and investigating people for legal citizenship is an extremely costly and largely ineffective measure for stopping illegal immigration, and consider the idea of removing the reason for illegal immigration. No jobs no border crossings.
Sadly, we'll never get any action on immigration without beefing up border security, though that's going to be necessary if we are to quell the drug trade violence in the area. However, it would be relatively easy, especially in this political climate, to build support for actual enforcement of the laws regarding the employment of illegals.
sebster wrote:
And I fully expect to have this point ignored, again, in favour of more of the above. Honest debate and the internet, is it too impossible a dream?
The XKCD forums are pretty good. I don't post there much because I don't like the interface.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Orkeosaurus wrote:It would be hard to argue with that. I've heard from quite a few sources that bureaucracy in the immigration department has gotten really bad, both from a standpoint of fees and especially waiting periods.
So have I, and I'd like to avoid cases such as Guitardian's as much as possible.
Indeed, I've seen studies that claim the sheer cost of legal immigration via the guest worker program, or an extended visa drives a lot of people from all over the world to immigrate illegally.
One my friends, for example, couldn't afford to apply for citizenship after his student visa ran up, so he was here illegally for 3 years.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
helgrenze wrote:And Visiting a foreign Country and Moving To the same Country are exactly the same under the law?
Those that "followed Lady Liberty" entered the country under the legal statutes of the time. Ellis Island exists for a reason.
And if you READ the federal Statutes concerning immigration and just what constitutes "illegal" you will find that the AZ law simply reiterates the Federal one. It simply empowers the state law enforcers to do what the Feds say they lack the manpower, money, and resources to do.
If this were true then the whole bill would be a waste of time, due to the simple fact that local law unforcement already has the authority to arrest those people breaking federal laws and to detain them until the proper agency picks them up.
Do you really think that a AZ cop doesn't have the ability to arrest someone for breaking a Federal law? They already have this ability. This law is about setting a precedent that has far reaching implications.
@Dogma- My concern is not with immigration in general but with the continued march of this nation towards being a Police State. I know that it is futile to struggle against what history holds to be an ineveibilty, but just because this may be the losing side does not in any way mean that those who resist such legislation are wrong.
5534
Post by: dogma
@focusedfire:
I suppose I was thinking of the good Baron, rather than you. His was simply the last post I read.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Ok, let me try it this way: since everyone is really intent on ignoring me, I'll give it a shot:
History shows that we can build a wall, man it with soldiers and machine gun towers and land mines, and shoot to kill.
Guess what?
It doesn't work. The lawmakers in Arizona may have some idea about this, since they all seem to have escaped from East Berlin to avoid being tried as war criminals by the Russians.
So: in an attempt to do the impossible, Arizona turns to a tactic that history also shows is made of fail: the police state, where every citizen must carry documentation, and regular checkpoints and road blocks are set up to examine your papers.
To see how well this works: see Occupied France.
So, what MIGHT actually work?
Well, why do they enter illegally?
Possiblities:
A)They're an oppressed minority. Not uncommon in Southern Mexico, where the Federales continue to have problems with the Zapotec and local insurrections among the native peoples. Which are put down with brutal efficiency. (Somehow, all the prisoners are somehow shot while trying to escape. Usually at close range in the back of the head while blindfolded and hogtied.)
B) They're poor and seeking jobs in the US. Frankly, that's why, at some level, EVERY immigrant comes here.
C) They're being driven to flee due to the drug wars.
D) Some combination of the above.
Now, A) is hard to deal with, aside from overthrowing the Mexican government and annexing Mexico. Which has it's appeal at times, I grant. The only thing more crooked then one of our politicians is a south and central American politician. (For those interested, President for Life seems to have a term of about 20 years on average, not counting Fidel)
B) How do you fight your own economic success? I would suggest that we post heavy taxes on companies in the US that ship jobs overseas and tax breaks for bringing them back. Or just make it a crime to outsource overseas. With more jobs IN the US, the competition for jobs decreases, and illegal immigration becomes a minor annoyance rather then a major social issue, again. The average drug dealer and street punk, it has been found, prefers to make an honest living. There's less chance of being gunned down by a rival cubical farmer or garbage man.
Also: support your local Organized Crime syndicate. Usually established local crime lords tend to deal with 'invasive' species of criminal before they become a pest for the rest of the population.
C) Legalize weed. It would seriously damage cartels financial underpinnings.
5534
Post by: dogma
BaronIveagh wrote:
B) How do you fight your own economic success? I would suggest that we post heavy taxes on companies in the US that ship jobs overseas and tax breaks for bringing them back. Or just make it a crime to outsource overseas. With more jobs IN the US, the competition for jobs decreases, and illegal immigration becomes a minor annoyance rather then a major social issue, again. The average drug dealer and street punk, it has been found, prefers to make an honest living. There's less chance of being gunned down by a rival cubical farmer or garbage man.
That is politically infeasible, and economically foolish.
BaronIveagh wrote:
C) Legalize weed. It would seriously damage cartels financial underpinnings.
Marijuana is nowhere near as profitable as cocaine. The domestic supply of pot ensures that.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
dogma wrote:
That is politically infeasible, and economically foolish.
Marijuana is nowhere near as profitable as cocaine. The domestic supply of pot ensures that.
A) Given the job situation in the US, we might not have a choice. Either we bring jobs back here, or our economy will collapse (again) anyway. The idea of an entirely service based economy being feasible has proven to be by and large untrue. Edit: I'll toss in that Protectionism is actually practiced by most other countries. However, feeling that wallstreet fat cats...errr... influence peddlers... errr... American Industrialists! (yeah, that's hte ticket) might suffer, there is a myth engendered by certain politicians in the US that the government protecting American businesses and jobs from foreign competition is a bad thing.
B) Cocaine may be profitable, but weed is bread and butter to street dealers. Further, if the DEA wasn't looking for all that home grown pot, they'd have a lot more time and manpower to go after the coke dealers.
5534
Post by: dogma
BaronIveagh wrote:
A) Given the job situation in the US, we might not have a choice. Either we bring jobs back here, or our economy will collapse (again) anyway. The idea of an entirely service based economy being feasible has proven to be by and large untrue.
The fact that the US economy is primarily based in service has more to do with the congregation of wealth than anything else. Additionally, it isn't as if we produce nothing. We are the third largest exporter in the world, behind the largest (China) by ~$160 billion.
BaronIveagh wrote:
B) Cocaine may be profitable, but weed is bread and butter to street dealers. Further, if the DEA wasn't looking for all that home grown pot, they'd have a lot more time and manpower to go after the coke dealers.
The point is that the decriminalization of weed does not remove the profit motive from the people that we're attempting to stop: the cartels.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Edit: I'll toss in that Protectionism is actually practiced by most other countries. However, feeling that wallstreet fat cats...errr... influence peddlers... errr... American Industrialists! (yeah, that's hte ticket) might suffer, there is a myth engendered by certain politicians in the US that the government protecting American businesses and jobs from foreign competition is a bad thing.
Protectionism is practiced in America, right now. The problem is that too much protectionism, or protections which are too broad, is bad for the economy, innovation, and the country as a whole.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
BaronIveagh wrote:I found this motivator and thought it sums up my opinion of the whole thing perfectly.
Remember folks, Hitler was the Constitutionally elected leader of Germany.
Though I admit it puts a new spin on 'Work Makes You Free'...
Take the pic off of the Dakka server...
Into your gallery and press the button.
Host via Photobucket or Flicker, and keep the mods off of your back.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
@Dogma- I actually like and agree with most of your points on immigration.
IMO,The current immigration policies favor individuals immigrating from wealthier countries to the point that it smacks of elitism to some extent.
I would like to see a set up where anyone can come in as long as they sign-in. But only those who develop as contributing members of society may stay. Sort of a goals system where:
Upon arrival the immigrants must submit to blood and health tests to determine if they are currently carrying an illness that could be a public health concern.
"They"(Happy guitard?) must bring vaccinations up to date.
Within 60 days of arrival, adults have to have a job with taxable income.
Their children must go to school. Young adults(18-20) must enroll in the selective service and either go to school or get a job
Within 6 months pass a basic test on what is acceptable behaviour in the U.S. and demonstrate basic english skills(They know what Stop and a few other fundemental words mean)
Within 12 months they must show increased language skills and knowledge of culture in their first of three naturalization tests.
Something along those lines. If that won't work then I'd suggest letting Minnesota and Texas secede.
Minnesota would finally fit in and realize their potential as a part of Canadia .
Texas would declare war on or join Mexico in some way. Up side is that immigration would stop being a problem but Texas would more than double in size, population, and ego.
This would leave room for California to split into the seperate states they've always wanted to be and Puerto Rico would finally become a state. The U.S. would still have 50 states without near as much middle america interference with what the 2 coasts want................sorry, I started to ramble. Didn't I? 
edit spelling
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Minnesotans don't have beady eyes and pronounce "OU" as "OO". LOL.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
dogma wrote:
Protectionism is practiced in America, right now. The problem is that too much protectionism, or protections which are too broad, is bad for the economy, innovation, and the country as a whole.
Yes, but having too little, which is where we have been for years, is also bad. While National unemployment figures may 'only' be at 10% (approx) regional unemployment can go much, much higher. We hav entire little closet departments within the Dept of Interior that go around and try to 'stimulate' these depressed regions, and have been doing it for more then twenty years. Former steel producing regions continue to decline, as the supposed high tech boom that was promised never materialized in these areas. I know when I had a meeting with one of them for the Appalachia region, I heard unemployment numbers as high as 50% in some areas.
If only a few people work, there are only two options: a welfare state, like England, with titanic taxation on income and inheritance (which most people will tell you is bad) or we need to find ways to make the US more appealing to manufacturers then the slave labor camps of China and expand our job market. (dramatic emphasis there. I know they're 'paid' three cents an hour. Or the Party/local officials are paid. It varies.)
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Orkeosaurus wrote:dogma wrote:It may be moot at this point, but how do people feel about the elimination, or reduction, of the fees associated with immigration processing? Perhaps as an extension of a larger effort to limit the citizen costs of all bureaucratic processing, save those related to crime of course.
It would be hard to argue with that. I've heard from quite a few sources that bureaucracy in the immigration department has gotten really bad, both from a standpoint of fees and especially waiting periods.
My student placement employee got his tourist visa application refused when he arrived for interview. Can't get much faster than that.
5534
Post by: dogma
focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- I actually like and agree with most of your points on immigration.
While I like your proposal, I don't think its the sort of thing that's really feasible. Too much change in too little time for the sort of political system we inhabit. Democracy is a frustrating thing at times.
Generally I advocate something similar to what Orkeo posted earlier; adding increased development aid to Mexico.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but having too little, which is where we have been for years, is also bad. While National unemployment figures may 'only' be at 10% (approx) regional unemployment can go much, much higher. We hav entire little closet departments within the Dept of Interior that go around and try to 'stimulate' these depressed regions, and have been doing it for more then twenty years. Former steel producing regions continue to decline, as the supposed high tech boom that was promised never materialized in these areas. I know when I had a meeting with one of them for the Appalachia region, I heard unemployment numbers as high as 50% in some areas.
I don't think there's anything to be done for many of these areas. Killing the national minimum wage might help, and its something that I favor, but the protectionist policies required to float such industries do nothing beyond pushing costs up; encouraging investors to shift their focus elsewhere, and therefore kill the jobs which we're trying to save.
BaronIveagh wrote:
If only a few people work, there are only two options: a welfare state, like England, with titanic taxation on income and inheritance (which most people will tell you is bad) or we need to find ways to make the US more appealing to manufacturers then the slave labor camps of China and expand our job market. (dramatic emphasis there. I know they're 'paid' three cents an hour. Or the Party/local officials are paid. It varies.)
Or we can provide incentives for people to retrain, or train, for more profitable jobs. This can be done with market incentives, and badly needed education reform.
5470
Post by: sebster
dogma wrote:Sadly, we'll never get any action on immigration without beefing up border security, though that's going to be necessary if we are to quell the drug trade violence in the area. However, it would be relatively easy, especially in this political climate, to build support for actual enforcement of the laws regarding the employment of illegals.
Drug control is another problem entirely, as it's much, much harder to target demand.
The XKCD forums are pretty good. I don't post there much because I don't like the interface.
Yeah, there's a few decent places, normally a result of a core of dedicated posters who look to debate standards first and ideology second. To be honest I tend not to post in those places, I just read them and notice someone else has made all the good points more clearly than I could.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- I actually like and agree with most of your points on immigration.
Within 6 months pass a basic test on what is acceptable behaviour in the U.S. and demonstrate basic english skills(They now what Stop and a few other fundemental words mean)
must show increased language skills and knowledge of culture in their first of three naturalization tests.
hmm... "they NOW what Stop and a few other fundamental words mean"
Sarcasm is cool, but irony is hard to argue. Not sure where the point is going with that but it was a fun read. Notice you began a sentence with 'must...'. There is no subject for that verb. You already failed your own naturalization test man.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ironically many native inhabitants of the USA or UK probably would fail the naturalization test without studying for it first.
Try for yourself here...
http://www.britishexam.com/uktest/index.jsp Automatically Appended Next Post: and here...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/
I scored 87.5% on the UK test and 85% on the US test so apparently they would let me in. Automatically Appended Next Post: The US one is done as an interview which makes it more difficult.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Guitardian wrote:focusedfire wrote:hmm... "they NOW what Stop and a few other fundamental words mean"
Sarcasm is cool, but irony is hard to argue. Not sure where the point is going with that but it was a fun read. Notice you began a sentence with 'must...'. There is no subject for that verb. You already failed your own naturalization test man.
Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I am fixing the spelling now.
Now remember, this is the U.S., accurate spelling and sentence structure do not apply. Also, if you go back and re-read you might notice that I never said that they had to spell or write well. Just stated that the immigrants would need to know/recognize the meanings of basic words and how to behave(Understanding basic social mores). Typin' poorly on the interwebs might actually be a part of the naturalization final exam.
Can't trust 'em if they is too smart, nope don't want no uppity immagrantz hear in dis cuntry.
As to where the point was going, The first part of the post was suggesting that anyone who makes it to these shores/fences(Sad sigh over decline into police state.) should be able to petition for citizenship. Petitioners would have to demostrate that they are trying to assimilate by doing the basic things to become a functioning member of society.
The second part of the post was a humorous jab at Fateweaver and myself via poking fun at our home states.
Now, Should I return this stone to you and your glass house by the same means it was thrown through my window?
edit spelling and to add appropriate Orkmoticon
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Anyone else here visited Mexico?
Ever had a look at some of their laws?
The Mexican Gov't has the right to bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics."
Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.
Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.
Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.
Being illegal in Mexico, until recently, was a Felony, punishable by 2 years in a Mexican Prison. Now its a @$500.00 fine and deportation, once the fine is paid.
Mexico also will not extradite, to any jurisdiction, a felon facing the death penalty. This was the case when a Marine of Mexican Birth (Cesar Laurean) killed a fellow marine (Maria Lauterbach) and then fled from active duty to Mexico at a time he was supposed to be deployed to Iraq.
(Non citizens are not allowed to enlist in the Mexican military)
Under the Mexican constitution, political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
But Mexico is Demanding that the US grant Amnesty to Illegals here. Something they do not do within their own borders.
They have petitioned the US to stop workplace raids for illegals.
Mexico apparently wants a one-way door installed at the border.....North only.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
focusedfire wrote:Canada would finally fit in and realize their potential as a part of Minnesota .
Fixed your other mistake.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?
Ever had a look at some of their laws?
So you're now looking at Mexico as your comparison? They're not exactly best practice, you know. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I got 20/24 for the UK test and 19/20 for the US test.
I liked that the UK test focused a little more on life in the UK, and less on exactly which amendment did what.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
sebster wrote:helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?
Ever had a look at some of their laws?
So you're now looking at Mexico as your comparison? They're not exactly best practice, you know.
Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?
If the problem is bad enough that Arizona Officials felt they needed a law to cover it, then maybe there is something to the concern expressed by those officials.
And its not like this is the most bizarre law on the books in Arizona, but apparently they also had issues with these...
One must be 18 years old to buy spray paint.
It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.
Hunting camels is prohibited.
There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.
A class 2 misdemeanor occurs if one places a mark upon a flag which is “likely to provoke physical retaliation”.
In Tucson, it is illegal for women to wear pants.
In Globe, it is illegal to play cards in the street with a Native American.
In Glendale, it is illegal to drive a car in reverse.
In Nogales, it is illegal to wear suspenders.
If the problem is bad enough to require a law..... maybe there is something to the concerns.....
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
helgrenze, I've probably visited parts of it you have never heard of. A while back there was a call sent out to Natives around North America to go down there to aid various rebellions against the Mexican Government. It promptly fizzeled, due to lack of funding, but I can say that I didn't see anyone carrying any 'Government ID' in any of the villages I saw in the south while I was there.
I did see starvation, oppression, corruption, and drug dealers. But no government ID. I would suggest that in much of Mexico away from tourists, it's rather like the law in Pennsylvania that says you have to stop your car every two miles while driving at night and fire a signal flare.
Edit: since you posted again while I was writing: Sometimes, they make laws just to make laws. Or sometimes the law is driven by ideology rather then any real concern among the citizenry.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
helgrenze wrote:sebster wrote:helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?
Ever had a look at some of their laws?
So you're now looking at Mexico as your comparison? They're not exactly best practice, you know.
Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?
If the problem is bad enough that Arizona Officials felt they needed a law to cover it, then maybe there is something to the concern expressed by those officials.
And its not like this is the most bizarre law on the books in Arizona, but apparently they also had issues with these...
One must be 18 years old to buy spray paint.
It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.
Hunting camels is prohibited.
There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.
A class 2 misdemeanor occurs if one places a mark upon a flag which is “likely to provoke physical retaliation”.
In Tucson, it is illegal for women to wear pants.
In Globe, it is illegal to play cards in the street with a Native American.
In Glendale, it is illegal to drive a car in reverse.
In Nogales, it is illegal to wear suspenders.
If the problem is bad enough to require a law..... maybe there is something to the concerns.....
Really? Who the hell makes those things up?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Special interest groups.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
My personal favorite from AZ
If you commit a misdemeoner in AZ while wearing a red mask, it becomes a Felony.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
A person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head.
Hmm.....
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
If you have less then $200 on you in Texas, you can be arrested as a vagrant.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
In Tn it is illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man walking/running in front of her with red flags to warn other drivers and pedestrians.
In SC it is perfectly legal to beat your wife on the lawn of the capital building on Sunday.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
@helgrenze-I like how your justification for one big horrible law is to show the state has a history of writting smaller crappy laws. Nice way to make your case.
Though not all of these laws are completely unreasonable.
"It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water."
This one makes sense in an area that regularly sees 120+ degree days. It is in the same line as the samaritan laws in place all over the country. Basically stating that If you refuse to render aid to someone in a possible life threatening situation then you share in the responsibility of any harm that comes to them from that situation.
By your argument, it may also be construed that you feel saving people from heat prostration is "bizarre".
"There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus."
This has to do with the Saguaro cactus. It is a keystone for the eco-system of the Sonoran Desert.
I will agree that 25 years is very much on the extreme side but this goes back to my point that AZ seems makes a practice of overly harsh laws.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
The point was.... There was an issue that was seen as big enough to warrent the passing of a law.
If there was no issue or problem, the law would not have been considered.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The existence of a desire to pass a law is not in itself proof that the law proposed will be just, workable and without undesireable side effects.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Kilkrazy wrote:The existence of a desire to pass a law is not in itself proof that the law proposed will be just, workable and without undesireable side effects.
QFT. Look at Prohibition. Or the original law tax stamp law against weed.
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?
Ever had a look at some of their laws?
Yep.
helgrenze wrote:
Mexico apparently wants a one-way door installed at the border.....North only.
And?
helgrenze wrote:
Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.
Then why are you referencing Mexico here?
helgrenze wrote:
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?
Hyperbole, no one has made that point.
helgrenze wrote:
If the problem is bad enough to require a law..... maybe there is something to the concerns.....
Maybe, or maybe not.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Is there a problem with Illegal Immigrants in Arizona?
5534
Post by: dogma
Yes, no one has said otherwise. That's not the argument here. That's simply the line you've taken in order to proffer some sort of moral justification for the law, when there have been few questions about its morality.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
So what is the stance against it?
That the law, by and of itself, despite the actual language written into it, is racist and therefore unjust?
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:So what is the stance against it?
That the law, by and of itself, despite the actual language written into it, is racist and therefore unjust?
The law, as written, is likely to increase the rate of racial profiling. On its face this point cannot be rejected in any serious argument, not unless you can establish unequivocally that reasonable suspicion of illegal status will not include being of Hispanic descent. However, that isn't sufficient to reject the law by necessity, as it is possible to have reasonable levels of racial profiling.
My argument is that this targets the wrong side of the issue. Illegal immigrants in general are far less onerous than drug traffickers, and this particular legislation works to direct attention away from that problem. Furthermore, I cannot see a way that this law will actually work to increase deportation statistics. If police cannot handle arresting illegals in the course of other crimes, how will they be able to manage doing the same with respect to those simply present on public property?
Additionally, because Arizona refuses to bring itself into compliance with real ID law, the entire point is moot. All people in possession of Arizona identification are in violation of Federal law when on Federal property. If this were actually about enforcing Federal law there would be no protest against the Federal laws levied for the purposes of identification and immigration control.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
... because we've heard these arguments to justify government's tendency to totalitarianism before. Everything that has been said about this by the parties in favor of it has been this horrific echo of the past.
"We certainly do our best to combat crime of every sort, and our criminal statistics imply that we are fairly successful."
"Frankly, we believe that habitual offenders should not be at large to plague society, so we keep them locked up. Why, for instance, should a sex-offender who has been sentenced three or four times be again set free, to bring lasting sorrow to another decent home? We send all such persons to a detention-camp and keep them there. But I assure you that their surroundings aren't bad. In fact, I know they are better fed, clothed, and lodged than the miners of South Wales."
"Ever seen one of our concentration-camps?"
- Heinrich Himmler, as interviewed by Lothrop Stoddard.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
So, the issue isn't what the law actually says, but what you say it means.
I have noticed that almost no-one here has thought to include the situation in Chicago in their discussion of the "coming Police State" arguement.
For those out of that loop....
From AP "Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence. CHICAGO – Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops."
That would constitute Martial Law in Chicago, Third Largest city in this country. And since most of the "Offenders" in Chicago are of African descent, well,... That would be racial profiling, wouldn't it?
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:So, the issue isn't what the law actually says, but what you say it means.
Not meaning, implication. And no, that isn't the only issue. That's simply the issue you're choosing to focus on.
helgrenze wrote:
I have noticed that almost no-one here has thought to include the situation in Chicago in their discussion of the "coming Police State" arguement.
For those out of that loop....
From AP "Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence. CHICAGO – Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops."
That would constitute Martial Law in Chicago, Third Largest city in this country. And since most of the "Offenders" in Chicago are of African descent, well,... That would be racial profiling, wouldn't it?
1. That doesn't constitute martial law.
2. Its a stupid political stunt, as the rate of violent crime in Chicago has steadily declined since 1990.
3. The act of bringing additional aid from outside is not racial profiling. Though racial profiling in the course of general enforcement has been a significant worry of advocacy groups in Chicago.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Correct me then...
Your stance is:
That the law, by its intent = racial profiling.
That requiring documentation that a person is in this country legally is in defiance of federal regulation, or the Constitution.
Mine is:
The law spells out, in specific terms, under what circumstances documentation may be inquired about.
That the law specifically states that race should not be a contributing factor to inquiry.
As for Chicago.... get an update. Gang on Gang violence is up... especially in the southern regions of the city.
From some reports it is open warfare nearly on par with Chicago in the 1920s-30s.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
helgrenze wrote:
The law spells out, in specific terms, under what circumstances documentation may be inquired about.
That the law specifically states that race should not be a contributing factor to inquiry.
Laws preventing Blacks from voting in the South had the same supposed limitations. The practice, however, was a very different story.
helgrenze wrote:
As for Chicago.... get an update. Gang on Gang violence is up... especially in the southern regions of the city.
From some reports it is open warfare nearly on par with Chicago in the 1920s-30s.
Excellent. The FBI now reaps what it has sown. You'll see crime skyrocketing in cities as long as unemployment remains high.
"You will go to the shop, and you'll ask for a job. They'll answer you there with a shake and a nod. Well that's enough to make a man turn out and rob..." - Steeleye Span, Hard times in Old England.
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:Correct me then...
Your stance is:
That the law, by its intent = racial profiling.
The law by its effect, I never said anything about intent.
helgrenze wrote:
That requiring documentation that a person is in this country legally is in defiance of federal regulation, or the Constitution.
No, that Arizona state law forbids compliance with Federal identification laws, which are themselves of questioned Constitutional standing. Arizona identification cards and driver's licenses are not considered to be acceptable forms of identification by the Federal government, and are not linked to the social security database, nor does one require a social security number to obtain one. This is a massive boon to illegal immigration, and would be a more sensible target for legislation. However, it is not a popular idea, and so it receives no attention.
helgrenze wrote:
The law spells out, in specific terms, under what circumstances documentation may be inquired about.
Yes, under reasonable suspicion of trespassing on public or private property.
helgrenze wrote:
That the law specifically states that race should not be a contributing factor to inquiry.
The law in question does not state that. It is a statement made in other legal documents, but this is not one of them. More to the point, racial discrimination in course of law enforcement is an established issue, so its fairly clear that the specific text of the law is not necessarily sufficient for prevention.
helgrenze wrote:
As for Chicago.... get an update. Gang on Gang violence is up... especially in the southern regions of the city.
From some reports it is open warfare nearly on par with Chicago in the 1920s-30s.
I live in Chicago, and have lived there for most of my life. The rate of violent crime is still well below the level seen in the '90s; projecting this year using the current number of homicides results in a death toll consistent with previous years at 500-650. Automatically Appended Next Post: BaronIveagh wrote:
Excellent. The FBI now reaps what it has sown. You'll see crime skyrocketing in cities as long as unemployment remains high.
The increase in gang violence in Chicago is the direct result of budget cuts made by the city.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
How can you Know the effect of a law that is not, as yet, in effect? Anything said on this front is conjecture.
The "Real ID" act you refer to has been restricted in 25 states. 17 of those have statutes opposed to the same. So this arguement falls flat since half the country is also in violation.
Arizona HB2162 (passed Apr 30) Modifies SB1070, more clearly defining the limitations on police and reducing penalties.
As for Chicago.... This is what happens when Unions run a city.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
@dogma: I was speaking in general, not Chitown in specific.
The FBI's grand crackdown on 'organized' crime has led to the rise of street gangs and cartels in the US as criminal enterprises, filling the power vacuum left behind by La Cosa Nostra.
Violent crime actually rose 60% in the year following the arrests of many major mafia figures in Youngstown, Ohio, with a 15% rise in bystanders killed. Previously, the mob just bumped one another off. The gangs weren't so polite.
@helgrenze:
If you want to troll about Unions, we could always go back to the near slave labor conditions under Andrew Carnegie. Of course, the massa will only pay in scrpt, but I'm sure your new company shack will make your indentured servitude seem nicer.
If you ever think that the deaths down in the mines were bad now...
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Actually, some of the reforms brought about by EARLY union actions helped rebuild this country.
It the more recent events, that have caused unions to be counted as detriments. But that is a discussion for another time.
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:How can you Know the effect of a law that is not, as yet, in effect? Anything said on this front is conjecture.
Did I state anything about knowledge?
In any case, it is not conjecture, but speculation. Conjecture would require the presence of a faulty assumption, I haven't assumed anything.
helgrenze wrote:
The "Real ID" act you refer to has been restricted in 25 states. 17 of those have statutes opposed to the same. So this arguement falls flat since half the country is also in violation.
No, it really doesn't; especially in a debate regarding the letter of the law, and useful legislation pertaining to immigration.
helgrenze wrote:
Arizona HB2162 (passed Apr 30) Modifies SB1070, more clearly defining the limitations on police and reducing penalties.
By eliminating the provision for trespassing as a crime of reasonable suspicion, the bill has been essentially sterilized.
This really caught my eye though:
G. This section does not implement, authorize or establish and
17 shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act
18 of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a
19 radio frequency identification chip.
Hilarious because the bill is essentially an authorization of all the significant elements of REAL ID.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
1)Conjecture. The faulty assumption being that it would primarily be enforcable via Racial profiling.
2)Guidelines for establishing identification have existed before this.
3)Only in the eyes of those who would claim racial profiling as a basis for investigation. Loitering is still considered a crime.
4)Without copitulating to the heavy handed requirements of the Real Id.
17996
Post by: JEB_Stuart
BaronIveagh wrote:The Trail of Tears = Legal under US law at the time.
As the local enforcer of historical accuracy, I am here to inform you citizen that your blasphemies will not be tolerated. This was NOT legal at the time, and was committed as a willful violation of a FEDERAL ruling that it was illegal. Fact: Andrew Jackson was a Richard-Head...
As a 2nd generation descendant of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, I support this law. Along with most of the Mexican half of my family, we support the security of our border first, and the sorting out of immigration second. We are generally in support of deporting any criminal who is illegal, and we find it a serious problem that so many white people feel they need to help us to get better. Our family has worked very hard to get where we are, and we are very thankful for the USA. That being said, we have no time for the latent racism that is embedded in all of these so-called "immigrant rights" activists. We are products of the American dream and have never asked for a dime of money or a bit of help to build our own lives. Bah, enough of my emotional ranting, its a lazy Sunday, and I am in no mood to fabricate a well reasoned argument for this law. The only thinking I am doing right now is A)What movie to watch after Avatar, B: What whisky I am going to drink next, and C)How the hell am I going to build up another 4000 points of Alpha Legion in the next month????
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
JEB_Stuart wrote:BaronIveagh wrote:The Trail of Tears = Legal under US law at the time.
As the local enforcer of historical accuracy, I am here to inform you citizen that your blasphemies will not be tolerated. This was NOT legal at the time, and was committed as a willful violation of a FEDERAL ruling that it was illegal. Fact: Andrew Jackson was a Richard-Head...
Actually: In Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling was that the State of Georgia had no authority over the Cherokee, and that only the US Federal Government had the authority to treat with them. The Trail of Tears originated out of a dissatisfied group within the Cherokee signing a removal treaty in 1835, which Jackson convinced the Senate to ratify. So, while, yes, Jackson was a slimeball, the idea that Jackson defied the Supreme Court is a myth.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Jeb... How about.
The end of the FX Supers marathon.
Jack daniels always works.
inbetween sips of whiskey I would imagine.
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:1)Conjecture. The faulty assumption being that it would primarily be enforcable via Racial profiling.
I never made that argument. I stated that this law will likely lead to an increase in racial profiling, as all laws that target a group of largely homogeneous racial composition tend to do that. I also never said anything about racial profiling being the primary form of enforcement.
The statement about racial profiling is the conclusion of one line of argumentation, it is not an assumption underpinning the argument.
helgrenze wrote:
2)Guidelines for establishing identification have existed before this.
I don't object to that. I object to the idea that someone can be detained under reasonable suspicion of trespassing, where the area to be considered is an entire nation, or rather to the idea that such a power is not prone to racial profiling.
helgrenze wrote:
3)Only in the eyes of those who would claim racial profiling as a basis for investigation. Loitering is still considered a crime.
The worries regarding racial profiling were levied due to the specific nature of the provision in 1070 which permitted the detention of an individual with nothing more than a suspicion regarding the legality of his presence.
helgrenze wrote:
4)Without copitulating to the heavy handed requirements of the Real Id.
The part of Real ID most frequently objected to, by those interested efficiency, was data sharing. The section on cooperation and assistance in 2162 essentially implements the data sharing element of Real ID.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
1) Nothing in the language of the law or its modifier suggests any particular group based on appearance or otherwise.
2)Since the law is a state statute, it would only cover those lands within the borders of the state and not be applicable outside Arizona.
3) Legality of Presence is not the same as Trespassing.
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:1) Nothing in the language of the law or its modifier suggests any particular group based on appearance or otherwise.
You mean other than people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders?
I mean really, if the bill doesn't imply that there are possible offenders, then it isn't going to be very easy to enforce.
helgrenze wrote:
2)Since the law is a state statute, it would only cover those lands within the borders of the state and not be applicable outside Arizona.
Obviously. This is a conversation about Arizona law.
helgrenze wrote:
3) Legality of Presence is not the same as Trespassing.
No it isn't, and I didn't use them interchangeably.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
dogma wrote:
You mean other than people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders?
None of these criteria would lead to racial profiling.
dogma wrote:
I don't object to that. I object to the idea that someone can be detained under reasonable suspicion of trespassing, where the area to be considered is an entire nation, or rather to the idea that such a power is not prone to racial profiling.
The worries regarding racial profiling were levied due to the specific nature of the provision in 1070 which permitted the detention of an individual with nothing more than a suspicion regarding the legality of his presence.
With these two statements, you equated Tresspass and Legality of Presence, as both being a basis for detainment. Reasonable suspicion of Trespass is something police can already detain and question a person about. SB1070 allows for further questions to be asked regarding Legality of Presence.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
LAW is fluctuating and often poorly planned, poorly executed. More laws equals more chances of this happening and being abused from each office it passes through. I believe this whole thing is an attempt to raise jobs for bureaucrats and law enforcement.
Let me tell you something about 'Law': back in 2002ish a girl was found stabbed and burned to death underneath a bridge. It was later found, because someone squeaked, that a tribe of street kids to whom she belonged had stabbed her dead and lit the body on fire. The reason being, that she lied about a guy raping her, leading to her tribe risking assault and/or murder 2 charges to curb stomp the guy she accused. The innocent guy was dead, the girl was dead. Nobody ever went to the cops because nobody believed they would do anything and nobody wanted to get the better part of said street comminity involved with cops. That is called street justice. It is very common.
The law is a pussy in comparison, although they are better armed. The LAW lets Paris Hilton out of jail before the end of her sentence. The LAW allows Martha Stewart to still broadcast her repulsive TV show.
Point being, people are the law, not legal bureaucrats inventing endlessly more convoluted technicalities.
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:
None of these criteria would lead to racial profiling.
They do when there is a strong correlation with a racial group.
helgrenze wrote:
With these two statements, you equated Tresspass and Legality of Presence, as both being a basis for detainment.
They are both legitimate reasons for detainment, and recognizing that fact is not to equate the two.
helgrenze wrote:
Reasonable suspicion of Trespass is something police can already detain and question a person about. SB1070 allows for further questions to be asked regarding Legality of Presence.
And also regards those illegally present on public or private property within Arizona to be guilty of trespassing. The law itself links legality of presence to trespassing.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Guitardian wrote:Point being, people are the law, not legal bureaucrats inventing endlessly more convoluted technicalities.
People are not the law, this is flatly wrong.
Justice is complicated, and often does not provide retribution for anyone. I also am at a bit of a loss, as to what your statement was suggesting. Maybe that people will (and possibly should) go out and try to be vigilantes. Maybe that nihilism is soothing to a disenfranchised segment of society...
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Wrexasaur wrote:Maybe that people will (and possibly should) go out and try to be vigilantes. Maybe that nihilism is soothing to a disenfranchised segment of society...
Wrex, the fact of the matter is that law is not morality. And to expect laws that are in step with the people, one must expect that our leaders are not self interested, traitorous, scheming weasels who are perfectly willing to take bribes from other self interested parties. As someone who's served as an auditor, I can assure you, they are.
They used to call it the British East India Company. Now, we call it General Dynamics. In the future, they might call it Weyland-Yutani.
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
BaronIveagh wrote:Wrex, the fact of the matter is that law is not morality.
Law is not the people either. I could argue that law, and justice more specifically, is an extension of a society. I would have a hard time presenting it as fact, simply because no idea is shared throughout society, with complete agreement. Justice is the balance of interested parties, and the implementation of measures that serve to protect the public at large. Individual rights are also protected, but they do not solely determine the direction of law.
YMMV of course, but saying that the 'people are the law', is Hollywood gibberish. Police enforce the law, and as far as direct concern because of that, they also carry a fair amount of the use of our laws. That is what this conversation is about, among many other issues, but none among them resemble a spaghetti western.
And to expect laws that are in step with the people, one must expect that our leaders are not self interested, traitorous, scheming weasels who are perfectly willing to take bribes from other self interested parties. As someone who's served as an auditor, I can assure you, they are.
Besides the fact that no system is perfect, and ours is generally designed to use such human tendencies to it's advantage; traitorous is a very strong term.
Self interest does not equate to being a vile being, it is something that every person experiences, and one can readily hope that the balance of self interest is not beyond our means.
I am a cynic, not a nihilist.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
My point was, that if people see law taken and abused on national TV, they will be more prone to either abuse it or resent it, or just ignore it. That has been street justice for years. You think crack dealers call the cops when they get ripped off by other crack dealers?... okay take it down a notch and you have people who are now scared to call cops because they or someone they know doesn't have their paperwork. I dont advocate vigilanteism those days of my life have already been lived through. But I do advocate common sense, and common sense dictates that not having a card on you leading to jail time and a fine is just fething dumb.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
... breaking your oath of office and the people you were elected to serve (a word not often heard in politics these days) for personal gain is treason, no matter how you cut it. Under the terms of the 'law' written by those same persons, it might only be 'bribery' and, depending on it's severity, might not even be punished.
After all, corporations can donate an unlimited amount of money to politicians, these days.
And to be honest, I do advocate vigilantism. I've seen the system fail to bring 'justice under the law' too many times. I've investigated too many crooked men who have altered the law to stack the deck in their favor. In my service to the Seneca Nation of Indians, I've seen the law used as a tool to rob, rape, and ruin, in a manner clearly not in the public interest.
The only honest Congressman I've ever met was Jim Traficant, who took bribes from the mob, and paid income tax on them. He never denied that he was bought and paid for, only that the system was rigged against him, and I hope he wins his bid for election now that he's out of jail again.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?
That is a perfectly sensible reason to ignore Mexican protests on the issue. You should do that.
But you should also ensure that the law is a good law, with the benefits worth the problems . And that is what we're discussing, or trying to discuss - I'm still waiting for your answer to my point on focussing on companies that give jobs to illegals.
And its not like this is the most bizarre law on the books in Arizona, but apparently they also had issues with these...
One must be 18 years old to buy spray paint.
It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.
Spray cans are often used in graffiti, and can be used to get you high. Their control, or at least a monitoring of their purchase, is fairly common. The glass of water is an odd one to make to the records, but a lot of places have hospitality laws - when travel was more onerous refusing a glass of water in an arid climate could be dangerous.
The other laws look pretty stupid, and yeah, lots of places have stupid laws. But so what? Since when was a law justifiable because there were other dumb laws? It's the equivalent of hearing someone say 'that Andy Roddick isn't as good a player as he was three years ago' and replying 'yeah, my bowlegged four year old niece is worse'. Andy Roddick's tennis is better or worse, regardless of the position of some random third party. The law is good or bad, regardless of the position of some random third party.
helgrenze wrote:So what is the stance against it?
That the law, by and of itself, despite the actual language written into it, is racist and therefore unjust?
What? 18 pages and you don't understand the basic arguments against the law? Are you honestly struggling to keep up with the thread, and have really just missed each point made? Are you just too lazy to read other people's posts? Are you choosing to ignore the points made because you can't think of a rebuttal? What's going on that's seen us get 18 pages in to a thread without you reading one single argument against the bill?
Again (and again and again and again) the law will increase instances of racial profiling. Given that people do not always carry ID on them at all times it will produce instances of false positives.
While to some extent this could be acceptable, there are better and cheaper ways to reduce the numbers of illegals coming over the border - remove the supply of jobs available by properly enforcing laws against companies employing illegal aliens. Automatically Appended Next Post: Guitardian wrote:Point being, people are the law, not legal bureaucrats inventing endlessly more convoluted technicalities.
Actually, what makes it the law is the distance it has from the people. It is the idea that even if you make a TV show that Guitardian doesn't like you will be judged by the letter of the law.
That idea is an ideal and there are all kinds of problems, and we need to keep moving closer to that ideal, but that's got nothing to do with street gangs taking it upon themselves to enact vengeance and killing two people needlessly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Guitardian wrote:My point was, that if people see law taken and abused on national TV, they will be more prone to either abuse it or resent it, or just ignore it. That has been street justice for years. You think crack dealers call the cops when they get ripped off by other crack dealers?... okay take it down a notch and you have people who are now scared to call cops because they or someone they know doesn't have their paperwork. I dont advocate vigilanteism those days of my life have already been lived through. But I do advocate common sense, and common sense dictates that not having a card on you leading to jail time and a fine is just fething dumb.
You've approached this from an odd angle, but I think I agree with your general point.
Under this law, like all illegal immigrant crackdowns, there is an issue that illegal aliens working in particularly oppressive and/or dangerous conditions will not report it because they will be the ones punished.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Amusingly enough, the failure to enforce the law is a big problem. There was a complaint about Illegal immigrants working at a construction site. The electricians called INS.
They were asked how many there were. There were about 30 of them.
INS then told them that less then 50 was too few to send someone out to investigate.
That said: Adopting the idea that all citizens must be ready to provide proof of their identity at any time and that the government want's to know even more things that are none of it's damn business is repugnant.
We fought the Nazis. We shouldn't try and become them.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
dogma wrote:They do when there is a strong correlation with a racial group.
And which racial group in particular correlates to people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders? Other than all of them?
dogma wrote:And also regards those illegally present on public or private property within Arizona to be guilty of trespassing. The law itself links legality of presence to trespassing.
A public park after certain hours may be 'closed' and to be in that park after hours would be considered Trespassing. Being on Private Property without the owners permission is also Trespassing. What SB1070 does is adheres to the standard that if a person is in the country illegally then they are also considered to be trespassing, not the other way around.
Sebster.
To Quote... the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding.
Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status,[23] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered. (Arizona SB1070, Section 5.)
It is already against the law to hire illegal aliens. as BaronIveagh notes:
BaronIveagh wrote:Amusingly enough, the failure to enforce the law is a big problem. There was a complaint about Illegal immigrants working at a construction site. The electricians called INS.
They were asked how many there were. There were about 30 of them.
INS then told them that less then 50 was too few to send someone out to investigate.
...INS, The Federal officials tasked with this mission, are refusing to do the job.
As for the required Proof of residency.....
A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance. (Arizona SB1070, Section 2.)
If another state requires proof of residency, or legal presence, to issue any form of ID, including a Drivers License, that would be considered valid evidence enough. It also specifies Tribal ID.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
The more things change...
"His father and oldest sister were farming sugar beets in the fields of Hamilton, Mont., and his mother was cooking tortillas when 6-year-old Ignacio Piña saw plainclothes authorities burst into his home."
"They came in with guns and told us to get out," recalls Piña, 81, a retired railroad worker in Bakersfield, Calif., of the 1931 raid. "They didn't let us take anything," not even a trunk that held birth certificates proving that he and his five siblings were U.S.-born citizens."
"The family was thrown into a jail for 10 days before being sent by train to Mexico. Piña says he spent 16 years of "pure hell" there before acquiring papers of his Utah birth and returning to the USA."
"The deportation of Piña's family tells an almost-forgotten story of a 1930s anti-immigrant campaign. Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were pressured — through raids and job denials — to leave the USA during the Depression, according to a USA TODAY review of documents and interviews with historians and deportees. Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens. " - USA Today, 04/05/06.
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:Sebster.
To Quote... the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding.
Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status,[23] will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered. (Arizona SB1070, Section 5.)
It is already against the law to hire illegal aliens.
Well, duh. Of course it's against the law, but are you going to argue that it's meaningfully enforced?
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
sebster wrote:Well, duh. Of course it's against the law, but are you going to argue that it's meaningfully enforced?
What, hold American Business responsible for something? Are you MAD? Don't you know it's their Divine Right to ignore the law entirely? After all, the Nobility moves in ways we common folk can't understand, and it is through their WISDOM that you and I are exposed to dangerous chemicals, unsafe drugs, our food poisoned, our crops ruined by factory emissions, and our homes seized in the name of eminent domain.
How DARE you suggest they might have to be responsible for thier actions! In the name of the Republican Party, I cast thee out, Satan! [/sarcasm]
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
helgrenze wrote:So, the issue isn't what the law actually says, but what you say it means.
I have noticed that almost no-one here has thought to include the situation in Chicago in their discussion of the "coming Police State" arguement.
For those out of that loop....
From AP "Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence. CHICAGO – Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops."
That would constitute Martial Law in Chicago, Third Largest city in this country. And since most of the "Offenders" in Chicago are of African descent, well,... That would be racial profiling, wouldn't it?
No.
Consider the difference between these two statements:
1. Mr Mayor, you have to call out the National Guard -- there are rioters in the streets.
2. Mr Mayor, you have to call out the National Guard -- there are black people in the streets.
5534
Post by: dogma
helgrenze wrote:
And which racial group in particular correlates to people applying for state benefits, employers, and offenders? Other than all of them?
I said 'strongly correlates'. Referencing mere, or weak correlation, which is the only thing you could be attempting to reference, represents a deliberate attempt to twist my words, or ignorance with respect to the nature of correlation.
According to every, or very nearly every, estimate the category of 'offenders' strongly correlates with Hispanic origination. Hispanic origination strongly correlates with a certain set of physical characteristics, and those characteristics represent race.
helgrenze wrote:
A public park after certain hours may be 'closed' and to be in that park after hours would be considered Trespassing. Being on Private Property without the owners permission is also Trespassing. What SB1070 does is adheres to the standard that if a person is in the country illegally then they are also considered to be trespassing, not the other way around.
Which links legality of presence to trespassing. The word 'link' does not imply any sort of direction.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
Tresspassing is what some people have to do to live, a circumstance which is both caused by, and persecuted by "LAW". Sometimes its raining and at least the park has a bench to hide under. Priorities, folks. Obey the law, or make them sleep in the open during a rainstorm?
221
Post by: Frazzled
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575220594280145492.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:Tresspassing is what some people have to do to live, a circumstance which is both caused by, and persecuted by "LAW". Sometimes its raining and at least the park has a bench to hide under. Priorities, folks. Obey the law, or make them sleep in the open during a rainstorm?
Priority is to keep the park safe and free for everyone.
My empathy for homeless men is directly proportional to the large numbers of illegal immigrants who risked death to get here for lower paying jobs that I've known.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Priority is to keep the park safe and free for everyone.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread -- the rich as well as the poor."
- Anatole France, Crainquebille, 1902
221
Post by: Frazzled
"Get the hell off my lawn!"
-Frazzled, last week.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
I was born. I breath. I need somewhere to sleep just like my fellow man, but I am not allowed anywhere. The end.
-me, portland county court, 2005
and yes my 'tresspassing' charge was dropped.
wanna play quotes? I got plenty more
221
Post by: Frazzled
Guitardian wrote:I was born. I breath. I need somewhere to sleep just like my fellow man, but I am not allowed anywhere. The end.
-me, portland county court, 2005
and yes my 'tresspassing' charge was dropped.
wanna play quotes? I got plenty more
"I walked here. I work two jobs. F them, bendehos." My neighbor, shortly before going to job II.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
That's a good quote. hope he doesn't live in AZ though.
"I walk to work, I live in the park, and I get 50 bucks a day building houses for you jerks to live in who want to criminalize me."
-me... portland mercury 2006
221
Post by: Frazzled
"Hey can you fix my fence for $50?"
-Frazzled, now.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
sebster wrote:
Well, duh. Of course it's against the law, but are you going to argue that it's meaningfully enforced?
Not Yet. If you read that post, and others, you would have noticed that the INS, currently responsible for this enforcement, is not doing their job. This law allows local and state police to do the job.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Does that mean that if the State of Arizona got sufficiently annoyed with Mexico they could go to war with them?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that if the State of Arizona got sufficiently annoyed with Mexico they could go to war with them?
I think only Congress (Federal) has the authority to declare war. It could sure put on one hell of a proxy war, especially with all the guns David Spade bought for them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that if the State of Arizona got sufficiently annoyed with Mexico they could go to war with them?
I think only Congress (Federal) has the authority to declare war. It could sure put on one hell of a proxy war, especially with all the guns David Spade bought for them.
Don't call it a war, call it an extraterritorial criminal investigation and response.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Wait, what does David Spade have to do with this?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, what does David Spade have to do with this?
What does David Spade NOT have to do with it?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ahtman wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that if the State of Arizona got sufficiently annoyed with Mexico they could go to war with them?
I think only Congress (Federal) has the authority to declare war. It could sure put on one hell of a proxy war, especially with all the guns David Spade bought for them.
Yes. As I understand it, Congress/the Federal Gov is in charge of immigration too. So just because Arizona thinks the INS isn't doing its job, doesn't mean the state gets the authority to do it by itself.
(If so, the law will quickly get struck down as unconstitutional.)
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
No, I'm waiting for Arizona to go to war with Texas, just like in the Old Days.
And given how some states have been acting, the idea they'll declare war on one another doesn't seem that far fetched. Hell, New York is trying to find ways to Tax other states...
Edit: Anything that involves crossing a state line is under the rule of Federal, not State law.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
The state is enforcing the Federal law. The constitution gives states that power.
I mean, the Federal law is 21 to buy alcohol but the individual states have the power to enforce that law how they see fit. Some states, maybe most, require you be 21 to legally drink; some require that you only be 18 (with the caveat that you still be 21 to buy). A few states you can even be younger than 18 but you must be with parent/adult guardian and the server still can refuse to serve.
So just because the Feds have laid down certain laws doesn't mean the individual states can't enforce/reinforce them. AZ is just doing what the Feds have made laws over. The difference being AZ is enforcing them, the Feds aren't.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I don't see how that differs from declaring war.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see how that differs from declaring war.
One involves artillery, one handcuffs.
5534
Post by: dogma
Realistically, they both involve both.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
I don't mess with handcuffs. Hit them with a 155mm and there isn't anything left to handcuff. Well, maybe some viscera.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Fateweaver wrote:I don't mess with handcuffs. Hit them with a 155mm and there isn't anything left to handcuff. Well, maybe some viscera.
155s are hard to carry by yourself, and you have to worry about the vehicle breaking down. Take a PAK 75 or a 25 pounder. They're much more practical.
Point of fact, the states are not empowered to enforce Federal law. This is why if you break Federal Law, you are put before a Federal Judge rather then the State court. This is ALSO why state police cannot enter Native Reservations without Native approval.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
That's why you use a Paladin.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
I'll pass on the steel coffin. As Muldin once said 'A moving Foxhole attracts the eye."
7150
Post by: helgrenze
BaronIveagh wrote:Point of fact, the states are not empowered to enforce Federal law. This is why if you break Federal Law, you are put before a Federal Judge rather then the State court. This is ALSO why state police cannot enter Native Reservations without Native approval.
However, SB 1070 reiterates the Fed law and makes it a state law as well. Well within the rights of the state to reinforce the fed law with laws of its own.
Arizona is not making new requirements for crossing the US border. It is reinforcing the current standard for already being here.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
... but that's double jeopardy, since if you beat the charge in state court they could charge you again in Federal.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
BaronIveagh wrote:... but that's double jeopardy, since if you beat the charge in state court they could charge you again in Federal.
Actually.... no. Federal Law takes precident. If a crime has local, state, and federal penalties, the Fedreal case takes precident. However, if you do beat it in fed court, nothing stops state or local from trial on related crimes.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
No, because if it's the same crime with the same facts, regardless of a change of venue, the Constitution forbids being tried a second time.
If I say the words Regnad Kcin and that's both a Federal and state crime, and I'm charged at Federal, I cannot be brought back and tried before a state court for the same thing.
5534
Post by: dogma
Separate sovereigns are exempt from double jeopardy, though its fairly rare to see a case where two sovereigns have jurisdiction over the same crime.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
dogma wrote:Separate sovereigns are exempt from double jeopardy, though its fairly rare to see a case where two sovereigns have jurisdiction over the same crime.
No, because Federal law takes precedent, that would be the 'sovereign' in this case, since it overrides State. Benton v. Maryland.
5534
Post by: dogma
BaronIveagh wrote:
No, because Federal law takes precedent, that would be the 'sovereign' in this case, since it overrides State. Benton v. Maryland.
No, that's wrong. The states are individual sovereigns that have given up certain powers to the federal government. The federal government is one sovereign, and each state is another. Legal primacy is one of powers given over to the federal government.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
A person kills a federal agent with a gun.
The Murder is a Federal crime as well as a state and local.
The Fed takes precident.
The State or locality may add additional charges of unlawful discharge of a firearm, or even unlawful posession of such without tripping the Double Jeopardy.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Yes, but the State and the Fed can't BOTH charge him with the same murder. They can only add additional related crimes.
And for amusement, where I live it's only a Federal crime, and possibly not even that, depending on the situation.
5534
Post by: dogma
Theoretically, the state could also try the person for murder. The decision presented as a result of that trial would simply be irrelevant.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
That still doesn't sound right, because I can remember cases where mobsters beat the Federal charge and the state couldn't try them, though the name of the case atm escapes me...
I want to say it was a bribery case against a sheriff in Ohio...
5534
Post by: dogma
BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, but the State and the Fed can't BOTH charge him with the same murder. They can only add additional related crimes.
Normally what happens in cases when multiple sovereigns are an issue is that the crime will simply be referred to the federal authority. However, a state could try a person for murder, and deliver a sentence, but doing so would not obstruct the federal government from prosecuting said person for the same crime.
Look up United States v. Lanza. Automatically Appended Next Post: BaronIveagh wrote:That still doesn't sound right, because I can remember cases where mobsters beat the Federal charge and the state couldn't try them, though the name of the case atm escapes me...
I want to say it was a bribery case against a sheriff in Ohio...
Yeah, a federal acquittal supersedes any state judgment. The state could still hold a trial, it would just be a waste of time.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Except the 18th amendment was repealed, which this case primarily dealt with.
And dogma, this case was overturned by Benton v. Maryland, as the court here rules that the 5th Amendment only applies to Federal actions.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
So wait, a person found not guilty of a particular crime by a state court can still be found guilty by a federal court? (But not the other way around?)
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
If they're tried by the state first and it's a Federal offense, someone already screwed up.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Oh.
11422
Post by: Iron_Chaos_Brute
We made it to pg 20. Talking about politics.
5534
Post by: dogma
BaronIveagh wrote:
And dogma, this case was overturned by Benton v. Maryland, as the court here rules that the 5th Amendment only applies to Federal actions.
If that were true, then the larceny charge in the case of Benton v. Maryland would not have been considered subject to double jeopardy. Benton v. Maryland is about the same sovereign trying the same person for the same crime, and the application of the 5th amendment, via the 14th amendment, to states. It was ruled that Maryland could not convict Benton of larceny, after having previously acquitted him, because the states are subject to double jeopardy as they are subject to the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
BaronIveagh wrote:If they're tried by the state first and it's a Federal offense, someone already screwed up.
Most likely, yes. Though it may also be a case of political dissent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:So wait, a person found not guilty of a particular crime by a state court can still be found guilty by a federal court? (But not the other way around?)
As I understand it, yes. However, it is worth noting that cases where the same charges are subject to two different sovereigns are rare. Killing a federal agent is one of the more likely ones to occur, while firing a gun in one state and killing someone in another is a more fanciful example.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Killing a federal agent means you are pretty fethed anyway. I'm sure any charges the state can tack on would be moot at that point.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
dogma wrote:BaronIveagh wrote:
And dogma, this case was overturned by Benton v. Maryland, as the court here rules that the 5th Amendment only applies to Federal actions.
If that were true, then the larceny charge in the case of Benton v. Maryland would not have been considered subject to double jeopardy. Benton v. Maryland is about the same sovereign trying the same person for the same crime, and the application of the 5th amendment, via the 14th amendment, to states. It was ruled that Maryland could not convict Benton of larceny, after having previously acquitted him, because the states are subject to double jeopardy as they are subject to the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
In 1922, UNITED STATES v.LANZA et al the court held the view that the 5th Amendment only applied to Federal actions, as part of the ruling, and upheld this view in Palko v. Connecticut. In 1969, Benton v. Maryland, that ruling was overturned, stipulating that the 5th Amendment did, indeed, apply to state courts.
@Fate: Yes. You can be found guilty of it even if you were not present as proved by witnesses, DNA, and the FBI's own crime labs ballistics, and still serve a life sentence.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Without getting Mod-locked.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
@Frazz, regarding fixing your fence and random quotes of ourselves...
"yes I'll do it for transportation cost, and you get me a passport"
(that's not a very memorable quote, huh? my bad.)
-me, a couple of years back when I had to go record in New York and Cannes and Milan.
That's actually what got me back on the grid after I.D. loss. They pulled the strings to get me the new passport, etc, I never charged a dime for the actual work I did for the soundtrack I was just happy to finally exist again legally. (plus its fun to fly accross the atlantic 20 times a year on someone elses budget).
5470
Post by: sebster
helgrenze wrote:Not Yet. If you read that post, and others, you would have noticed that the INS, currently responsible for this enforcement, is not doing their job. This law allows local and state police to do the job.
Right, and for the next part of our teeth pulling exercise, you will note that this AZ law is predominantly oriented on the identification and return of illegals to Mexico, and not on reducing demand for Mexican labour in the US.
Which was my point that I have explained a lot of times now. If AZ wants to solve this problem itself, it could do so by focussing on reducing demand, and not on asking reasonably suspicious people if to show they're not illegal.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
helgrenze wrote:BaronIveagh wrote:... but that's double jeopardy, since if you beat the charge in state court they could charge you again in Federal.
Actually.... no. Federal Law takes precident. If a crime has local, state, and federal penalties, the Fedreal case takes precident. However, if you do beat it in fed court, nothing stops state or local from trial on related crimes.
Actually it is precedent.
And the Fed does not always lead. It is whomever caught you takes first shot. It goes both ways.
As to it being double jeopardy. The answer is:
In theory and original intent of the law, a resounding yes it is double jeopardy.
In current practice of the law, it does not qualify as double jeopardy.
The reason for this goes back to the U.S.'s unconstitutional "War on Crime/Drugs" which could also be renamed to a War on Civil Liberties. While the U.S. government's practice of violating its own laws is nothing new, the pace picked up considerably in the last half of the 20th century. JFK's use of the military to enforce civil law was a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, LBJ continued to do the same on a larger scale. Nixon declared War on Drugs, Reagan expanded the War on Drugs through a nearly unchecked use of executive orders, and Bush expanded this War even further with each of these expansion giving increased authority to the government and its respective agencies. The Clinton administration continued the war on drugs and laid the groundwork for what later became Bush no. 2's War on Terror while, simultaneously, launching a full scale assault on the second ammendment. In the past 30 years every politician has had to have a "Tough on Crime" policy that he can point to during election time. For 30 years this country has steadily written and enacted legislation that has progressively made it easier to get a conviction. Do any of you believe that such a judicial system can undergo 30 years of one-sided legislation and still be balanced or fair? Each election Laws are passed that are designed to allow our government to break its own laws. Sadly, one of these laws is the Double Jeopardy Law(autrefois acquit or autrefois convict pre-emptory plea) where if the individual has already been found innocent or guilty of a charge that the case is dismissed as already resolved. In the late 1980's-early 1990's as a part of this "War on Crime", the U.S. created an exploitable loophole in the law by giving the same crime different names. One name is the "States" name for an offense and the other is the "Fed Gov's". There are to many such manipulations of the judicial system to list here but I can give the reasoning and why these Wars on domestic issues were made unconstitutional by the architects of our system.
People might ask, "If Declaring war on domestic social problems is unconstitutional then why is it so widely used and accepted?". The answer lies in definitional debates about the purpose of war. Some definitions of war clearly state it is a form of international relations where organized violence is used as an instrument of power by sovereign nation-states but then a military historian/theorist named Carl von Clausewitz defined it as "an act of violence intended to compel opponents to fulfill our will." He then postulated that the real purpose of war was to put an end to any opposition. His teachings have often been misinterpreted and taken to extremes where declaring war on a domestic issue is acceptable. The problem of doing such is that it will be used to shut down debate, stifle or chill any voices of dissent, rally society around an enemy, seize the high moral ground, and divert resources from one set of solutions to another, usually a military-based solution set. As a political tool for capturing and maintaining power, declaring war is simply too irresistible for power seekers to resist. One of the Architects of our system, Thomas Jefferson I believe*, regarded this as one of the primary threats to democracy because war clouds the nation's populace with an anti-intellectual climate, and you can't remain both ignorant and free at the same time.
* (Will try to find where this is paraphrased from) if someone really needs such
Edited doubled words
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany."
"That is understood. "
"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders."
"That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
5534
Post by: dogma
BaronIveagh wrote:
In 1922, UNITED STATES v.LANZA et al the court held the view that the 5th Amendment only applied to Federal actions, as part of the ruling, and upheld this view in Palko v. Connecticut. In 1969, Benton v. Maryland, that ruling was overturned, stipulating that the 5th Amendment did, indeed, apply to state courts.
While your point is correct, you are missing the relevant component of the decision. In United States v. Lanza the Supreme Court held that state and federal governments each possessed separate sovereignty to punish offenses against their established statutes. What this means for the purposes of this argument is that the state of Washington was not subject to the double jeopardy protections outlined in the US Constitution; meaning both that they could theoretically prosecute on the same evidence as often as they wished, and that such prosecution would not count against any federal prosecution.
In both cases, double jeopardy is subject to exception in cases of separate sovereigns.
It is worth noting that Palko v. Connecticut was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the decision in Benton v. Maryland, which finally forced states to adhere to the 5th amendment protection against double jeopardy.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
brilliant on both counts focused and baron
7150
Post by: helgrenze
sebster wrote:helgrenze wrote:Not Yet. If you read that post, and others, you would have noticed that the INS, currently responsible for this enforcement, is not doing their job. This law allows local and state police to do the job.
Right, and for the next part of our teeth pulling exercise, you will note that this AZ law is predominantly oriented on the identification and return of illegals to Mexico, and not on reducing demand for Mexican labour in the US.
Which was my point that I have explained a lot of times now. If AZ wants to solve this problem itself, it could do so by focussing on reducing demand, and not on asking reasonably suspicious people if to show they're not illegal.
Reading material for you seb....taken from http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm
Sec. 8. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense
A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.
Seems plenty clear to me that this says hiring "unauthorized Aliens" is a violation of this law.
D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.
I believe this means a court date for the Employer.
F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:
(a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.
(b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:
(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.
(v) The duration of the violation.
(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.
(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
(d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.
Penalties for the first offense.
2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.
A second offense and ..Out Of Business!!
Wanna say this law doesnt go after the jobs again? Please, prove me wrong with my own evidence listed here.
221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/pro-immigration-violence-escalates/
EDITORIAL: Pro-immigration violence escalatesTea Party pacifism contrasts favorably to liberal arrestsFont Size -+PrintEmailCommentTweet this!Yahoo!
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Blatant falsehoods about Arizona's new immigration law keep piling up. Not only is the substance of the law grossly distorted, the liberal media is demonizing anyone who supports the reform and minimizing any wrongs by those opposing it.
Compare the media's hostile treatment of peaceful Tea Party protests to the sometimes violent leftist demonstrations against Arizona's law. No Tea Party demonstrators have been arrested during anti-government gatherings, and none has thrown rocks or broken bottles at police. This pacifist Tea Party track record spans multiple national demonstrations with crowds ranging from 300,000 at the April 15 Tax Day protest to around a million at September's demonstration against Obamacare.
The number of leftist agitators against Arizona's new immigration bill are far smaller. Yet, from the very first demonstration in Phoenix when the bill was signed on April 23, liberal protests have been marked by violence and arrests. In Chicago last week, the local Fox station reported that "police clashed with demonstrators" and protesters blocked vehicles; 24 were arrested. A Sunday march in Santa Cruz, Calif., damaged 18 businesses, with repair costs reaching an estimated $100,000. In San Francisco, three people were beaten by protesters, with two arrested. During a pro-illegal-immigration protest outside the White House on Saturday, 35 were arrested. The list goes on.
The same media bias comes into play when charges of fascism are bandied about against political opponents. In August, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tarred Tea Partiers as fascists because - she claimed - they were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that." The charges were broadcast by media nationwide. But when pushed for evidence to back up her claim, Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami provided The Washington Times with a single picture of a Tea Partier carrying a poster of a swastika with a line drawn through it, clearly signaling that fascist policies should be banned, which was the opposite of Mrs. Pelosi point.
Leftists are dusting off the old Nazi slur to use against their opponents in this new immigration debate. A Google news search found more than 900 news stories for "Arizona immigration law Nazi." A review of the articles found very few cases where charges of racism were questioned. Disgraced Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony "compared Arizona to Nazi Germany," according to the Los Angeles Times. A Houston Chronicle headline informed that "Signs depict [Arizona] Gov. [Jan] Brewer as Nazi at Dallas rally." KNX radio in Los Angeles reported signs labeling Mrs. Brewer as "the next Hitler." Cindy Lugo, a Long Beach City College student, ranted, "I think what [Mrs. Brewer is] doing in Arizona is similar to what Hitler did in Germany." It's a safe assumption Cindy isn't a history major.
Amidst all this hate-filled rhetoric by liberals and Democrats across the country, President Obama went on the attack against conservatives for criticizing government. "But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," the president said. "It can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response." Mr. Obama knows violent extremist elements pretty well - they currently are his most vocal supporters.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Cue Shuma and Dogma...........
Seems as if the blood of innocents is being spilled by those who claim the right side are violent.
Ah, the irony.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's nice to see the wishy-washy liberals are growing some balls at last.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Balls equates to violence?
Do you really wanna go down that road?
25342
Post by: Mortified Penguin
Frazzled wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/pro-immigration-violence-escalates/
EDITORIAL: Pro-immigration violence escalatesTea Party pacifism contrasts favorably to liberal arrestsFont Size -+PrintEmailCommentTweet this!Yahoo!
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Blatant falsehoods about Arizona's new immigration law keep piling up. Not only is the substance of the law grossly distorted, the liberal media is demonizing anyone who supports the reform and minimizing any wrongs by those opposing it.
Compare the media's hostile treatment of peaceful Tea Party protests to the sometimes violent leftist demonstrations against Arizona's law. No Tea Party demonstrators have been arrested during anti-government gatherings, and none has thrown rocks or broken bottles at police. This pacifist Tea Party track record spans multiple national demonstrations with crowds ranging from 300,000 at the April 15 Tax Day protest to around a million at September's demonstration against Obamacare.
The number of leftist agitators against Arizona's new immigration bill are far smaller. Yet, from the very first demonstration in Phoenix when the bill was signed on April 23, liberal protests have been marked by violence and arrests. In Chicago last week, the local Fox station reported that "police clashed with demonstrators" and protesters blocked vehicles; 24 were arrested. A Sunday march in Santa Cruz, Calif., damaged 18 businesses, with repair costs reaching an estimated $100,000. In San Francisco, three people were beaten by protesters, with two arrested. During a pro-illegal-immigration protest outside the White House on Saturday, 35 were arrested. The list goes on.
The same media bias comes into play when charges of fascism are bandied about against political opponents. In August, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tarred Tea Partiers as fascists because - she claimed - they were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that." The charges were broadcast by media nationwide. But when pushed for evidence to back up her claim, Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami provided The Washington Times with a single picture of a Tea Partier carrying a poster of a swastika with a line drawn through it, clearly signaling that fascist policies should be banned, which was the opposite of Mrs. Pelosi point.
Leftists are dusting off the old Nazi slur to use against their opponents in this new immigration debate. A Google news search found more than 900 news stories for "Arizona immigration law Nazi." A review of the articles found very few cases where charges of racism were questioned. Disgraced Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony "compared Arizona to Nazi Germany," according to the Los Angeles Times. A Houston Chronicle headline informed that "Signs depict [Arizona] Gov. [Jan] Brewer as Nazi at Dallas rally." KNX radio in Los Angeles reported signs labeling Mrs. Brewer as "the next Hitler." Cindy Lugo, a Long Beach City College student, ranted, "I think what [Mrs. Brewer is] doing in Arizona is similar to what Hitler did in Germany." It's a safe assumption Cindy isn't a history major.
Amidst all this hate-filled rhetoric by liberals and Democrats across the country, President Obama went on the attack against conservatives for criticizing government. "But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," the president said. "It can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response." Mr. Obama knows violent extremist elements pretty well - they currently are his most vocal supporters.
Considering he uses the term "Obamacare" with a straight face and accuses Obama of being a supporter of terrorism, you might want to post a counter-balance so we can get a clearer picture.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Leftists are dusting off the old Nazi slur to use against their opponents in this new immigration debate.
I've yet to see any protest in the last few years where someone hasn't accused/labelled the opposition as Nazis. It's like Godwin's law has escaped the internet and now roams the world at will.
221
Post by: Frazzled
True that, althoguh I'd posit most of the weridos attacking Obama call him a socialist, not a Nazi. Come on redy, get your nutjob slurs correct!
18176
Post by: Guitardian
I laughed when I read that Frazz. Just gotta say though, not all liberals are flakey hippies with no balls. Some of us just want a functional government too, it's just a different angle of approach. The 'ballsy' liberal is willing to get in a protest against something they think is wrong whether or not it will accomplish anything, because just the existance of the protest may sway other people into realizations about either capitalism or homelessness or immigration or police brutality, etc., pick your target. The 'balls' liberal lives according to the law for the most part, but understands that sometimes it is just plain unfair to a certain group of people (I'm an alien and I'm pretty sure I could stop in Flagstaff or Phoenix and not have my paperwork questioned, for instance). Everyone wants to be able to pay their way through life. Restrictions on a right to do something productive with yourself in the rigid system that likes to monitor the particulars (manned by people who ironically make it hard for others to earn a living, for a living) will only end up with more crime, thus letting the 'system' people say "I told you so" when crime rates grow up because work became illegal... it must be THOSE people! well no duh sherlock! of course it's THOSE people... THOSE people who weren't allow a chance to work for an honest living have to resort to some kind of lawlessness. hmm.
221
Post by: Frazzled
So you're still equating balls with violence?
Again I say do you really want to go down this road?
Frankly if you're homeless why are you still allowed in this country?
18176
Post by: Guitardian
I am not homeless. I do quite well for myself. However I do remember the unfair treatment of those times. Balls does not equal violence. A protest need not be violent to get its point accross. Sometimes it happens but hey that's why they have tasers and nightsticks. Just in case they have to get violent.
25342
Post by: Mortified Penguin
Frazzled wrote:So you're still equating balls with violence?
Again I say do you really want to go down this road?
Frankly if you're homeless why are you still allowed in this country?
Hey, everyone! Frazz thinks homeless people should be denied American citizenship!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Guitardian wrote:I am not homeless. I do quite well for myself. However I do remember the unfair treatment of those times. Balls does not equal violence. A protest need not be violent to get its point accross. Sometimes it happens but hey that's why they have tasers and nightsticks. Just in case they have to get violent.
We're agreed then. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mortified Penguin wrote:Frazzled wrote:So you're still equating balls with violence?
Again I say do you really want to go down this road?
Frankly if you're homeless why are you still allowed in this country?
Hey, everyone! Frazz thinks homeless people should be denied American citizenship!
He's not an American citizen now.
25342
Post by: Mortified Penguin
The joke I made just flew right over you, didn't it?
221
Post by: Frazzled
It wasn't a joke. It was an attack and I called you on your lack of facts. You're really going to have to work harder here. I'm the Barney Fife of targets. If you can't attack me properly how are you going to attack a more difficult opponent? Come Morty I'm just trying to help you get to the next level.
25342
Post by: Mortified Penguin
In general Internet etiquette, a laughing smiley usually indicates humour. Furthermore, in just about every previous post I have made I will at least have an argument. The fact that the post was a childish "Hurr, lookit" should indicate that it was a cheap attempt at a joke. Should I have made it, considering I didn't have all the facts and that it was tangentally related to the thread at best? In retrospect, no, it was dumb. That doesn't necessarily make it an attack however; attack implies malice, and internet arguments (as Shuma, Fate and dogma, alias the three stooges, have shown) are glorified shouting matches at best.
|
|
