What exactly is wrong with Arizona Immigration Law SB1070?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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!

**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.

**Albatross**

Wrong, Matty - you are built for Boro!

**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.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

4th amendment protects against illegal searches and seizures. If they meet reasonable suspicion its a legal search.

**Soladrin**

Thats my point, your forced to have them on you, not to show them to everyone and their great grand mother.

**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.

**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

**Frazzled**

Very impressive.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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/

**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.

**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.

**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.