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.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Allow me to quote myself:

"Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them."

What about that do you find objectional?

Mistress of minis wrote:Study is one thing- but when you seem to forget that laws change- they are not set in stone.

They change when theres a need for it to do- and its not an easy process.

You call it objective- I call it being ignorant of the realities that make us willing to fight for change. Many of these laws are antiquated- and are not up to the task of dealing with the world we live in now.

I agree, when are you getting around to dropping that silly second amendment? Militias are pointless now.

Or are we not talking about the Constitution? It wouldn't make any sense, because that's been the context of the discussion, but I've learned not to assume.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

How many study US law?

*Raises hand*

Second amendment only seems pointless to those that dont have it. And it proves that even the Constitution is changed- theyre called amendments which are added- and even dropped. Again- not an easy process, but it has and can happen.

Do you have any qualifications to that study? Or is it just wiki-fu?

Being former law enforcement, I have a better than average grasp of the laws in my state- having sworn an oath to uphold them and all that.

Mmm, fallacies! Delicious AND fresh.

This thread is funny! I certainly look forward to rolling out the "So says the foreigner" in EVERY possible argument from now on. Easy wins are the best wins.

Nothing like appeal to authority to really cut to the heart of an argument.

Polonius wrote:One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

I'm an American lawyer, and I agree with him that if a law is unconstitutional, SCOTUS will overturn it.

If is a mighty word.

I'd be curious what aspect SCOTUS would overturn, but IIRC AZ is in the Ninth Circuit, so it'll probably be struck down on appeal, with that action overturned by the SCOTUS.

Yea that was my bad.
Wait:

One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

This sounds like the beginning of a bad (by bad I mean excellent) film...

Being former law enforcement, I have a better than average grasp of the laws in my state- having sworn an oath to uphold them and all that.

Heck, until the 2002 Farm Bill, even legal immigrants were ineligible. In 2002, they partially restored eligibility based upon the number of years the legal immigrant had resided in the U.S. (5 years). This is the minimum for eligibility. Arizona statute/policy expanded this to 40 work quarters (10 years). Don't believe me? Here's the statute: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/Non_Citizen_Guidance.pdf Specifically see Section IX of the law.

Again, I can't help it if your friend is in violation of federal law by providing benefits to illegals; however, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Personally, if I were as concerned as you appear to be about illegal immigrants receiving services and was aware of infraction, I'd be contacting the local office of the Attorney General or the welfare fraud hotline: 1-800-251-2436

Oh?

Da Boss wrote:Mmm, fallacies! Delicious AND fresh.

This thread is funny! I certainly look forward to rolling out the "So says the foreigner" in EVERY possible argument from now on. Easy wins are the best wins.

Exactly. Now you have additional ammo. Who says I don't bring gifts for everyone?

Thanks Frazz!

Another point of view is that a foreigner can take an objective view about US law in a way that is difficult for a person who lives under it.

Police officers in many countries swear an oath and some of them still make mistakes or even commit crimes.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait:

One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

This sounds like the beginning of a bad (by bad I mean excellent) film...

It would have been. She was one of those Russian girls that took about 2 years to really figure out how to dress appropriately. I enjoyed watching the learning process....

He's married though, to an american girl. And I think he's either working on or is a Citizen. He's lived here for 13 years or something.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Gee, thats really helpful. Did you miss the whole part about identity theft? Do you think Az DES can afford to investigate every potential case of suspected ID fraud? If valid documents are provided- they cant deny the benefits. You're stating what is supposed to happen. In some idyllic fantasy world maybe that happens- but here it doesnt because the system is overwhelmed- hence SB 1070 being considered necessary.

I don't know about Arizona but the system here cross-checks data (names and socials) versus the feds and generates reports for the exceptions. Policy in this state is that such exceptions are to be investigated in a timely manner (30 days) by the workers. I don't recall if this was a state or federal directive; however, much of what we did was federally mandated. I managed to do all this and maintain a 625 family case load; believe me, I know how overloaded the system is.

.. so.. you're importing lawyers now ?!

..my god, we're doomed. Civilisation is over.

Mistress of minis wrote:Second amendment only seems pointless to those that dont have it.

Oh, I don't think that the second amendment is pointless as it stands. I think that militias are pointless. They're incredibly obsolete. And given that they're a fundamental part of what the second amendment was predicated on...

Mistress of minis wrote:And it proves that even the Constitution is changed- theyre called amendments which are added- and even dropped. Again- not an easy process, but it has and can happen.

It's not going to be changed by the Arizona state legislature, though, so I'm still confused as to what the hell you're talking about here when you say that:

Mistress of minis wrote:But hey- most of you arent citizens in Arizona- and hence you cannot vote on the issue, nor elect/re-elect people that are voting on these difficult issues. So these are really just distant things you see through the TV or computer screen- when it comes time to vote here I'm going to keep voting to keep the ILLEGAL immigrants liable for thier actions and crimes.

Mistress of minis wrote:Do you have any qualifications to that study? Or is it just wiki-fu?

I doubt I have any qualifications that would satisfy your curiosity on the matter. I'm not willing to post my university transcripts on a public forum.

Mistress of minis wrote:Being former law enforcement, I have a better than average grasp of the laws in my state- having sworn an oath to uphold them and all that.

It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

reds8n wrote:.. so.. you're importing lawyers now ?!

..my god, we're doomed. Civilisation is over.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

..see ?.. And we bring the topic back to Arizona !

..I kid, I kid !

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
Gee, thats really helpful. Did you miss the whole part about identity theft? Do you think Az DES can afford to investigate every potential case of suspected ID fraud? If valid documents are provided- they cant deny the benefits. You're stating what is supposed to happen. In some idyllic fantasy world maybe that happens- but here it doesnt because the system is overwhelmed- hence SB 1070 being considered necessary.

I don't know about Arizona but the system here cross-checks data (names and socials) versus the feds and generates reports for the exceptions. Policy in this state is that such exceptions are to be investigated in a timely manner (30 days) by the workers. I don't recall if this was a state or federal directive; however, much of what we did was federally mandated. I managed to do all this and maintain a 625 family case load; believe me, I know how overloaded the system is.

Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

reds8n wrote:.. so.. you're importing lawyers now ?!

..my god, we're doomed. Civilisation is over.

No, it's good, because we can send our lawyers over there to get rind of them.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

Sort of like 95% of people online act like experts on topics they really only have a minimal passing knowledge of- and make the 5% of actual experts look bad?

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

Sort of like 95% of people online act like experts on topics they really only have a minimal passing knowledge of- and make the 5% of actual experts look bad?

Kind of like when an arizonan ex cop acts like an expert of mideastern socioeconomics?

Mistress of minis wrote:
Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

Hello, state worker here; I know all about budget shortfalls. Oklahoma is $1 billion in the hole right now with a state constitution that says we have to have a balanced budget. irk. And we're a much poorer state than Arizona. My contacts at OKDHS tell me about office closures, record high case loads, furloughs, and even telecommuting. People leaving the agency are not being replaced, etc, etc, etc. On top of all this is federal audits, which occur with regularity, with the sole purpose of finding what they are doing wrong. Believe me, the feds don't care about state budgets or case load; they only care if you're following the rules or not. If a state has a high enough defect rate, guess what happens? Loss of funds. And if it's high enough, OIG comes out for a lengthy visit with resulting head-rolling and federal prison terms.

I would think as a former law enforcement officer, you would be aware that there is no excuse for breaking the law.

Mistress of minis wrote:Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:It's been my experience that police know about the laws that they need to know about to do their job, much like any other government employee, but hey, maybe it's just the other 95% making the 5% look bad again.

Sort of like 95% of people online act like experts on topics they really only have a minimal passing knowledge of- and make the 5% of actual experts look bad?

No, those aren't the same at all.

Oh, I see, you're using the vaguely-alike statistics to say that the two scenarios are also alike when they're not actually alike at all! You funny guy! I kill you last!

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Lets look at some easy numbers- just rounded off figures that have been used by multiple credible media sources.

We(the Az citizens and tax payers) are footing the bill for the illegals to the tune of nearly 1 billion dollars a year just in quantifiable civil costs- 800million or so in education, thats where illegals kids are going to our K-12 public schools for free(and getting catered to with spanish only classes and numerous 'bi lingual' classes). Then toss in 400 million in healthcare costs that are never repaid(alot of this is popping out the kids to go to our schools and making the 'anchor babies'). Round that off with at least 80 million in incarceration costs for illegals. Now, yes, the do pay some taxes that cant be avoided- namely sales taxes- and the figures on what they 'pay into' the system is around 250 million.

Which means the Az taxpayers are taking it in the pants to the tune of at least 1 billion dollars a year. Thats not counting the property damage(they rarely have insurance- so what do you think happens when they cause an accident?), court costs and a myriad of other random civil services.

So, tell me why we should tolerate people illegally entering our country and essentially robbing(not to mention the ones that literally rob) us of the money that could put our budget back into the positive side?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

I would think as a former law enforcement officer, you would be aware that there is no excuse for breaking the law.

Do you realize the utter irony of this when we are discussing illegal immigration as the core of this topic? The people causing the problem are here illegally in the first place....etc etc

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Cross checks names and socials.....which accomplishes zero in a good ID theft. Im not questioning your knowledge of the Oklahoma or Federal guidelines- but you also do not know the particulars of the situation here. Making blanket statements about what should be done- when theres not budget to do it with doesnt help at all. Arizona, like many other states is facing an enormous budget crunch- state workers (like the DES employees) are taking pay cuts, getting laid off, or being made to work days without actual pay. In short- as the need for thier services increases- theres fewer of them, working fewer paid hours to help more people. It doesnt take a genius to see how things that slipped through the cracks before- are worse now.

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Full disclosure, I did make a typo when I transcribed that part of the law. I should have written "permitted by federal law," not "among federal law."

However, that doesn't get you off the hook. Reread what I posted. Reread what you posted.

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Buzzz. Sorry, not true. I was a case worker for over 2 years here in Oklahoma and maintained a caseload of over 600 families. Of these families, I would estimate that less than 10% included households with illegal immigrants. Here is what families are eligible for, in households that have illegal immigrants; 1) Medical (in the form of medicaid) to any citizen children. 2) Food Stamps (SNAP) for any citizens in the household on a pro-rata basis. 3) Day Care assistance for the citizen children (depends on the state). For medical assistance, applicants must provide proof of citizenship

Buzz, sorry not true. I just started receiving food stamps to help my uncle as I search for a job. The only thing required was State ID (easily obtained with a stolen Identity), and a SSN card, (also not that hard). What did they need to provide me Medical care? Oh, a Birth Certificate (which is required to obtain the first two) OR an affidavit signed by another "legal citizen" stating that I was indeed an American Citizen. Yes, there was some crap on the back about penalties under law for perjerious statements, but I doubt anybody who is willing to lie on the form in the first place cares about the penalties associated with doing so. This is hardly "proof" of citizenship. Granted there was a thumbprint check, but when I asked about it, it was a check to be sure that I wasn't already recieving benefits under a different name..

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:]

And yet you advocate voting for SB1070, which, among other things, "prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted among federal law."

You don't see the disconnect here?

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Okay, because you clearly don't understand what I wrote:

I'm not talking about the investigations being limited. I'm saying that you have a system which is, by your own admission, already in budget crunch. And now the state legislature has made it illegal for towns, cities, and counties to make it policy not to investigate violations of federal law to less than the full extent of the budget crunch.

tl;dr: SB1070 just radically increased the workload and the system is already at breaking point.

And, again, you don't see the disconnect. Hmmm.

Mistress of minis wrote:

SB 1070 does NOTHING to limit the enforcement of federal laws.....are you sure you actually read it? Now go read the current federal laws on the same issue(if youre an expert you can find them)- theyre rather similar with the differences being mostly that state, county and municipal authorities can enforce the laws the federal authorities are not.

Lets look at some easy numbers- just rounded off figures that have been used by multiple credible media sources.

We(the Az citizens and tax payers) are footing the bill for the illegals to the tune of nearly 1 billion dollars a year just in quantifiable civil costs- 800million or so in education, thats where illegals kids are going to our K-12 public schools for free(and getting catered to with spanish only classes and numerous 'bi lingual' classes). Then toss in 400 million in healthcare costs that are never repaid(alot of this is popping out the kids to go to our schools and making the 'anchor babies'). Round that off with at least 80 million in incarceration costs for illegals. Now, yes, the do pay some taxes that cant be avoided- namely sales taxes- and the figures on what they 'pay into' the system is around 250 million.

Which means the Az taxpayers are taking it in the pants to the tune of at least 1 billion dollars a year. Thats not counting the property damage(they rarely have insurance- so what do you think happens when they cause an accident?), court costs and a myriad of other random civil services.

So, tell me why we should tolerate people illegally entering our country and essentially robbing(not to mention the ones that literally rob) us of the money that could put our budget back into the positive side?

You're misrepresenting numbers again. Arizona received $485,628,440 in federal Title 1, Part A and ARRA funds from the federal government. Since it's easily arguable that the children of illegal immigrants (it's a separate issue as to how many of the children are citizens) are attending Title 1, part A schools, it's not only an Arizona issue. By that I mean, shouldn't the rest of us tax payers have a say in how Arizona addresses the issue? ...I mean, it's our money too.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy09/index.html

FY 2009, Arizona received 9,309,076,348 in Federal money. You wanna talk welfare...
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update

Every tax payer is supporting 2 deadbeats. I differentiate between illegal or citizen deadbeat and it's been my personal experience that the illegals are less likely to milk the system than the, "citizens".

Mistress of minis wrote:Do you realize the utter irony of this when we are discussing illegal immigration as the core of this topic? The people causing the problem are here illegally in the first place....etc etc

Yep, life is not without its little ironies. But then I'm all for illegal immigrants not benefiting; however, it irks me when people misrepresent things that I know a good deal about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:Buzz, sorry not true. I just started receiving food stamps to help my uncle as I search for a job. The only thing required was State ID (easily obtained with a stolen Identity), and a SSN card, (also not that hard). What did they need to provide me Medical care? Oh, a Birth Certificate (which is required to obtain the first two) OR an affidavit signed by another "legal citizen" stating that I was indeed an American Citizen. Yes, there was some crap on the back about penalties under law for perjerious statements, but I doubt anybody who is willing to lie on the form in the first place cares about the penalties associated with doing so. This is hardly "proof" of citizenship. Granted there was a thumbprint check, but when I asked about it, it was a check to be sure that I wasn't already recieving benefits under a different name..

Yeah, you were cross-checked. If a red flag were raised, you would have been asked to provide further verification; the system is automated to a certain extent.

And I already stated that medicaid and day care assistance depend a great deal on state rules. I don't know about your state but in mine all suspected fraud is referred to the state office of the inspector general for investigaton. I was responsible for 2 people going to court and one felon being arrested in the office during my time at DHS.

The thumbprint is also crosschecked with state and federal databases to make sure you're not a wanted felon (as it's against federal law to provide services to wanted felons).

Ok- you're claiming to have read SB 1070.

You did make note of who pays the court costs and jailing fees for those who violate SB 1070?

Getting them out, lowers the burden and frees up the funds so the programs in place can run properly.

In the short term it may increase the workload on law enforcement (Agnosto and my replies to him are based on Social work- not law enforcement).

But it doesnt seem like thats likely as we are already seeing a migration of mexican nationals out of Arizona and the law isnt even in effect until the end of July..

So sure, there may be an uphill push before the direct improvements are seen, but I still think people are vastly oblivious about how this law is going to be enforced. Law Enforcement will carry on doing their job just like they have been. The only change- is that when they do pull someone over- or show up to a fight or any of the things cops regularly do- they'll check citizenship papers/ID, and can arrest/detain those involved that are here illegally. They arent going to gear up in riot armor and go do sweeps or anything like that.

helgrenze wrote:
Mexican President Calderon sees those in this country illegally simply as "migrants", as if the southwestern states are part of Mexico.

You keep making these statements about how inappropriate Mexico's position is without actually connecting them to a rationale regarding their importance. Its almost as if you think the point is self-evident, which is an awful mistake in the course of any argument. All you're accomplishing by continuing along this line is the deepening of my suspicion that you don't have a rational means by which to establish the significance of any comment made by Calderon, and are instead proceeding purely on emotion. A suspicion that, if proven factual, would make me think far less of any comment you might make in the future.

helgrenze wrote:
Would an American President be allowed to make such a statement or comments critical of Mexico policy while in that country.
The answer is NO. Mexican law prohibits foreign nationals from doing so on Mexican soil.

Yes, it does. However, American law does not. Why are you so concerned with what Mexican law states?

helgrenze wrote:
My opinion being influenced by comments of this kind is one thing, His assumption that he has any influence over laws in this country is another.

Yes, they're two different things, but you didn't raise the second point until now. Again, you seem to be proceeding on the basis that the facts you're presenting will carry self-evident weight. Again, this is almost always a rather convenient way to conceal an argumentative weakness; very much like asking a rhetorical question.

Moreover, I think its rather naive to presume that foreign leaders have absolutely no control over domestic legislative processes. Nominally they are not supposed to, hence the laws regarding campaign finance from foreign sources (now rather moot given the absence of a cap on corporate sponsorship in a world of wholly owned subsidiaries), but in practice diplomatic pressure can be a powerful force in those instances where leverage is established. Of course, Mexico has very little leverage on the US.

helgrenze wrote:
Obama may not like the laws Arizona is passing, but He is President of this Nation... not some political appointee placed in Washington by Mexico. He needs to start acting like the Leader he sold himself to be and stop acting like a whipped dog everytime some other country gets annoyed.

Are you claiming that rhetoric is important now? Because in the thread about the oil spill you spent a lot of time speaking to the contrary. It seems like you're only concerned about political language when it would produce a sense of satisfaction for you.

As I understand it, neither US federal law or policy have changed to accommodate Mexico or its interests. In the face of that, why is the rhetoric being used to put a face on the state at all important?

agnosto wrote:

You're misrepresenting numbers again. Arizona received $485,628,440 in federal Title 1, Part A and ARRA funds from the federal government. Since it's easily arguable that the children of illegal immigrants (it's a separate issue as to how many of the children are citizens) are attending Title 1, part A schools, it's not only an Arizona issue. By that I mean, shouldn't the rest of us tax payers have a say in how Arizona addresses the issue? ...I mean, it's our money too.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy09/index.html

FY 2009, Arizona received 9,309,076,348 in Federal money. You wanna talk welfare...
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update

Every tax payer is supporting 2 deadbeats. I differentiate between illegal or citizen deadbeat and it's been my personal experience that the illegals are less likely to milk the system than the, "citizens".

Mistress of minis wrote:Do you realize the utter irony of this when we are discussing illegal immigration as the core of this topic? The people causing the problem are here illegally in the first place....etc etc

Yep, life is not without its little ironies. But then I'm all for illegal immigrants not benefiting; however, it irks me when people misrepresent things that I know a good deal about.

Ok, please tell me how the federals funds we recieve, in anyway mean that the illegal immigrants do not put a burden on Arizona tax payers? EVERY state gets federal funding- sorta comes with that whole deal of paying federal taxes.

Where your numbers become totally irrelevant to the topic at hand- is the Feds do not provide us any extra money to compensate for the illegal immigrants. Last time I checked, those funds are delegated via census numbers- of which illegal immigrants arent counted. Does that need to be explained more? Seems pretty simple.

Im not questioning what you claim to know, as you do seem knowledgeable in your field. But unless you're going to come here and single handedly fix the immigration related issues- you're just another online sock puppet making noises on a subject you dont know all the variables of. Do you see me telling you how Social work laws operate? Nope- Im just relating the symptoms/effects of a problem that has local specifics you don't seem to be aware of.

Mistress of minis wrote:So sure, there may be an uphill push before the direct improvements are seen, but I still think people are vastly oblivious about how this law is going to be enforced. Law Enforcement will carry on doing their job just like they have been. The only change- is that when they do pull someone over- or show up to a fight or any of the things cops regularly do- they'll check citizenship papers/ID, and can arrest/detain those involved that are here illegally. They arent going to gear up in riot armor and go do sweeps or anything like that.

Who's holding them while they're awaiting shipment to the feds?

Who's transporting them while they're shipped to the feds?

Who's holding them when the feds don't deport them, as they've said they might not (indeed, they've said that they don't guarantee to deport anyone not brought to them by federal agencies) ?

That's right, Arizona.

It's not all about the guys on the front line.

Let's leave aside that without even being enforced it's inflamed racial tensions considerably. I wonder what it'll be like when it is.