Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?

[Doomsday]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

Basically, for those of you who haven't heard about this, it's now legal to ask 'suspected illegal immigrants' for their Papers, Please!

It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

Racial profiling is now legal in Arizona, for all intents and purposes.

[Trieste]

How is this different from police asking people for their ID? Even when doing nothing wrong, I've been asked, "Can I see some ID, please?". It's kinda their job to know who they're dealing with and that you are who you say you are.

[Doomsday]

"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." -4th Amendment.

[Vekseid]

This is why you do not run a massively deceptive news organization as a propaganda arm for your party. You will start to believe your own bullshit, aim a loaded canon at your foot under the misguided impression that it is your opponent, and then gleefully pull the trigger.

It's so patently absurd I have a hard time finding offense. The Latino vote was going to be one of the major enthusiasm drags for democrats this election. This is almost as brilliant as opposing financial reform by demanding backroom dealing.

How is this different from police asking people for their ID? Even when doing nothing wrong, I've been asked, "Can I see some ID, please?". It's kinda their job to know who they're dealing with and that you are who you say you are.

Stop and identify is perfectly legal. "Can I see your birth certificate?"

[Trieste]

"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." -4th Amendment.

That isn't actually an answer. If you want to argue 4th Amendment, fine, but then you can argue that the 4th Amendment doesn't cover illegal immigrants.

Or, if you want, you can argue that the police asking for your ID is also against the 4th Amendment.

And, by the way, what does 'unreasonable' mean? What if you're anti-immigrant? Do people who are breaking the law really have any rights?

Come on, Doomsday, throw up a stance.

Stop and identify is perfectly legal. "Can I see your birth certificate?"

And the thing is that I can say, "No" or, "I don't have it", just like I can say if I don't have my ID on me. And you know what, it leaves me open to detention by the police also.

My point is that this is not a huge extension of power like it's being made out to be.

[Doomsday]

Trieste, the Constitution is VERY deliberate about identifying "People" (i.e.: Anyone with a pulse, regardless of nationality) and "Citizens". The 4th amendment explicitly talks about People, not Citizens.

I would say unreasonable would be if you're asked to prove ID when you're not doing anything illegal. Taking pedestrians off the street, asking to see their papers... Doesn't that sound a bit familiar to you?

[Xenophile]

Hell, I agree with you Doomsday that asking for papers without any reasonable cause, example being suspicious looking drifters near a crime scene. but other successful democracies have similar standards on freedom and will not have an issues with otherwise random inspections. For example, in Sweden, random alcohol tests can be made on drivers without any real reason.

Though, what separates the otherwise random check-ups with what is instituted in Arizona, is that one particular ethnicity is targeted. On principle, that is very disturbing from a civic liberty stand-point.

[Trieste]

I would say unreasonable would be if you're asked to prove ID when you're not doing anything illegal. Taking pedestrians off the street, asking to see their papers... Doesn't that sound a bit familiar to you?

Sure. It sounds like standard procedure on a train, or in other countries (as your own article even states) or any other place where you're supposed to go through an entry process to be there.

If you're courting Godwin's law, checking peoples' credential is no more exclusive to Nazis and dictators than human experimentation is. The difference is the execution and the intent.

[DarklingAlice]

Asking for your ID does not constitute a search. It has been state law in a number of states that it is illegal to be in a public place without ID. I have been stopped in public parks and asked to show ID before. It is not excessively burdensome nor is it a form of search.

That said I do agree that the constitution deals with our behavior towards all people, and that illegals possess a right against unreasonable search and seizure. The case of asking for your I'd is just not one.

Further, Veks is right. To be able to ask for your birth certificate is unreasonable. It is a primary, personal document that there can be no reasonable expectation of you carrying around.

These are merely my opinions on what has been said so far. I need to read up on the law itself before expressing a personal opinion on it.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

EDIT: Corrected some stupid mistakes stemming from my BlackBerry's autoformating.

[Vekseid]

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.htm <- text for those interested. Oddly hard to find from all the hoopla surrounding it. WTF.

And the thing is that I can say, "No" or, "I don't have it", just like I can say if I don't have my ID on me. And you know what, it leaves me open to detention by the police also.

My point is that this is not a huge extension of power like it's being made out to be.

Er, no. Stop and identify statutes require 1) specific suspicious elements for a crime and 2) identifying by name only passed the supreme court 5-4. Requiring said proof on your person has not been tested by the Supreme Court yet. In addition, the reasons for detainment need to be clear and specific. "Reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant" opens up a can of worms and the bit about allowing local citizens to sue for what -they think- is insufficient enforcement only makes that problem worse.

[auroraChloe]

My point is that this is not a huge extension of power like it's being made out to be.

lets say Jose Doe (a legal united states citizen) is suspected of being illegal because he happens to be dark skinned.  He is asked for his 'documentation' and does not happen to have an ID on him (for what ever reason) so the local police can hall him in.  who knows what might happen during such instances - resisting, brutality, a little friendly fire. 

cute little white girls not carrying an ID might get a warning or ticket, Jose could get dead. 

[Oniya]

Hell, I agree with you Doomsday that asking for papers without any reasonable cause, example being suspicious looking drifters near a crime scene. but other successful democracies have similar standards on freedom and will not have an issues with otherwise random inspections. For example, in Sweden, random alcohol tests can be made on drivers without any real reason.

I seem to recall that cops set up random anti-drunk-driving stops in the States as well.  They tend to be more prevalent around major holidays, like Independence Day or New Year's Eve.

[Xenophile]

I seem to recall that cops set up random anti-drunk-driving stops in the States as well.  They tend to be more prevalent around major holidays, like Independence Day or New Year's Eve.

I think it's pretty much the same thing here in Sweden too. Special holidays, specific roads where there might be a higher degree of traffic where the drivers are under the influence, etc.

But hey, at least they're not on a quota, so there's nothing to be afraid of!

[Doomsday]

http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate

That was quick. First (I believe) legal citizen arrested for being brown in Arizona.

[auroraChloe]

http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate   

“there’s nothing (honorable) about being illegal… This country was built on legal immigration. ”   

*laughs*        tell that to the native americans.

[Xenophile]

“there’s nothing (honorable) about being illegal… This country was built on legal immigration. ”   

*laughs*        tell that to the native americans.

They stole the land from the Mammoth and the Sabre tooth tiger.

[Doomsday]

Well they took it from Godzilla and Godzookie.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that this is going to jet up the appeals court REALLY fast. I expect within a year at least a dozen or so cases to be pushed up the circuit courts. I cringe to think what damage will be done to people's livelihood, LIVES and families before this is done.

I somehow sense that Senator McCain will not get as much Latino support for his reelection this time around. (I think I saw an article with him supporting it last week)

[Xenophile]

Well they took it from Godzilla and Godzookie.

Well, they, uh...

They took it from the Flintstones?

[DarklingAlice]

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.htm <- text for those interested. Oddly hard to find from all the hoopla surrounding it. WTF.

This happens allot. The more the media seizes upon an issue the further the original gets buried beneath a mound of trash.

In addition, the reasons for detainment need to be clear and specific. "Reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant" opens up a can of worms and the bit about allowing local citizens to sue for what -they think- is insufficient enforcement only makes that problem worse.

Agree entirely. The changes as a whole are not remarkable. Some of them are even good (the anti-entrapment clauses). But the problem stems from the complete lack of oversight in passages like:

B.  For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.  The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).

'Reasonable suspicion' is a whole lot less defined than even 'probable cause'. A probable cause must be demonstrable, a 'reasonable suspicion' is merely any line of bullshit that you can rationalize. If a state wants to crack down on its enforcement of federal law that is perfectly fine, good even, but they should not use it as a cover for empowering their law enforcement beyond reason.

And local citizens should express their approval of their law enforcement through funding, elections, and political procedure. Not putting it in civil court. That's just bizarre.

[DarklingAlice]

http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate

That was quick. First (I believe) legal citizen arrested for being brown in Arizona.

Arrested by ICE agents. This has absolutely nothing to do with this law. If you don't like the federal standards, that's fine. Lobby to change them. But don't try to conflate these two things.

[Revolverman]

Arrested by ICE agents.

Thats a scary name for a law enforcement group.

[Serephino]

The thing I don't like is that it will give racist cops an excuse to harass anyone who even just looks like they're Hispanic.  I don't like to say bad things about cops, but they are human and therefore not perfect.

I think illegal immigration is a problem, but not as big as everyone makes it out to be.  If you really think about it, they are this country's source of cheap labor.  They do the jobs that citizens won't.  There are people who won't work in a fast food joint because they believe it to be beneath them, which is bullshit, but what are you gonna do? 

Also, people bitch that they don't pay taxes, well, set it up that they can pay taxes without fear of being deported.  Some probably won't, but some might.  After all, they're not horrible monsters, but rather human beings.  They're here for a reason.  They risk their lives to get here, so what they're running from must be pretty bad.  Hell, maybe the answer even lies in making entering the country legally easier.  Think of all the extra tax money.   

[Callie Del Noire]

I think penalizing employers might work too.. put out the fines that are supposed to come out.

But that's just the reactionary in me.

The reading of the language of the law seems... fuzzy at best. Extremely so.

[Zakharra]

 I don't see any oproblem with this law. It's just a check on citizenship and isn't necessarily intrusive. Now before anyone can say it's racial profiling, it's NOT racial profiling. It is illegal profiling. There are more than just hispanics that are in this country illegally. There are Asians as well as  people of African and European decent.

  This law is an attempt to get under control the rampant illegal popuulation that the federal government is seriously falling down on.  If the federal goverment will not do anything, then it is left to the states to enforce it and  believe me, they will do that.  This isn't a slam at legal immigrants, but at illegals.  The Democrats and liberal future voters. Anyone that immediately screams  'RACISM!' is coming across to many people as 1, a racist themselves since that is the FIRST thing they scream on a bill/law they don;t like, and 2, someone not willing to do one bloody thing against illegal immigrants. Who by the fact they are illegal, are breaking the law.

Now can this law be abused? Of course it can. Any law can be abused so to automatically label one as racist right off the bat is rather stupid.

[Zakharra]

I think illegal immigration is a problem, but not as big as everyone makes it out to be.  If you really think about it, they are this country's source of cheap labor.  They do the jobs that citizens won't.  There are people who won't work in a fast food joint because they believe it to be beneath them, which is bullshit, but what are you gonna do? 

Not really. The illegals that ICE busted? Their jobs were filled by Americans the next day.

[Jude]

Not really. The illegals that ICE busted? Their jobs were filled by Americans the next day.

Right, because one example disproves that premise entirely.

p.s. American businesses would hire an American over an illegal any day if they were willing to work for the same wages; maybe even a tiny bit more.  Americans do a better job because there's no communicational barrier, plus the business won't have to worry about breaking the law.  They don't in part because they can pay them under the table, but also because Americans aren't willing to do those jobs for those wages.

Right now businesses that are hiring illegals are willing to break the law and accept a less communicative worker in exchange for cheaper labor.  There's lots of ways to fix this problem so that things are tipped in the favor of Americans--or we could just accept that we don't need menial, poorly paying jobs and focus on skilled labor that we won't have to compete with immigrants for.  Attempting to stop illegal immigration is only one solution out of a whole realm of possibilities (not to mention all the ways it could be stopped).

[Zakharra]

Right, because one example disproves that premise entirely.

p.s. American businesses would hire an American over an illegal any day if they were willing to work for the same wages; maybe even a tiny bit more.  Americans do a better job because there's no communicational barrier, plus the business won't have to worry about breaking the law.  They don't in part because they can pay them under the table, but also because Americans aren't willing to do those jobs for those wages.

Right now businesses that are hiring illegals are willing to break the law and accept a less communicative worker in exchange for cheaper labor.  There's lots of ways to fix this problem so that things are tipped in the favor of Americans--or we could just accept that we don't need menial, poorly paying jobs and focus on skilled labor that we won't have to compete with immigrants for.  Attempting to stop illegal immigration is only one solution out of a whole realm of possibilities (not to mention all the ways it could be stopped).

No. It doesn't. But part of the illegal immigration myth is that they do jobs Americans will now do. Which is patent bs. They do have jobs Americans will take.  Do they all have jobs Americans wll do? No, but they do have some of them.

I agree that businesses need to be penalized more for hirging illegals, but it should also be easier for them to check if a potential hire IS an illegal. If that person is an illegal, the law should require that they report that illegal. Is that harsh? Probably, but they are breaking the law just by being here.

[Jude]

No. It doesn't. But part of the illegal immigration myth is that they do jobs Americans will now do. Which is patent bs.

How do you know this is a myth?  Where are your facts?

They do have jobs Americans will take.  Do they all have jobs Americans wll do? No, but they do have some of them.

You're probably right about this, but it's a question of (1) are these "some" unemployed/unable to get better jobs and (2) if they are, how many of them are there?  Is it enough to be a real problem worth considering?

Like I said, if Americans are willing to do these jobs for that same wage as the illegals, then they would be doing them, because they're better qualified and more able to do the work.  The language barrier is a serious issue.  The problem is, the compensation gap between illegals and Americans is so large that the money saved on cheap labor doesn't outweigh the communicational and cultural benefits.

I agree that businesses need to be penalized more for hirging illegals, but it should also be easier for them to check if a potential hire IS an illegal. If that person is an illegal, the law should require that they report that illegal. Is that harsh? Probably, but they are breaking the law just by being here.

Isn't it fairly easy to check if a hire is an illegal?  If they don't have a social security number that checks out... Any job I've applied for has involved enough screening that I doubt an illegal immigrant could get by it.  I think the problem is that they don't screen because they're specifically looking to hire an illegal, but to be fair I'm not aware what the numbers are on how many businesses accidentally hire illegals.

[Zakharra]

How do you know this is a myth?  Where are your facts?

Just watch the media and see how they portray the illegal. It's mostly in the most positive light as possible. The print and video media has for the most part, painted the ilegals as a 'gentle poorman that is only trying to make the best for himself andf his family and please, please can't we just forgive them and let them come in and ignore their breaking the law. They are only doing the job that Americans wll not do. *shows pictures of sad eyed cute children and women*'

You're probably right about this, but it's a question of (1) are these "some" unemployed/unable to get better jobs and (2) if they are, how many of them are there?  Is it enough to be a real problem worth considering?

Like I said, if Americans are willing to do these jobs for that same wage as the illegals, then they would be doing them, because they're better qualified and more able to do the work.  The language barrier is a serious issue.  The problem is, the compensation gap between illegals and Americans is so large that the money saved on cheap labor doesn't outweigh the communicational and cultural benefits.

The language barrier isn't enough to outweigh that. Look at where they have been finding illegals? The recent ICE raid. I doubt there was any real language barrier that stopped those people from getting a job at the plants.

Isn't it fairly easy to check if a hire is an illegal?  If they don't have a social security number that checks out... Any job I've applied for has involved enough screening that I doubt an illegal immigrant could get by it.  I think the problem is that they don't screen because they're specifically looking to hire an illegal, but to be fair I'm not aware what the numbers are on how many businesses accidentally hire illegals.

From what I've heard, it's not so easy to check until after a person is hired. The SS check is being done after they are hired. A law I think. I'm vague on this so I could verywell be wrong and will change my view if proven so.  I do think that a SS check should be mandatory to make weeding them out easier.

[RubySlippers]

I have to point out several things after I really looked into the law.

One, it mimics Federal Law and adds more rights to the accused. No one can jhust be stopped they need a fair reason and since any officer can ask for ID when questioning such a person its simply saying the ID must be legal and prove your a citizen. Federal Law demands ID to do almost everything and you must have ID in everyday use such as banking. And under Arizona law you just have to show a legal identification your legal and its over your fine and if you can't the officer can question you.

Two, the very laws your bitching about allow any legal officer Federal and state and local to enforce immigration laws its in the regulations that way so when a local police officer does this its his JOB. Just like enforcing one of any other numbers of laws out there like burglary or running red lights. Arizona just game the police the tools to do this.

Three, the law is also focused on employers in the state if you willfully hire illegals once your fined and if again you are out of business losing your license. And it bans transporting and supporting illegal trafficking and other major measures. With some protections for clergy that may deal with them for various reasons and innocent activities - like if they buy a ticket to take the greyhound bus somewhere.

Maybe if the Federal government would do their job and close the borders etc. the states may not move on their own. But they don't want to do their job do they. And sice they already empowered local and state police to do this and much of the rest is state law and therefore under the 10th Amendment protections its fine by me. I LIKE this trend and all states should pass similar laws.

[Oniya]

Considering the ease of identity theft (which does include theft of SSNs), I wouldn't be surprised if a person intent on breaking immigration laws did actually have a SSN that registers as having been issued.  It may have been issued to someone who is dead, or someone who has been victimized by identity theft.

[Callie Del Noire]

Considering the ease of identity theft (which does include theft of SSNs), I wouldn't be surprised if a person intent on breaking immigration laws did actually have a SSN that registers as having been issued.  It may have been issued to someone who is dead, or someone who has been victimized by identity theft.

I think that the SSN idea is stupid and foolhardy given the amount of ID theft going on out there. There was the issue of the Hispanic-American who HAD his license and other things. The folks held him in place till his WIFE brought his SS Card AND Birth Certificate (missing work in the process)

[RubySlippers]

I will add this using falsified documents of any sort for ID is a crime so such people are breaking felonies. And these persons that are here ILLEGALLY are ILLEGAL in our nation breaking another law. Employers that hire them are breaking the law and should be severely fined and if they don't turn themselves around closed down. Why is this even a debate if your here under our laws and legal there should be no issue you will have proper identification? If not get the frak out of MY country your a criminal.

And I will like to note we need to close the 14th Amendment loophole that allows anyone born on American soil to be a citizen come on that is worded moronically what was for slaves to justifiably be made citizens to this travesty.

[Callie Del Noire]

And I will like to note we need to close the 14th Amendment loophole that allows anyone born on American soil to be a citizen come on that is worded moronically what was for slaves to justifiably be made citizens to this travesty.

Do we go back to allowing only land OWNERS to vote to?

I'm sorry Ruby.. some of what you're saying is a bit over the top. I think citizenship should be the right of everyone who is born here.

Of course I also think that employers should be absolute HAMMERED to the extent of the law for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Too many companies do the 'blind eye' to that. I know a buddy out west who couldn't work for his dad's company because he would have to be paid more than their 'new labor pool'.

[RubySlippers]

I don't mean ban them from citzenship just make sure the parents are legal citizens at some point carrying onto the child not the other way around AND they can't on their own apply for citizenship until eighteen so the children don't get any national benefits. We can make this a simple matter so foreign nationals working or visiting here don't pop out a baby and bammo get all sorts of money and benefits. That is just stupid.

[Jude]

Just watch the media and see how they portray the illegal. It's mostly in the most positive light as possible. The print and video media has for the most part, painted the ilegals as a 'gentle poorman that is only trying to make the best for himself andf his family and please, please can't we just forgive them and let them come in and ignore their breaking the law. They are only doing the job that Americans wll not do. *shows pictures of sad eyed cute children and women*'

So... it's a myth, and you're so sure that you called it BS when someone else cited it, yet you have no facts.  I'm sorry, but there's no room in polite debate for that attitude.  You can say you disagree, but unless you know for a fact that it's not true, you shouldn't be using such offensive, loaded language.

The language barrier isn't enough to outweigh that. Look at where they have been finding illegals? The recent ICE raid. I doubt there was any real language barrier that stopped those people from getting a job at the plants.

There's always a language barrier.  Someone you can't communicate with as easily is going to be harder to manage in everything from issuing daily orders to cultural misunderstandings.  And you're right, the language barrier is currently not enough to encourage people to hire Americans instead of illegals, but what people don't understand is that if you hire Americans instead of illegals you're going to have to pay them more, which will increase the cost of the goods these businesses are selling.  This will not necessarily raise prices, but there's a good chance it will.  Maybe even significantly if the product being sold relies heavily on labor for its production.  Getting rid of illegals may give Americans more jobs, but they're not good jobs (they're menial, unskilled labor) and they'll probably raise prices for everyone*.

* I don't have statistics to back this up, I'm just using logical relationships.  If anyone sees a fault in my casual logic, please lemme know.

[Zakharra]

So... it's a myth, and you're so sure that you called it BS when someone else cited it, yet you have no facts.  I'm sorry, but there's no room in polite debate for that attitude.  You can say you disagree, but unless you know for a fact that it's not true, you shouldn't be using such offensive, loaded language.

Just WATCH  the news. Look at how the news agencies spin the illegals. They are, for the most part, portrayed in the best possible light. Hell, only a few years ago they were being compared to Jesus. Most of the news agencies, Democrats and liberals are very much against the law that does one thing. It [/i]enforces the FEDERAL[/i] law. It's giving local and state police to do what the federal agencies are not doing. To look, in certain situations, for illegals. Who by just being IN the US, are breaking the law.

What offensive and loaded language have I used? I've looked at my few posts in here and none of them have any racial or personal slurs.

[Jude]

You've called other people's opinions myths and BS without any evidence whatsoever that actually proves that you're right.  That's offensive and uncalled for.  You can tell other people you think they're wrong, but BS is hardly civil., and it makes for poor arguing when you come on so strongly that you "know" you're right, but you can't even present the facts that prove what you "know."

As far as I can tell you don't have any evidence either.  You seem to think media perception is evidence of a factual condition, and it's not.

p.s.  What you said isn't even true.  There's plenty of anti-illegal immigration coverage all over the media, unless we're going to pretend that suddenly Talk Radio isn't media, or Fox News... or CNN... Lou Dobbs anyone (granted he's not there anymore).  Media is a general term which could ever cover the internet.  Now, if you mean cable news, you'd be right about MSNBC, but what does what MSNBC airs have to do with that being a myth?

[HairyHeretic]

If you're going to argue against someone else points, debate it with facts, not insults. If your temper is starting to get the better of you, take a little time out before posting.

[Lyell]

Personally I don't understand the Fourth Ammendment argument. It's invalid. State IDs are issued by and property of 'the state.' You cannot by law, and by consent of posessing said ID, deny any state official (read 'the police') that the license be turned over for any reason. It's not yours.

Racial profiling is a weak argument. This is just a rough guestimate but I'm willing to bet that ~99% of Arizona's illegal immigrants come in through Mexico and are of hispanic origins, simply by virtue of it being a border state with no oceanic ports.

Illegal. This is a word that the democratic party seems to be dodging. Illegal immigrant. They're here illegally. You're not stopping someone over spilled milk, you're stopping someone because you suspect they're committing a continuous crime. Comparing this law to Nazi practices is highly innaccurate. The Jewish were legal residents. The illegal immigrants are not. Arizona isn't even loading them up on trains to be gassed, they're just trying to get them out of the state.

What I wanna know is why I have to have a state issued ID to posses a concealed handgun, drive a vehicle, (supposedly) get a job, use my debit card, but not when it comes time to decide the fate of the country at the voting booths?

I don't have anything against the people who are here legally. My grandmother and about a quarter of my family are hispanic. They became legal U.S. citizens. What about it is so difficult that others insist on being here illegally?

[Doomsday]

I will add this using falsified documents of any sort for ID is a crime so such people are breaking felonies. And these persons that are here ILLEGALLY are ILLEGAL in our nation breaking another law. Employers that hire them are breaking the law and should be severely fined and if they don't turn themselves around closed down. Why is this even a debate if your here under our laws and legal there should be no issue you will have proper identification? If not get the frak out of MY country your a criminal.

And I will like to note we need to close the 14th Amendment loophole that allows anyone born on American soil to be a citizen come on that is worded moronically what was for slaves to justifiably be made citizens to this travesty.

What.

The.

Fuck?

You don't think someone born on American soil should be an American?! I've been slapped on the wrist several times by Gods recently for flipping my lid, so I will refrain from saying anything besides that I'm very disappointed by sentiments like this, especially since I know that many misguided people agree with you.

What I REALLY hate, Lyell, is when people say "Hurr durr, illegal, shouldn't be here lulz".

Let's analyze why they're here, and why they're illegal.

WHY They're here.

Globalization is raping the Mexican economy.

The 1994 imposition of NAFTA was particularly devastating. Just as Bill Clinton and the corporate elites did here, Mexico's ruling elites touted NAFTA as a magic elixir that would generate growth, create jobs, raise wages and eliminate the surge of Mexican migrants into the United States. They were horribly wrong:

    * Economic growth in Mexico has been anemic since '94, and the benefits of any growth have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthiest families.

    * Since NAFTA, Mexico has created less than a third of the millions of decent jobs it needs.

    * Average factory wages in Mexico have dropped by more than 5 percent under NAFTA.

    * Unemployment has jumped, and unskilled workers are paid only $5 a day.

    * U.S. agribusiness corporations have more than doubled their shipment of subsidized crops into Mexico, busting the price that indigenous farmers got for their production and displacing some 2 million peasant farmers from their land.

    * Huge agribusiness operations, many owned by U.S. investors, now control Mexican agricultural production and pay farmworkers under $2 an hour.

    * Since NAFTA passed, there has been a flood of business bankruptcies and takeovers in Mexico as predatory U.S. chains have moved in. U.S. corporations now control 40 percent of the country's formal jobs, with Wal-Mart reigning as the No. 1 employer.

    * Nineteen million more Mexicans live in poverty today than when NAFTA was passed.

    So, here's the deal: Thanks to Mexico's newly corporatized economy, wage earners there get poverty pay of $5 a day (about $1,600 a year), while a few hundred miles north, they might draw that much in an hour. What would you do?

http://www.truthout.org/article/jim-hightower-immigrants-come-here-because

Second, WHY are they illegal?

http://www.acslaw.org/taxonomy/term/1631

Because we only issue 5k visas a year for low-skill immigrants. Considering we used to allow 300k to 500k low-skill immigrants into the country a year, that means a lot of people can't get into the country that used to be. So in this instance of a good law being broken by bad people, we have a bad law breaking good people.

I mean, it's goddamn heartbreaking that people are demonizing these refugees, because that's basically what they are. Economic refugees. How can you fault them for wanting to come to the most advanced country in the west, a country that borders their own country? Isn't it selfish to say their children don't deserve to be Americans? It just really makes me sick.

[Vekseid]

Okay, Vekseid is prescribing a 24 hour cooldown time for this thread.

[Lyell]

Your opening statement in this thread was that "Racial profiling is now legal in Arizona." I was merely pointing out why it didn't constitute racial profiling and why Nazi practices was a poor comparison. I didn't say anything about people not deserving a better life or the right to be here. It breaks my heart that Mexico can't keep its citizens because thier fear of drug cartel related violence and national policies drive them to leave the nation. But shouldering the burden isn't going to fix it, nor is it going to make our situation any better. We still have to pay for the problem and if I've read my news reports right, the 'global economy' isn't doing so hot either.

Ruby has a point that I'd like to touch on a little more cautiously. 'Anchor babies' is the term I think is most commonly used. Yeah, it's sad. People are using children to get a foothold in the U.S. "Have a child in America! We'll give you a free house, a free car, free money, we'll fire an American and give you his job!" Okay, that might be stretching things a little.

Visas were not only limited in number, but also had the duration of thier validity reduced. Reports indicate it was in response to a price hike in Mexico's visas, but I can't be too sure. But you can't tell me that everyone crossing the border illegally are good people, just like I can't tell you that everyone crossing the border illegally are bad people. There are those who seek a better life and want to work hard for it. There are also people who seek to exploit the systems we have in place to protect our own. Can't forget about the drug trafficers or border violence either.


One thing that bothers me about all of this are the number of democratic policies that seem to surround the issue. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, NAFTA and now the new propositions regarding the Path to Citizenship for current illegal aliens. This may just be dismissed as tin-foil hat fodder, but I believe a massive effort has come into play that's been at work for several decades. Regionally, the two major political parties have been typically separated by the northern and southern states. I know if the policies that kept me in the U.S. were being controlled by democrats, which way I would vote for. If I could vote. Which won't be a problem once I'm legalized. Again, this is probably the tin-foil hat talking, but I think the Democratic party has been seeking to swell the southern states to upset the typically Republican vote. They're trying to strong arm all the branches of our government, unique in that each branch overlaps one another in a 'checks and balances' format, which they would need for dramatic changes in the way our nation works. After that, I see several things going away, like the Bill of Rights.

[Vekseid]

Ruby has a point that I'd like to touch on a little more cautiously. 'Anchor babies' is the term I think is most commonly used. Yeah, it's sad. People are using children to get a foothold in the U.S. "Have a child in America! We'll give you a free house, a free car, free money, we'll fire an American and give you his job!" Okay, that might be stretching things a little.

...

...this thread should be about the immigration law itself, and things directly related to it - claims of profiling, etc. If you want to start a discussion on anchor babies and undocumented children, please make a new thread, thank you.

[Lyell]

Sorry. I thought using it as a way to get out of the illegal alien status was directly relevant but I conceed to your point - stay on target.

[RubySlippers]

For me this is not exactly an issue the officers of and within a state for years had the right to arrest criminals that are accusing of Federal charges, its actually necessary, if say a person guilty of espionage a Federal crime was in Anytown USA the Sheriff has the right and duty to arrest this person. Even though the crime is not anything a state officer should do. The same applies to other crimes.

As for questioning the party first the officer has to have a reason and the person cannot be a witness to a crime they are exempt, and in my view and this should not be odd if your a citizen or here legally you should have your identification on you. I have a state identification card and must have it to bank, proof of my identity for employment, cashing checks and it proves my residency and identity if necessary. And the state law that passed is simple you show identification and its legally issued your fine from a passport and visa to a green card to a drivers license or state identification card.

I will note I see their issues crime is shooting up, they are full of illegal immigrants (who are illegal and may have fake identification documents which are felonies in every state) and should not be in the US. It sucks but why are people so critical of enforcing the laws and some laws that are Arizona State laws protected under the 10th Amendment. It so happens due to geography that most of these persons are of hispanic origin in the case of Arizona. But other states have illegals from other nations including New York City and the the like. The Feds should have done their jobs then this would not be a state concern but I can't blame them for a well written law to do what they feel must be done.

[Jude]

You do realize that racial profiling, as a practice or a practical consequence, makes us less safe as a nation?  It isn't just about Civil Rights.  Whenever you limit your search criteria to a specific group of individuals, you do fewer impartial checks that don't fit your profile, allowing more of the people who don't fit the profile but are still guilty to slip through.  This opens the floodgates for illegals who aren't Mexican to live in Arizona and avoid scrutiny, one of which could eventually be a Muslim Terrorist.

[Zakharra]

You do realize that racial profiling, as a practice or a practical consequence, makes us less safe as a nation?  It isn't just about Civil Rights.  Whenever you limit your search criteria to a specific group of individuals, you do fewer impartial checks that don't fit your profile, allowing more of the people who don't fit the profile but are still guilty to slip through.  This opens the floodgates for illegals who aren't Mexican to live in Arizona and avoid scrutiny, one of which could eventually be a Muslim Terrorist.

It's not racial profiling. They can question anyone they think might be an illegal.

[Jude]

That would be why I said, "as a practice or practical consequence."  If you don't think that law enforcement agents that are serious about enforcing this law are going to unofficially racially profile, I have a house in Flint Michigan I'd like to sell you.

[RP7466]

I am still trying to figure out what the problem is?

Is everybody ignoring the words "reasonable suspicion". Wich makes it not a whole lot different than any other law we have. If you are doing somthing suspicious and a police officer asks you for ID you have to show them, and yes even if you are a white male. And suspicious includes walking on the sidewalk, sober, late at night.

The argument of profiling is a joke

(spell check isnt working so excuse the errors that are sure to be in there, im mechanical not a good speller)

[Oniya]

The issue of racial profiling comes with the fact that a sizable percentage of illegal immigrants in Arizona are, in fact, Hispanic.  When the police are looking for someone they suspect of doing something, physical description, which includes race, is one of the ways they try to limit the number of people they question.  For example, if the bank robber has red hair, they aren't going to look twice at a blond.  If the bank robber is dark-skinned, they won't bother detaining an Asian man.  If the cops are looking for an illegal immigrant, they will be more likely to question someone who 'looks like' an illegal immigrant - despite the reality that an illegal immigrant could come from anywhere, including Norway (chosen for having a typical phenotype as far from 'Hispanic' as I could think of).

[RP7466]

what percentage of illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico do you suppose, the argument of not all of them are hispanic is like arguing that cleaning dog shit doesn't really suck because sometimes you get one that's dried up and doesn't smell.

And that doesn't take into account the gang activity. And no its not just a stereotype, my best friend from highschool teaches at a charter school down there, and is always talking about the students in his class that are illegal immigrants and some of the altercations that happen at school.

So I'm still looking for where the problem is.

[Oniya]

(Just as a note, I'm not arguing right or wrong on this, just putting forward what the 'problem' is, according to the arguments I've heard.)

The problem with the fact that the police are likely to be looking more strongly at Hispanics when trying to find illegal immigrants is that there is a sizable population of legal immigrants that are Hispanic in that area.  As the police are human, we can assume that there will be some number of errors made.  The question is - is it better to inappropriately detain a legal immigrant (false positive or Type I error), or to miss detaining an illegal immigrant (false negative or type II error)?

To this point, the US legal system has been based on the premise of minimizing type I errors (innocent until proven guilty).  'Racial profiling' is more likely to increase type I errors.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Suspicious activity shouldn't be your skin color or use of a language.  Racial profiling is a joke, just happens to be a cruel one.

By the way, what does a hispanic look like?

[Lyell]

Personally I'm suprized a terrorist attack hasen't already used the mexican border.

People are prejudiced. It's in our nature to judge based on history, memory and environment. There will always be a bias twords what illegal immigrants look and sound like because of those three things. That someone 'fits the bill' of an illegal alien is no different than someone fitting the bill of a suspect description.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

If you are surprised by terrorists not coming across the Mexican border, then you are not well informed about immigration policies and border protection.  The border between Mexico and the United States is the most defended and patrolled in the United States.  This as opposed to Canada, which is where 9/11 terrorists came through, and temporary visas which are given to students and some workers.  A person planning any sort of attack would look at the border patrol, check points, militia and vast deserts that claims the lives of hundreds each year with some problem.  Easier to fly in as a tourist or student.

As for the remark about fitting the bill of a suspect, you are indeed correct.  Which is why police are not allowed to perform unwarranted searches and arrests of individuals.  Profiling has been rejected as a valid form of police investigation time and time again. 

[Jude]

Even if Racial Profiling isn't in the law and suspicion is defined in some other fashion, of course people who look like potential offenders are going to draw the eyes of the police more often than those who do not when everyone knows that the illegal immigration problem there is one of a Hispanic nature.

That's the problem with actively seeking out illegal immigrants by using the police force:  there's no behavior that qualifies as an outward indication of illegal immigration that actually occurs in a public setting.  The only way to prove someone is or isn't an illegal all revolves around inspection of documentation.  So what act that a police officer observes could possibly hint that the person is here illegally?

Sure, there are indicators that would make the people you ask for their papers more likely to be here illegally, but they are not related to criminal behavior or illegal immigration itself, just correlative factors.  If you're speaking Spanish, have a certain color of skin, and... Yeah, goes right back to racial profiling.

I agree that the comparison of the law to Nazi Germany is absolutely ridiculous.  I'm not even sure if this is unreasonable search and seizure.  What I am sure of is, I wouldn't want to be a Legal Hispanic Immigrant, Resident, or Citizen living in Mexico right now.  I wouldn't feel very welcome knowing that I could, at any time, be asked to relinquish my paperwork to prove I have the right to be in this country, when people of other races won't have to deal with the same level of scrutiny.

How is that not institutionalized racism?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Comparing the law to Nazi Germany is, I agree, absurd.  The law is still bad policy.  The reason we have illegal immigration is because employers in the U.S. hire illegal immigrants.  Cut the problem off where the demand lies: improve enforcement of existing labor law, and toughen penalties on those who knowingly hire illegals.

Police already have too many excuses to be nosy.

[Wolfy]

Reasonable suspicion is a subjective thing.


Which means what one person considers reasonably suspicious could be perfectly normal to someone else.

[Wolfy]

Also, because it fits into the topic:

[RubySlippers]

What's wrong exactl;y with racial profiling when it fits the problems going on? If the border is with Mexico and most illegals in Arizona are likely Mexican or from other countries that are Hispanic then they are a group more likely to be illegal.

This political correctness is a plague if your breaking our laws and ILLEGAL immigrants are get the hell out of the US your breaking the law you ,to me, have no case. Period.

No law abiding person should fear the police asking for proof your here if its in the rounds of their normal duties and its for a legitimate reason they are talking to you, if yiour here legally just show your ID. Simple. The law was worded and designed to minimize such issues.

[Jude]

Because racial profiling is enforcing particular laws against a certain segment of the population with greater zeal than on other segments of the population; i.e. institutionalized racism.  It's the opposite of impartiality and justice.  And, one of the arguments always given in favor of sealing up the border, is that terrorists could cross there.  If you racially profiled against Hispanics, it would actually increase the chance of that happening by making the police there focus on a certain profile to the detriment of anything that doesn't fit that profile.

[Serephino]

Okay, so it's perfectly fine to expect legal immigrants to carry their papers on them if like say... they're walking to the corner store?  I live near enough to a restaurant that when we go there we walk, and don't take anything with us other than cash, especially if all we did was order a pizza and we're going to pick it up.  So what happens if a Mexican in just going to the store down the block and gets stopped but doesn't have ID? 

[Wolfy]

What's wrong exactl;y with racial profiling when it fits the problems going on? If the border is with Mexico and most illegals in Arizona are likely Mexican or from other countries that are Hispanic then they are a group more likely to be illegal.

This political correctness is a plague if your breaking our laws and ILLEGAL immigrants are get the hell out of the US your breaking the law you ,to me, have no case. Period.

No law abiding person should fear the police asking for proof your here if its in the rounds of their normal duties and its for a legitimate reason they are talking to you, if yiour here legally just show your ID. Simple. The law was worded and designed to minimize such issues.

Racial is two letters away from Racist.

Not that that stops people from doing both. >_>

[Trieste]

Hug is two letters away from shrug, but that doesn't mean they're connected. Sheesh.

[Wolfy]

Hug is two letters away from shrug, but that doesn't mean they're connected. Sheesh.

*shrugs Trieste*

:D

What I was saying is that Racial Profiling and Being Racist is basically the same thing when used. "Oh look, he's mexican. Obviously he's here illegally or doing something Illegal." "Oh look, he's black, quick, call some back up! D:", etc, etc.

<_< Racial profiling isn't new...and it shouldn't be condoned, like this law allows.

[Phaia]

Using the decidily liberal New York Times as the only scource can lead to a skewed view!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

A few points I would like to make. The Arizona House and senate passed the bill after very intnese debate.

So first off lets stop blaming the governor completely!

Also a majority of Arizona VOTERS support the bill.

450,000 illegal aliens out of a population of 6.5 million, that is about 1 in 14 people in the state are illegal...ILLEGAL!!

Illegal aliens cannot own poperty so no poperty taxs, no school tasxs yet they send the children to schools and use the rescources that taxs pay for.
Arizona has a state income tax, which means that nearly 7% of the people that Do not pay taxs.

All of this has lead the VOTERS of the state to react, If this law needs to be repealed then the Illegal aliens should vote against it...oh wait they CAN'T VOTE!

I Vote every election so I have to ask How many of you do as well?? I take pride in the rights we have and how givinga  people we are. But frankly Illegal is just that Illegal... and as for limiting the immigration numbers there are reasons for that.


A lot of you seem to misunderstand the full content of the law!!


"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"


"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

So  police officer stops a car for a traffic voliation and asks for some id, the driver does not have any nor does anyone else in the car....weellll that would seem to me to reason to check on thier status!! But I am just a blonde!!

Phaia

[Jude]

You complain that someone else cited a liberal source, then you cite a conservative source... Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

p.s. If the law literally only requires state authorities to check their immigration status if they're suspicious and involved in another policing activity, then I see no problem with it on principle.

I'm still worried how it'll work in practice.

[Phaia]

Yes I used a conservative scource to show there are other views. So far only the liberal views had been presented.

I tend toward a more conservative view. Though I have my liberal moments, such as voting for Al Gore in 2000 and against Bush in 2004!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/19/20100419arizona-immigration-bill-passes.html

as ya can see there was intense debate over the bill...yet it passed both houses!!

read some of the forum linked to the above article. it seems a lot of arizonian's [sp] favor the bill.

Phaia

[Trieste]

There is a difference between "a lot" and "a very vocal group which may or may not be a minority". Forums tend to attract the latter more than the former, I've found.

[Remiel]

Actually, according to a Rasmussen poll, 64% of Arizonans polled support the bill as do 60% of pollees nationwide.  It is clear that most Americans believe that the federal government has failed in its responsibility to regulate immigration, to the point where states like Arizona need to take the matter into their own hands.

That being said, Arizona Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik makes a convincing argument why the new law is a bad idea, and, in fact, may even be unconstitutional.

What the law now does is put us in a position where we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t, because on one hand we get sued by people who think we are illegally profiling and there is a clause in the law which I’ve never heard of in any other law, and I have been the Sheriff here for thirty years, that says any citizen who doesn’t think we are enforcing this law can sue us. That is just outrageous. It’s an anti-law enforcement law in my opinion. Puts us in an impossible situation. It puts us in an impossible situation with the Hispanic community. What they’ve done is driven a wedge between us and the Hispanic community. We depend on our community, Hispanics especially, for information, for cooperation in our crime-fighting efforts. What we really need to stop illegal immigration is more federal assistance on securing that border and we desperately need reform of immigration laws.

[Aiden]

Let illegal immigrants find ways to pay their taxes and dues to the government and leave them alone.

I bet if they were given the chance to get a driver's license, pay their car insurance and be able to get legitimate work they would. It is sad when these people come over for a better life only to be treated like shit by people who can consider themselves "good Christians" 

[Serephino]

Oh, so they can only be checked when doing things like getting pulled over for speeding.  Wow, I can't see how that would be a bad idea.  I mean, it wouldn't give illegals an incentive to try and run from the police or anything.....

[Brandon]

Pretty much the only thing Im going to say on this is, the pruposed law doesnt work as is. I am and have always been against illegal aliens coming into the country and Im also against the idea of Amnesty that has been purposed time and time again. Breaking the law and not being punished for it just isnt the answer IMO.

Legal immigration needs to be open as well though.

The idea of racial profiling is kind of a duh argument to me but how can it be avoided? You have people coming in from another country, if theyre coming from mexico they'll probably be of hispanic descent, if theyre coming from England they'll probably be of Caucasian descent, if theyre coming from Africa they'll probably be of African descent.

I believe that something needs to be done to stop illegal immigrants from coming into our country and getting a free pass but this bill just doesnt work as is.

Edit: I am also one of the Americans that agrees that the Federal government has not taken sufficient steps to stop Illegal immigration

[Lyell]

Problem with the sheriff's argument is that anyone over 18 is legally required to posess a picture I.D. and migrants are already required by federal law to keep proof of legal immigration status. The law doesn't say you can pull over a beat up truck with six lightly browned people in the back. It says you're supposed to do your job when you pull someone over. Failure to relinquish an I.D. and then the visa, or compliance with the former and not the later, OR if any of the documents look illegitimate/ altered is all the reasonable suspicion you need.

About being sued? Let's just say you'd need a really good lawyer or a really stupid cop. As far as I know, mics and dashcams are standard to protect the officer and the suspect. If the video shows the officer following proceedure then they're just doing their job. If it shows the officer making an ass out of themself or there's no video at all, the court would likely rule for the victim.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If someone is racially profiled against, blame the human element, not the legal one.

[Jude]

Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

The law doesn't always work as intended, the way it is enforced and practical consequences need to be taken into account when consider the law, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[Trieste]

Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

...!

Clearly the solution is to uninvent racial profiling. Jude, you're a genius! A mad, mad genius! <3

[Scott]

Tell them to move or carry the papers, what's the big deal?

[Lyell]

Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

The law doesn't always work as intended, the way it is enforced and practical consequences need to be taken into account when consider the law, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Which if you read the rest of my post you would understand that there are already checks and balances in place and consequences if that law isn't executed properly.

[Brandon]

Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

I suppose that depends on what you define as shootings. When Gengas Khan was taking over Asia were the soldiers and civilians killed by bow and arrow shooting deaths?

That doesnt take out of account that sharp pieces of metal, thrown stones, or beatings werent the causes of murder. In fact it was much easier to get away with back then too so I imagine murder rates would have been higher before the invention of guns.

[Jude]

I'm not arguing anymore about the analogy--my point was just to reference how silly it was to make such a comparison.  That seems to have served its purpose.

As for the safeguards, I don't see any that prevent racial profiling.  Suspicious is still going to mean Hispanic--unless you think they're going to ask everyone who they pull over for their immigration papers, regardless of how they look or their mastery of the English Language (combined with a Spanish accent).  The law is still ridiculously open for abuse.  Confirmation bias and the subtle workings of the human mind make it impossible not to enforce the law as it's written with racial profiling in the back of your mind.

1)  What you're claiming Lyell I've only seen corroborated by one news source which had a well-known conservative/Republican slant.  It's based off of the legal definition of lawful contact, something I know nothing about.  I think I'm justified in my reluctance of accepting a biased source's interpretation.  If you could show us a non-partisan, neutral interpretation of the law that backs your opinion, I'd feel a bit more comfortable about it.

2)  Even if that is so, the language they used in detailing when to ask for immigration paperwork is ridiculously vague and open to abuse.

3)  And, assuming that they can only check these things when they stop someone for something else, that does not necessarily mean that they can only check these things when they're dealing with a criminal who is guilty of breaking something other than immigration laws.  Remember, innocent people get stopped by the police too.

(I don't know if you've made a point in contradiction of that particular thought, but I decided to head that false assumption off at the pass in case anyone was making it.)

[Lyell]

I'm not arguing anymore about the analogy--my point was just to reference how silly it was to make such a comparison.  That seems to have served its purpose.

Blame the people, not the tool. I'm glad to see that qualifies as silly in everyone's eyes.

As for the safeguards, I don't see any that prevent racial profiling.  Suspicious is still going to mean Hispanic--unless you think they're going to ask everyone who they pull over for their immigration papers, regardless of how they look or their mastery of the English Language (combined with a Spanish accent).  The law is still ridiculously open for abuse.  Confirmation bias and the subtle workings of the human mind make it impossible not to enforce the law as it's written with racial profiling in the back of your mind.

And if it were in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana or Florida it'd still be racial profiling because there's only one typical immigrant, right? Does that mean it'd be okay in California (not that they'd ever pass a law like this there) because there's more than one typical suspicion? Or is it because you think skin color and accent are the only things officers would look for?

1)  What you're claiming Lyell I've only seen corroborated by one news source which had a well-known conservative/Republican slant.  It's based off of the legal definition of lawful contact, something I know nothing about.  I think I'm justified in my reluctance of accepting a biased source's interpretation.  If you could show us a non-partisan, neutral interpretation of the law that backs your opinion, I'd feel a bit more comfortable about it.

Bolded for emphasis, because they don't exist. Everyone in this country is either giving Arizona a pat on the back or threatening to gut all interstate connections. The reason I mentioned it is because I understood it, not because it's my opinion. I'm studying criminal justice with the goal of joining the police force.

2)  Even if that is so, the language they used in detailing when to ask for immigration paperwork is ridiculously vague and open to abuse.

All laws regarding police proceedure and conduct are created with the human element in mind to leave some discretion up to the officer. If some officer actually testifies in court that he asked for immigration documents on the basis of "His skin was slightly darker than mine and he talked funny" I will laugh my ass off and reccomend his resignation. Failure to produce a lisence, producing a phoney lisence or reluctance are three distinct scenarios in the span of 3 seconds that an officer has to use to make a judgement call.

3)  And, assuming that they can only check these things when they stop someone for something else, that does not necessarily mean that they can only check these things when they're dealing with a criminal who is guilty of breaking something other than immigration laws.  Remember, innocent people get stopped by the police too.

An officer has an obligation to identify witnesses. That's probably the only instance in which a bystander would be asked for their I.D. Loitering or Soliciting in a place that prohibits it doesn't qualify as innocent bystander material. You STILL have to commit a crime or give the police probable cause that you HAVE committed a crime before they can ask you for any documentation of immigrant status. If there isn't any, that's what the "you can sue us" portion of the law is for.

[Jude]

Blame the people, not the tool. I'm glad to see that qualifies as silly in everyone's eyes.

How the law is applied is very different from how a gun is used.  Precedence, anyone?

And if it were in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana or Florida it'd still be racial profiling because there's only one typical immigrant, right? Does that mean it'd be okay in California (not that they'd ever pass a law like this there) because there's more than one typical suspicion? Or is it because you think skin color and accent are the only things officers would look for?

I don't think they're the only things that they'll look for, but it's definitely going to be a point of suspicion.

Bolded for emphasis, because they don't exist. Everyone in this country is either giving Arizona a pat on the back or threatening to gut all interstate connections. The reason I mentioned it is because I understood it, not because it's my opinion. I'm studying criminal justice with the goal of joining the police force.

It's still your opinion, even if it's based on something.  And if it's based on something that's solid, you could always link to that as evidence to back up your claim.  Also, there are people who are in the middle, saying there's no one is a bit silly.  Personally, I'm a little confused as to what to believe.  If someone could actually show to me that the interpretation that you are offering is true, and if someone could convince me that racial profiling isn't likely to occur, I think I'd probably support it.  I find complete support for this law just as ridiculous as I find the Nazi Germany comparisons.

All laws regarding police proceedure and conduct are created with the human element in mind to leave some discretion up to the officer. If some officer actually testifies in court that he asked for immigration documents on the basis of "His skin was slightly darker than mine and he talked funny" I will laugh my ass off and reccomend his resignation. Failure to produce a lisence, producing a phoney lisence or reluctance are three distinct scenarios in the span of 3 seconds that an officer has to use to make a judgement call.

The thing is, people are very good at justifying their behavior.  They won't actually say in court that it's because the color of their skin.  The law is so complicated and vast that if a police officer really wants to find a reason to be suspicious, they can do it--people tend to act extremely erratic around the police whether they're guilty of something or not.

An officer has an obligation to identify witnesses. That's probably the only instance in which a bystander would be asked for their I.D. Loitering or Soliciting in a place that prohibits it doesn't qualify as innocent bystander material. You STILL have to commit a crime or give the police probable cause that you HAVE committed a crime before they can ask you for any documentation of immigrant status. If there isn't any, that's what the "you can sue us" portion of the law is for.

I get that they're only supposed to approach them, according to you, if they can find a legal reason to do so.  I just don't think it's that hard to find a reason to suspect someone of breaking a crime if you look hard enough.  What do most people think when they look at a Mexican who only speaks Spanish?  The Police will then look for a reason to ask for their papers--again it's not very hard.

[Lyell]

How the law is applied is very different from how a gun is used.  Precedence, anyone?

You point a gun at a target. It makes a loud noise and the target is destroyed. You make a law to prevent a behavior. The behavior is destroyed, or people suffer consequences. Ofcourse, this behavior was already illegal, so I guess we didn't need a new law. Or gun in this case. Whatever. The metaphor (as abstract as it was) isn't important.

I don't think they're the only things that they'll look for, but it's definitely going to be a point of suspicion.

So you agree with my previous point that past experiences influence future judgements, I'm guessing?

It's still your opinion, even if it's based on something.  And if it's based on something that's solid, you could always link to that as evidence to back up your claim.  Also, there are people who are in the middle, saying there's no one is a bit silly.  Personally, I'm a little confused as to what to believe.  If someone could actually show to me that the interpretation that you are offering is true, and if someone could convince me that racial profiling isn't likely to occur, I think I'd probably support it.  I find complete support for this law just as ridiculous as I find the Nazi Germany comparisons.

You know, and I know, and I'm pretty sure everyone in this entire forum knows that Arizona isn't worried about being overrun by undocumented Canadians. That you're asking me to provide proof that the police won't do something that hasen't been given the chance to happen is an uncompeltable task. I will however provide proof of my previous claims.

Legal Requirement to Posess an I.D. while driving (each state is different, so I'll post Arizona's)- Okay, you got me. I honestly can't find anything that requires you to have an I.D. on you ANYMORE. Probably because patrol cars have laptops in them linked to the DOPS's database so they can look up your information and confirm it anyways. However Arizona's Penal Code statute 13-2412 states:

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Reason that failure to communicate in English is a valid suspicion for illegal immigration status- Naturalized citizens must demonstrate an ability to speak, read and write basic English.
http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-overview.html
-Requirements for Naturalization: Literacy and Education

A cop that stops a car driven by someone speaking English and possessing a valid driver’s license or valid DOPS entry can be fairly sure that person is a US citizen. A cop that interviews someone that is behaving suspiciously and receives answers in English accompanied by some form of ID or a valid DOPS entry can be fairly sure that person is a US citizen. A person who cannot answer basic questions in english and/or can/will not give their name is a valid suspect.

It really needn't be any more difficult than that for 99% of instances.

The thing is, people are very good at justifying their behavior.  They won't actually say in court that it's because the color of their skin.  The law is so complicated and vast that if a police officer really wants to find a reason to be suspicious, they can do it--people tend to act extremely erratic around the police whether they're guilty of something or not.

Well, now, that's an opinion. One I could easily contradict by saying that most people I know have little or no fear of police officers. They're fairly friendly, and good conversationalists given the chance. Lots of attention to detail too.

I get that they're only supposed to approach them, according to you, if they can find a legal reason to do so.  I just don't think it's that hard to find a reason to suspect someone of breaking a crime if you look hard enough.  What do most people think when they look at a Mexican who only speaks Spanish?  The Police will then look for a reason to ask for their papers--again it's not very hard.

As I stated above, that's already enough reason as set by national standards for naturalized citizens.

[RubySlippers]

Excuse me stop all  the talk here lets get down to the basic fact everyone seems not to be getting here with this law that I hope other states will adopt -

The People In Question are ILLEGAL and Are Breaking the Law

The states have the right under the 10th Amendment to pass laws and enforce them inside their state as they see fit if its not in violation of other areas and this law was CAREFULLY tailored to be sure people had more rights than under Federal Law. If they may end up having to target Hispanic persons its simply geography since most of the illegals of concern are south of the border in or through Mexico.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

It’s a place to vent.  If people did not have an organized outlet for these discussions they would appear in the public Off Topic forums.  Staff would be forced to police with more diligence and more restrictions to keep things in line.  There would be more resentment by the populace and accusations of favoritism.  This is essentially the “arena” for gladiators to get out their frustrations at world events and such in a more controlled environment.  If the forum disgusts you such then please refrain from reading the posts and the forum especially since this is four pages of text you showed a good deal of effort on something you hate.  Also, refrain from posting in the forums you hate with such diligence.

Back to the discussion at hand please.

[Jude]

It's a bit silly to wander in, state how you don't like the fact that this sort of thing is being discussed, then state your opinion and leave.  It really smacks of an inability to accept criticism of your own ideas and wanting for other people to uncritically listen to what you have to say without having to return the favor.

[Cythieus]

This law was changed and really is perfectly fine now, in fact every state should make it policy. The dumb thing is that when we tried to do it in Houston, people got out and protested. Some of them admitting to being illegal on the news. I think that should get you arrested and deported on the spot.

What the law basically says now is the cops will conduct a background check that includes a check of citizenship. They don't do that already. In fact we've had several people arrested here that were illegal immigrants and no one knew till well after they had been arrested for other crimes. One of them it wasn't known about until he escaped and killed a cop. I think the problem people don't see is that there is an issue with illegal immigration and it doesn't matter how bad off your country is, you can't break the law and come here when there are those waiting patiently in line to come here legally.

[Trieste]

Anti-immigrant laws are apparently like Lays: you really can't have just one.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/_GyKGHq-i0YYccgTJr

This one doesn't sit well with me because it really seems like they are punishing the kids for the sins of the parents.

[Aiden]

Anti-immigrant laws are apparently like Lays: you really can't have just one.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/_GyKGHq-i0YYccgTJr

This one doesn't sit well with me because it really seems like they are punishing the kids for the sins of the parents.

linky no work!

[Trieste]

Try taking out the m and just going to cnn.com_____ since you're not mobile.

[Aiden]

Is it the one on deny citizen ship to US born children of immigrants?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/index.html?hpt=Mid

If that bill passes then it really is going to get ugly, I am seething at the thought of it alone.

[Trieste]

Yes it is, thank you very much Aiden.

If they aren't US citizens, what country will they claim? Would they have to claim citizenship in whatever country their parents are citizens of? Or would we be creating this generation of nation-less nomads not really subject to anyone's protection? Citizenship bestows rights, but it's also important for protection.

[Oniya]

When my parents were stationed in Germany (like, 10 years before I came into the world), my two older sisters were born.  They automatically had the citizenship of my parents, and I believe at the time, they also had German citizenship.  I also believe that at some point they relinquished that dual citizenship.  This may have been a special consideration due to Dad being in the Army, but parental citizenship seems to have some ability to confer.

(I'm not sure if it could confer if the parent was a legal immigrant with dual citizenship - if so, then theoretically, one could eventually end up with a child who is inclusively a 'citizen of the world'.)

[auroraChloe]

Yes it is, thank you very much Aiden.

If they aren't US citizens, what country will they claim? Would they have to claim citizenship in whatever country their parents are citizens of? Or would we be creating this generation of nation-less nomads not really subject to anyone's protection? Citizenship bestows rights, but it's also important for protection.

it would take changing the constitution.. an amendment or something.  that would never pass and states rights only go so far.

it's a quagmire, and not a giggity one.   :-(



Oniya..  isn't any baby born on an american military base considered a citizen of the usa ? 

[Oniya]

Looked it up:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_two_United_States_citizens

If both your parents are US citizens, then even if you're born abroad, you are a citizen.  It's the German half of it that I'm not entirely sure I'm remembering correctly

[Aiden]

It is getting really bad in Arizona and it is going to get to a boiling point soon. Here in California families were being destroyed because of immigration sweeps, border patrol agents were setting up shop at schools that had US born children of immigrants and they would be deported. Out of fear these kids were not picked up or sent others in their place.

What happens when you deport these parents and leave their children behind home alone? (It has happened here). I read a story of parents who were deported leaving the kids at home, so not only did they lose their home (because who is gonna work and pay the bills if they are out of country) the children went into state custody.

Fuck this topic really boils my blood, I am gonna stay out of it now.
(I was the US born offspring of immigrants before my parents got their citizenship from my godfather who knew people to contact in the right places, others are not as lucky as my parents were)

[Trieste]

It's possible that this law is an attempt to be able to legally send kids back with their parents instead of put them in foster care. Even if their parents are dirt poor, I really feel like the kids would more than likely have a better chance with their parents than they would in the public care system.

Because it involves kids, this is going to draw emotional responses. I'd normally be supportive of such legislature, if it weren't for the fact that it forces the poor kid to break the law just by being born. That's not fair, that's not right.

It's like, okay Arizona, we get that you're pissed and fed up with illegal immigration. Can you give it a rest long enough to clean up the Gulf, and THEN go back to pounding the gavel?

[RubySlippers]

For the children of immigrants they should be citizens of their parents nation of one is an American then there you go. If not and they are born on US soil let them apply just like anyone else when they are at least eighteen years old with special consideration say a fast track to citizenship if they surrender loyalties to their parents nation.

And excuse me if a child is born of an illegal immigrant and an American citizen and there is an issue the illegal must go back to say Mexico, can't the American and child immigrate to the nation the other parent came from? I would think they would have the right to do that?

Or just marry the American and apply for citizenship that way.

As for the law its legal they are enforcing a state law and have the right to enforce Federal Law as in finding and reporting illegals, so I see no problem with the Arizona Law we need one like that in Florida.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think the latest proposed law is a wee bit harsh.

Definitely beyond the scope of power the Arizona state government has. Citizenship isn't conferred by each state.

[Oniya]

And excuse me if a child is born of an illegal immigrant and an American citizen and there is an issue the illegal must go back to say Mexico, can't the American and child [e]migrate to the nation the other parent came from? I would think they would have the right to do that?

Or just marry the American and apply for citizenship that way.

As for the first case, I'm pretty sure that simply having one American parent would currently confer citizenship under jus sanguinus.  In the second, marriage would be a perfectly reasonable way to naturalize both the child and the immigrant parent (by way of a green card).

The tricky part is jus solis, where the only claim to citizenship is the fact that the child was born inside the borders of the US.

[Cythieus]

 I really can't feel sorry for people who are breaking the law to be here and their family gets broken up. If you didn't break the law in the first place and just came through other channels it wouldn't happen. I mean take the flip side of things, Mexican law is much harsher than American law when it comes to immigration. You can never become a full citizen there if you aren't born there and you actually go to jail a year if caught.

But then, remember the Mexican President came here and trash talked our system and Arizona especially. But their system is worse, this just shows that he doesn't care about what happens on this side and sees our country as something to balance the corruption and issues in the government of his.

Honestly I don't think anyone should weep for people getting deported. They were breaking the law and on the flip side of the coin if you did it in Mexico you'd be in jail a year and ten years if you were caught a second time. What Arizona's doing is working because they're having knee jerk reaction to a serious issue that needs to be rectified. And I don't mean by making them all citizens faster. You don't reward someone for breaking the law. You punish them.

[Caela]

Do I feel badly for the kids caught in the middle of this situation? Yes, of course I do, but you can't just say "Oh we won't punish a criminal because they have kids." If you are in a country, ANY country, illegally, then you are, by definition a CRIMINAL. You have broken the law and as such need to face the punishment for breaking that law. In the States we're actually pretty damned lenient. I believe it's only a misdemeanor and you get sent back home. In Mexico it is a FELONY offense to be there illegally and you can spend up to 10 years in jail if you are caught more than once.

I'd be all for an amendment that got rid of our system of making you a citizen simply by virtue of being born on American soil. Most countries did away with this a long time ago. It's an unreasonable way of conferring citizenship, especially in a country that has such an issue with illegal immigration as the US does. It would make much more sense for a child to simply be of the same nationality as it's parents. If the child has one American parent and one parent of another nationality then give them dual-citizenship until the age of 18 and then make them choose.

As for AZ's law. I have no problem with it, especially when most of it's stipulations are actually more lenient than the federal laws that our gov't finds so convenient to ignore.

[Lyell]

I'm sorry, but this latest bill simply won't hold water in the Supreme Court if it tries to pass.

US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arizona can't pass that bill as it stands without it being ripped to shreds. While I support the attempt to remove the "anchor baby" out of the equation, this is not the way to do it.

[Cythieus]

Then the Constitution needs to be amended, but this doesn't need to be how people get here. Simply being birthed on this side of the border shouldn't mean that they can take you from their parents.

[Lyell]

Then the Constitution needs to be amended, but this doesn't need to be how people get here. Simply being birthed on this side of the border shouldn't mean that they can take you from their parents.

Current legislation needs to be altered before what they're proposing would be allowed to pass. Courts work based on established law and use it as a building block to determine judgement. Like I said, I agree that the "anchor baby" should be taken out of the equation but Arizona is going about it the wrong way.

[consortium11]

I'm sorry, but this latest bill simply won't hold water in the Supreme Court if it tries to pass.

US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arizona can't pass that bill as it stands without it being ripped to shreds. While I support the attempt to remove the "anchor baby" out of the equation, this is not the way to do it.

I'm no constitutional scholar but from what I've read of the jurisprudence around the issue the argument is that as a the child of illegal immigrants you aren't immediately under the jurisdiction of the US and, as such, they're try to push any law through that way. I don't know if there's any precedent on that specific issue that helps either side.

[Oniya]

I'm no constitutional scholar but from what I've read of the jurisprudence around the issue the argument is that as a the child of illegal immigrants you aren't immediately under the jurisdiction of the US and, as such, they're try to push any law through that way. I don't know if there's any precedent on that specific issue that helps either side.

I believe you might be looking for this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[consortium11]

I believe you might be looking for this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Thanks for that, although I'm aware of the case.

The issue with using it as precedent is that his parents were legal immigrants who had not taken US citizenship rather than illegal immigrants. Taking the ratio decidendi from wiki:

...a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

The question therefore is, do illegal immigrants count as having "permanent domicile and residence in the United States"... in truth you could put together a half-decent legal argument that they're not "carrying on business". If/when it does hit the Supreme Court it'll should be a great reading of previous jurisprudence... ut I don't have the detailed knowledge to comment.

[Oniya]

Actually, towards the bottom of the article, it goes into other issues associated with the case, including how it's been applied to children of illegal immigrants.  I got a little bogged down in the wording, but there was one case where a state was trying to deny things like public schooling to children of illegal immigrants, and U.S. v. Ark was brought in.

[consortium11]

Actually, towards the bottom of the article, it goes into other issues associated with the case, including how it's been applied to children of illegal immigrants.  I got a little bogged down in the wording, but there was one case where a state was trying to deny things like public schooling to children of illegal immigrants, and U.S. v. Ark was brought in.

I'm not quite sure which case you're referring to. On the facts you mention it appears to be Plyler vs Doe. However that judgement only goes into depth on "jurisdiction" and doesn't really touch or define domiciled (which is understandable as Section 1 of the 14th doesn't include the term and the discussion was about children who were themselves illegal immigrants). As I understand it domicile in US law works on both State and Federal level and is different between states but, on the whole, it basically means you have cut most of your ties with previous countries and intend to permanently remain within the State (in the US as a whole sense). Plyler certainly suggests that the children of illegal immigrants would be citizens with its interpretation of "under the jurisdiction", but it isn't definitive... overall it forms little more than strong dicta.

[Oniya]

That's the one I was thinking of (and I think the argument could be made that illegal immigrants intend to remain permanently within the State).  I'm far from a legal scholar myself, but I suspect that the person arguing on behalf of citizenship would use Plyler v. Doe as at least a stab towards precedent.

[kylie]

         I have to sigh a little at all the references to simply "following the law," this way or that.  Twenty years ago, apartheid was the law in South Africa.  Until the 1970's, interracial marriages were illegal in parts of the US.  In the early 20th century, American laws were still largely intended to keep women as second class citizens under male custody.  Immigration laws have long held a series of particular hoops for "outsiders" to jump through, or rather for those few outsiders of whichever origins are being sought by policy at a given time. 

        Simply saying follow the law, can lead to considerable moral quandaries and logical confusions.  What about _why_ a particular law should (or should not) be followed?  There are more fundamental questions than whether or not something happens to be on the books.  It's also generally true that there are different crimes, levels of legal assistance, and punishments for wealthy citizens versus less wealthy established citizens, and again for (often) poorer immigrants.  The law itself supports a class structure thick with inequality.       

[consortium11]

         I have to sigh a little at all the references to simply "following the law," this way or that.  Twenty years ago, apartheid was the law in South Africa.  Until the 1970's, interracial marriages were illegal in parts of the US.  In the early 20th century, American laws were still largely intended to keep women as second class citizens under male custody.  Immigration laws have long held a series of particular hoops for "outsiders" to jump through, or rather for those few outsiders of whichever origins are being sought by policy at a given time. 

        Simply saying follow the law, can lead to considerable moral quandaries and logical confusions.  What about _why_ a particular law should (or should not) be followed?  There are more fundamental questions than whether or not something happens to be on the books.  It's also generally true that there are different crimes, levels of legal assistance, and punishments for wealthy citizens versus less wealthy established citizens, and again for (often) poorer immigrants.  The law itself supports a class structure thick with inequality.     

At the risk of derailing the thread there's actually a decent amount of (very) coherent jurisprudence about why it's right to always follow whatever law is on the books... regardless of whether it's "good law" or not.

That said, there's equally coherent arguments about why you shouldn't...

[Caela]

         I have to sigh a little at all the references to simply "following the law," this way or that.  Twenty years ago, apartheid was the law in South Africa.  Until the 1970's, interracial marriages were illegal in parts of the US.  In the early 20th century, American laws were still largely intended to keep women as second class citizens under male custody.  Immigration laws have long held a series of particular hoops for "outsiders" to jump through, or rather for those few outsiders of whichever origins are being sought by policy at a given time. 

        Simply saying follow the law, can lead to considerable moral quandaries and logical confusions.  What about _why_ a particular law should (or should not) be followed?  There are more fundamental questions than whether or not something happens to be on the books.  It's also generally true that there are different crimes, levels of legal assistance, and punishments for wealthy citizens versus less wealthy established citizens, and again for (often) poorer immigrants.  The law itself supports a class structure thick with inequality.     

You make an excellent point that some laws are simply "bad" laws, for lack of a better term. Some are inherently or unequal (your own examples are excellent) but at the time they are still the law. Should work be done to change them? Yes, absolutely! Apartheid was a horrific system, laws disallowing interracial marriages are aweful...both were changed though that change wasn't easy.

Until a law is changed though it's still the law and should be followed. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow and which ones you don't. At least not without paying the consequences of breaking said law.

You can't just break into someone's house and claim it as your own because it is nicer/bigger/has better amenities etc. simply because you feel like it. There is a process in place for purchasing a home and we abide by it. Moving to a new country, any country, is the same. You can't just wander across the border and say, "This is mine now." There are immigrations procedures in place no matter which country you are choosing to move to and, if you truly intend to be a citizen of that country, those policies, those LAWS of the land you wish to live in should be respected. If you have so little respect for someone's home that you feel free to just break into it, why would they want you there?

[Serephino]

Entering a country illegally isn't exactly like breaking into someone's home.  I can sort of see the analogy, but there is a big difference.  I really think Arizona is taking things a bit too far. 

And if you really think about it, pretty much all of us are descended from immigrants.  Before there were immigration laws, our ancestors did just come over, picked a spot, and claimed it.  So what made them special?  If you went with the logic that a child should belong to the same country as their parents then only Native Americans would be American, because before the Revolution everyone else was English, Dutch, German, etc...   

Most Americans are such because at some point their ancestors came to this country and they had kids which became citizens because they were born here.  Wanting to take that away from others is extremely hypocritical.     

[Caela]

Entering a country illegally isn't exactly like breaking into someone's home.  I can sort of see the analogy, but there is a big difference.  I really think Arizona is taking things a bit too far. 

And if you really think about it, pretty much all of us are descended from immigrants.  Before there were immigration laws, our ancestors did just come over, picked a spot, and claimed it.  So what made them special?  If you went with the logic that a child should belong to the same country as their parents then only Native Americans would be American, because before the Revolution everyone else was English, Dutch, German, etc...   

Most Americans are such because at some point their ancestors came to this country and they had kids which became citizens because they were born here.  Wanting to take that away from others is extremely hypocritical.     

I admit my analogy about the house is a bit simplistic but so is your comment that none of us would be American's because ancestors dead long before we were born, came from somewhere else.

Before immigration laws showing up and claiming a spot wasn't illegal. It's how people spread out and country's became occupied and settled. No laws broken and so it doesn't have any real bearing on the discussion.

And there is nothing hypocritical in my thinking. I have no problem with people coming here and having children and their children being citizens. I just expect them to do it legally. A naturalized citizen is a citizen and as such any children they have would be American citizens as well. We have enough of our own actual citizens, and people wanting to be here legally, that need to be taken care of without people coming here illegally and, (in simplest terms, yes) basically stealing services and resources from those trying to become citizens legally and trying to circumvent our laws by having anchor-babies to keep them here.

[kylie]

We have enough of our own actual citizens, and people wanting to be here legally, that need to be taken care of without people coming here illegally and, (in simplest terms, yes) basically stealing services and resources from those trying to become citizens legally and trying to circumvent our laws by having anchor-babies to keep them here.

I think this is not so simple, but actually rather simplistic.  Anyone who is here and working is creating wealth.  It seems to be mainly when the economy goes sour that suddenly their largely underpaid, labor-intensive jobs become things that are being "drained" from so many others.  They do the jobs, which make for stability and wealth throughout the economy (albeit through great exploitation).  They pay sales and consumption taxes.  In some cases, they add to labor and social security taxes (there is debate as to just how much, and whether they wouldn't actually create a more satisfactory pool of wealth if granted amnesty).

         Finally, if a baby is a citizen under the law -- or if in fact, having one served to keep one legally in the country -- then I don't see how you could fairly call having the baby with such purposes, circumventing the law.  It is allowed or it isn't.  First attacking them for being illegal, and then for acting in a way that observes the law, is not consistent.  Either they are "sneaky" or they are not.  Above you are changing the criteria as you go, to suit your own wishes.

         There is some controversy to say the least about the term "anchor-baby."  Apparently it's also been used shotgun-style as a sort of racist epithet, but aside from that, there are reportedly dubious assumptions.  Assuming the citations of government sources in Wikipedia are accurate, I'll quote them for a quick response:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.[1][13]

In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years.[14] Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.[15]

[Lyell]

          I think this is not so simple, but actually rather simplistic.  Anyone who is here and working is creating wealth.  It seems to be mainly when the economy goes sour that suddenly their largely underpaid, labor-intensive jobs become things that are being "drained" from so many others.  They do the jobs, which make for stability and wealth throughout the economy (albeit through great exploitation).  They pay sales and consumption taxes.  In some cases, they add to labor and social security taxes (there is debate as to just how much, and whether they wouldn't actually create a more satisfactory pool of wealth if granted amnesty).

         Taken from Caela in the "Take your job back" thread:

"This I think is a self-perpetuating cycle. Legal citizens don't want to work for farmers that basically pay slave wages and farmers don't want to pay more than what they are already paying. It sets up a system in which people say that no citizen will do the job and that they "need" the illegals to them or it won't get done. In truth, I don't think there is a job out there that some legal citizen won't do, but no one is going to do it for a wage so low they can't afford to buy that cool new video game they want, much less trying to sustain an independent and productive life on your own. It's sort of a catch 22 really."

         Finally, if a baby is a citizen under the law -- or if in fact, having one served to keep one legally in the country -- then I don't see how you could fairly call having the baby with such purposes, circumventing the law.  It is allowed or it isn't.  First attacking them for being illegal, and then for acting in a way that observes the law, is not consistent.  Either they are "sneaky" or they are not.  Above you are changing the criteria as you go, to suit your own wishes.

         There is some controversy to say the least about the term "anchor-baby."  Apparently it's also been used shotgun-style as a sort of racist epithet, but aside from that, there are reportedly dubious assumptions.  Assuming the citations of government sources in Wikipedia are accurate, I'll quote them for a quick response:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

        Interpreting past legislation out of context with the events that said legislation was formed around allowed Goldman Sachs to distribute nearly 24 trillion in government bailouts to whatever financial institution it saw fit, and without revealing to the american taxpayer who that money went to going so far as to say it was none of our business. The Immigration and Nationality Reform Act of 1965 was a relaxation of immigration policy for European immigrants. The National Origins and Quotas system was phased out because visas reserved for the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany went mostly unused while there were 'waiting lines' for countries like Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.(Center for Immigration Studies, Three Decades of Mass Immigration, The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act, September 1995)
        The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria, supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to the United States. But Ted Kennedy was quoted on the debate floor for the act he was sheparding having stated:  "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."(U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

[cassia]

What I wish is that there was a happy medium between the two extremes - that we could increase immigration limits and allow nearly unlimited numbers of legal immigrants who are willing to obtain proper identification, and punish those who refuse. Preferably by a fine and a time frame in which s/he must obtain the needed papers, and using detention and deportation as a last resort for those who still refuse or who have a proven history of violent crime. No matter how desperate someone is, when they have broken the law, they have broken the law and "s/he came from poverty" is no excuse. At best, it should reduce - not eliminate - the appropriate punishment. It doesn't give citizens a free pass to break laws; why should it work for illegal immigrants?

This would mean that would-be illegal immigrants have better access to fair wages and will pay income tax, which means more money for them and a lower percentage of the tax burden on other taxpayers. They also have a bit more protection against the actions of corrupt police, who are not as common as the media would have you believe but they do exist. The only people who lose out are the ones who have criminal history to hide and the employers who take advantage of workers.

The laws may need changed, but changing them by failing to enforce them isn't the right way to do it. That makes the people who do enforce the laws look like jerks just for doing their job.

[RubySlippers]

I think the latest proposed law is a wee bit harsh.

Definitely beyond the scope of power the Arizona state government has. Citizenship isn't conferred by each state.

That is not the law the law is having improper identification or no identification, a state misdomeanor. And they have every obligation to find and report illegal immigrants to the INS and enforce Federal Law. I pointed out if that is not the case then anytime an person charged with a Federal crime shows up in a state the local officers would have no legal right to arrest the person or act on that but would have to leave if to the Federal agencies to deal with it. And last time I looked being in the nation without proper permission is a crime at the Federal level. And if they have fake documents that is a felony in every state and ifa SS Card or Federal documents a Federal crime.

[kylie]

          Ruby, I understand the "spirit of the law" argument to some degree, but I'm uneasy with the comparison to white-collar crime.  The spirit of the law does not necessarily go so far as to make it right to punish immigrants for Ted Kennedy simply being wrong in how he forecasted the facts.  People use silly rationales for future planning all the time, but at most then they would be liable, not the immigrants in question.   That was just clumsy or unfortunate use of the crystal ball. 

          I don't think most of the immigrants we're talking about are so well aware of the letter of the law, nor do they generally have extremely high paid lawyers picking over thousands of words to find a loophole in their defense.  Goldman Sachs is being investigated as having actually breached a trust it was party to, whereas in most cases when immigrants are prosecuted they are just deported.  Goldman extracted a huge lot of liquid wealth from the situation, hunks of currency that changed the entire economy...  Whereas immigrant earnings may make a difference for some relatives in Latin America but it's much more questionable (as you note) how many people would accept their jobs in the US under the sort of wages and conditions they often suffer. 

          However, when many of the jobs are in areas like agriculture, I'm skeptical that one such law is actually going to cut illegal immigration so much that the playing field will change significantly.  It may simply encourage employers to hide and regulate the immigrants in remote locations even more harshly.  To the extent that police do become active in constantly checking papers (which would be necessary to merely police town centers thoroughly), they will also often do so at the expense and disruption of legal ethnic citizens.

[Lyell]

Let me just ask you this, kylie. Why do we have a cap on the amount of visas and nationalizations allowed every year? Is it so we can turn our noses up to those who want to live the american dream? Or is it because this country can't support that kind of population flux? Do we really want to be assholes or is there some legitamate reason behind it? Or is there some grey area between those that I don't know about?

[kylie]

Sheesh, Lyell -- what is this "we" stuff...  Hyperbole. 
You're demanding that I speak for the whole country?  I didn't claim that everyone agreed on the issue. 

Now, if the agreement you wish to have is that America is obviously egalitarian utopia #1 and there really is equal opportunity for everyone who's legal or at least for those willing to be worked to the bone for a generation (typical rendering of the "American dream" ideal in my mind)...  No, I don't buy it.  As to the rest of your very rhetorical questions:

1.  It's not feasible to claim there is no arrogance involved.  I'd need wool in my ears.

2.  It's not true that all of the immigrants believe in the "American dream" as you put it.  Unless you mean some alternative form of dream, say grinding out a very sketchy form of survival they aren't offered in neighboring places.  Not the typical, "whoever strives will be secure" use of the words. 

3.  And it's also possible that I can think someone is being piggish or effectively exploitive and they think they have a legitimate concern.  Which may, on the facts, be a totally confused take or not even involve accurate arguments.  That swings either way, much as I strive to avoid being on the nasty end of that calculation.

         Were you hoping I was going to say surely we have all the facts and based on them, my better sense knows that immigration policy as it exists is a matter of rational, unbiased practicality?  The onus would be on you to convince me of that.  First you have to state your goals, and that happens to (at least tacitly) involve "who is going to benefit from this?"  It isn't everyone.  I'm betting it isn't even all the legal Americans.  Pick whichever cost or benefit you have in mind, relative to what, and then let's find some facts. 

[Trieste]

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/07/01/sot.obama.immigration.full.cnn

I think that Obama hits the nail on the head. Blanket actions on either side of the fence would be expensive and horribly ineffectual. I also like how he says that the people who broke our laws should be held accountable. Not punished - I don't want to see them locked up. But I do think they should be held accountable.

I'm so happy to have a President in office that can string a sentence together!

[Lyell]

I'm so happy to have a President in office that can string a sentence together!

Sheesh, Lyell -- what is this "we" stuff...  Hyperbole. 
You're demanding that I speak for the whole country?  I didn't claim that everyone agreed on the issue. 

I'm sorry, I'll try to remember to legally define my pronouns in the future. Those, including myself, who support confined, secured borders (hereafter reffered to as 'we'):

Now, if the agreement you wish to have is that America is obviously egalitarian utopia #1 and there really is equal opportunity for everyone who's legal or at least for those willing to be worked to the bone for a generation (typical rendering of the "American dream" ideal in my mind)...  No, I don't buy it.

If this were a discussion about the rights legal immigrants and legal citizens have, I might be concerned. I worked in a semiconductor manufacturer for four years. I met a lot of people with diverse ethnicities and most with substantially better educations and positions than I had. Supervisory, technical and engineering fields alike. So please, don't try to convince me that opportunities aren't there for people who are willing to work for them. Undocumented immigrants don't have these opportunities because of their illegal immigrant status. Working to the bone for no job security, no benefits and no protection sounds pretty abysmal to me. But obviously they prefer it to whatever's happening south of the border.

As to the rest of your very rhetorical questions:

1.  It's not feasible to claim there is no arrogance involved.  I'd need wool in my ears.

You'd need an equal amount of wool to believe that arrogance is all that fuels it.

2.  It's not true that all of the immigrants believe in the "American dream" as you put it.  Unless you mean some alternative form of dream, say grinding out a very sketchy form of survival they aren't offered in neighboring places.  Not the typical, "whoever strives will be secure" use of the words. 

No, I know some of them come here just to eek out as minimal of an existance as they can so they can send money to their families in Mexico. I also know there's no room for advancement for them. Correction, there's no opportunity for advancement for them. Which is sad, that they're not allowed to strive. But mass exodus isn't going to fix their problems.

3.  And it's also possible that I can think someone is being piggish or effectively exploitive and they think they have a legitimate concern.  Which may, on the facts, be a totally confused take or not even involve accurate arguments.  That swings either way, much as I strive to avoid being on the nasty end of that calculation.

'Accurate argument' is about as valid a term as 'accurate opinion.' Someone WILL find fault, someone WILL accuse personal bias and someone will pick apart every detail to twist the meaning beyond the message's original intent. Ofcourse, that's why we hire lawyers to deliver our messages in court, isn't it? So there won't be any confusion, right?

         Were you hoping I was going to say surely we have all the facts and based on them, my better sense knows that immigration policy as it exists is a matter of rational, unbiased practicality?  The onus would be on you to convince me of that.  First you have to state your goals, and that happens to (at least tacitly) involve "who is going to benefit from this?"  It isn't everyone.  I'm betting it isn't even all the legal Americans.  Pick whichever cost or benefit you have in mind, relative to what, and then let's find some facts. 

I was hoping you would consider both sides of the issue. I try to out of habbit. It's developed a sort of reflexive 'devil's advocate' mindset that keeps me from blathering out right-wing garbage without considering left-wing reasoning. But to address the matter of "who is going to benefit from this," I question who pays for the overrun of relatively impoverished newcomers eligible for welfare, free schooling, and other expensive services? Ofcourse they're all government services, but taxpayers fund the government. Many will have to lower their standard of living to support these people. Call me traditional but I'm not fond of the idea of my hard work supporting someone I don't know or care about. On the other hand, most immigrants are honest and hard-working people who do often take jobs that American natives shun. Eight million immigrants, both legal and illegal, entered the U.S. work force between 1990 and 2001 out of a total of thirteen million who entered the country.

I'd be a heartless, ignorant bastard if I looked a newly arrived immigrant square in the eye and said he had no right to be here. We are all human beings. It is certainly not the immigrant’s fault if he took advantage of laws which others have enacted to better his personal situation. It is, however, a legitimate question of policy to review a system which seems to be out of control. The high volume of illegal immigration gives cause for concern if only because it shows disrespect for our laws and our community. Laws that our government has in place and does not enforce.

Lutheran Social Services sponsored more than one hundred AIDS-infected immigrants from a Third World country to come to the United States and receive treatment at the Hennepin County Medical Center. A Twin Cities resident who has lived and worked there for a long time pondered the fact that newcomers who had not previously paid taxes could receive expensive medical services courtesy of Hennepin County taxpayers while those locals who lost our jobs could not afford this. How can someone make such a decision sticking someone else with the cost? Where was the justice in such policies?

For me, immigration becomes a problem mainly in the context of “rights” for socially disadvantaged groups. This is a legacy of the Civil Rights movement. In earlier times, new groups of people entering this country started on the bottom rung of the social ladder. These newly arrived persons worked in low-wage jobs, were verbally abused, and taken advantage of in various ways. One after another, the Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles, Russian Jews, and other immigrant groups worked their way up into the middle class. In contrast, today’s immigrants soon pick up on the fact that their situation translates into politically recognized and encouraged victimhood. They have rights which can be played to their advantage. As recognized victims, they enjoy special legal protections. Just as some blacks use “racial discrimination” as an excuse for personal bad behavior, so some immigrants use the moral and legal options available to them to demand special treatment.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, published an editorial, “Our Rainbow Underclass”, which noted differences in the experience of immigrants between this and earlier times. “What is disturbing,” he wrote, “is that the longer these new immigrants stay in the country the worse they do, reversing the history of upward mobility in previous waves of immigration. Why? Traditionally, there were well-paid manufacturing jobs for immigrants ... Those days are gone ... The original European newcomers could also send their children to high-quality urban schools. Assimilation was swift ... There was no linguistic minority to dominate any large city the way Spanish speakers now dominate Miami and Los Angeles.”

In contrast, he wrote, the children of today’s immigrants “form a rainbow underclass, caught in a cycle of downward assimilation, poverty combined with racial segregation. Often separated for long periods from their parents, especially their fathers, during the immigration process, they stop doing homework, reject their parents’ values, and succumb to the dangers of an overcrowded inner-city culture. They face overwhelmed teachers, limited social service resources, and a decaying infrastructure, and they often adopt the negative behavior pattern of their peer groups, such as academic indifference and substance abuse, leading to dropout rates three times as high as for native-born Americans. Even the stellar performance of Asian children declines - studies show that by the third generation, Chinese students no longer exceed whites in educational success.”

There has been a steady negative trend reflected by the laxing of our border control and immigration policies. Turning a blind eye to it is beyond me.

[itsbeenfun2000]

Taking no side on the law until I look more into it what worries me most about it is what one person said earlier of "reasonable suspicion". Any police officer by case law must have more then reasonable suspicion to search some one they need "probable cause"

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause were well defined in "new jersey vs TLO" in 1985. Police need probable cause to search a person, reasonable cause is not enough to search for a police officer. It is enough for a teacher or other official to carry out their duties in the school setting, but not in a general setting for a trained officer.

If this law allows reasonable suspicion and is upheld what is to prevent other laws being passed that will allow reasonable suspicion to conduct a search. It opens up a can of worms that I don't think anyone would want opened if it plays out that way.

[Phaia]

Well things just a bit more interesting with this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_states

9 States are supporting AZ in a leagl fight with the federal government over the issue!!

Phaia

[Trieste]

Pennsylvania. O_o

Why on earth would Pennsylvania be concerned with immigration issues? I mean, I can kinda see Michigan... if we suddenly have to start watching out for Canadian ex-pats... but wtf PA.

[Oniya]

Maybe farming areas?  I could potentially see that being an enticing area for the low-skill, low-pay jobs that employers tend to use illegals for.

[itsbeenfun2000]

Pennsylvania. O_o

Why on earth would Pennsylvania be concerned with immigration issues? I mean, I can kinda see Michigan... if we suddenly have to start watching out for Canadian ex-pats... but wtf PA.

[/color]

Actually there is a large hispanic population in the midwest. Especially Chicago and it's subrubs. Mostly legal, taxpaying citizens I might add

[Trieste]

Ahm.

Pennsylvania is not in the midwest.

[Oniya]

I think Pittsburgh likes to pretend.

[Trieste]

I am now picturing Pittsburgh, as a city, dressing up in overalls and plaid on weekends. And this is Oniya's fault.

[Oniya]

But [noembed]Southern California wants to be Western New York.[/noembed]

[/hijack]

[RubySlippers]

Its a states right defense if a state cannot be held to enforce immigration then naturally they should by extension not have to enforce ANY Federal Law like treason, counterfeiting money or killing a Federal Agent if the charge is solely Federal. Either state officers can and should enforce the laws of the Federal authority or not have to. Obama and his adminstration wants it both ways and say well these laws they can't and these laws they can seems inconsistant. So the states fighting this is protecting precedents built up over years. And if the court sides with the Federal government if I was the governor of Arizona I would order no local or state officer from aiding any Federal law enforcement agency unless there is a state level charge and then deal only to aid the other state. The precedent would be set that Federal Laws are not enforceable by states why should they get involved then?

[itsbeenfun2000]

Ahm.

Pennsylvania is not in the midwest.
[/quote[/color]]

My point is that like most immigrants that entered this country for the last century people do not stay at the point of origin. Eventually they migrate to areas that have better jobs and a culture of acceptance for diversity.

[Trieste]

My point is that like most immigrants that entered this country for the last century people do not stay at the point of origin. Eventually they migrate to areas that have better jobs and a culture of acceptance for diversity.

I was mainly trying to figure out what your post had to do with my question, which you quoted, of 'wtf, PA'.

[kylie]

I was hoping you would consider both sides of the issue. I try to out of habbit. It's developed a sort of reflexive 'devil's advocate' mindset that keeps me from blathering out right-wing garbage without considering left-wing reasoning.

I do like to think there are some useful points within troubled suggestions, but I think most of this is off the mark.  You have suggested that both Blacks and immigrants are leeching off a system which would otherwise treat them fairly.  In fact, on the whole, government policies have not led toward equality with Whites for either group.   Wealth has been hoarded along racial lines through political means.  I really have to take issue the way you seem to depict both Blacks and immigrants on the whole. 

One after another, the Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles, Russian Jews, and other immigrant groups worked their way up into the middle class. In contrast, today’s immigrants soon pick up on the fact that their situation translates into politically recognized and encouraged victimhood. They have rights which can be played to their advantage. As recognized victims, they enjoy special legal protections. Just as some blacks use “racial discrimination” as an excuse for personal bad behavior, so some immigrants use the moral and legal options available to them to demand special treatment.

This suggests you are not familiar with the history of Blacks.  It's implying that we can explain why many, many Blacks and recent immigrants don’t achieve economic parity by pointing to “personal bad behavior” by “some” of them.  This sounds to me like a thinly veiled claim that actually, they’re all crooks.  You have tried to apply that notion to immigration policy without addressing the argument that racial discrimination has played a historical role in keeping these populations down.  In fact, it has.  They have been systematically victimized marginalized and exploited.   

          On the whole, Black families still hold limited resources long after slavery.  In particular, they don’t have comparable home value or financial assets to leverage investment in new enterprises.  Rather than assuming that they only succeed when given handouts, we can track this situation to a number of racially biased policies across generations.  These include courtroom favor given to lynch mobs, minorities being systematically denied or deterred from voting (from Jim Crow to current “monitoring” that questions their ID and phone records disproportionately), segregationist state and local policies, capricious local funding choices, and rigged housing prices and central policies that have encouraged housing and infrastructure to concentrate in higher-priced, widely dispersed (and presto, look, “less Black”!) suburbs and outskirt cities. 

          Much of the most consistent right-wing platform of recent decades has been to conserve wealth for the rich (and overkill military spending) to the detriment of the rest of the economy.  In addition, social programs were also cut.  You might imagine how these policies have impacted the long-term opportunities of Black and immigrant families, from one generation to the next, on top of everything above.  These are the millions of families for whom, if they support let us say welfare or affirmative action, you note they might do it on the basis of complaining of “victimhood.”  No true victim prefers to be one, so it seems like the word 'victim' was chosen for its potential to humiliate.   Through such language, conservatives often attempt to explain away identity politics (also including GLBT and others).  They hint that anyone who points out injustice against their people as a group, is somehow weak and inadequate.  Please humor me as I try to press that a moment:  I hope you will not feel too "victimized" if I point out that there is a long and continuing history of abuse.  Did you enjoy the word as much as I did?  So...  Before you insinuate that the Black claims of inequality are being made only out of weakness and not based in fact, you might first research whether they have in fact been systematically denied opportunities.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=406
Convinced that federal welfare programs promoted laziness, promiscuity, and moral decay, Reagan limited benefits to those he considered the "truly needy." His administration cut spending on a variety of social welfare programs, including Aid to Families with Dependent Children; food stamps; child nutrition; job training for young people; programs to prevent child abuse; and mental health services. The Reagan administration also eliminated welfare assistance for the working poor and reduced federal subsidies for child-care services for low-income families.

All of this hurts working-class legal residents too.  It even weakens the expanding lower middle class.  It’s worse for immigrants because they have low financial resources to begin with, and lower social status.  Among the effects of low social status, I would count: The law functions to keep them away from foundations for progress that historically, Whites were able to secure based on assets, earlier entry into the elite, and now preferential treatment under some policies.  The Arizona move compounds the worst tendencies of a bureaucracy that maintains unequal access in crucial areas. 

          Should one choose to neglect all that – which is already a huge omission…  On top of that, it’s possible to also overlook the fact that historically immigration policy (quotas, supporting moral panics and all) has been about positively creating a certain class imbalance from the very beginning…   Then, we could treat immigrants as if they existed in a vacuum and were largely responsible for their own fate.  That would make it easier to sustain sweeping claims about whether the immigrants have it together enough, are good enough or moral enough as a racial or ethnic type.  That almost makes it sound “reasonable” to classify them with a broad brush as shady characters who are not good enough or strong enough in their very nature.  Or in a sly twist, one might choose to argue that liberal social policies are the reason that immigrants cannot make it.  One could say that, while ignoring the discrimination.  But on the whole, Whites have not been kept in a situation where they needed government help to begin with. 

          I don’t presume to know what you’re reading and believing or not, exactly. Nevertheless…  Between the lines of what you’re saying, I sense the principles of a very reactionary undercurrent.  This myth is not only aimed at “explaining” the plight of illegal residents.  It is designed to prescribe a lifestyle for the working to lower-middle class masses.  It denies or neglects a whole political economy of race.  Simplified in "rant" form, the story goes something like this:  "How dare these  immigrants lose the great morals of their conservative elders, good traditional family values sharpened in those authoritarian and dangerous regimes which they must have fled to be here in the first place.  Alas, their home economies would actually have really kept them much more honest!  See how much death squads, lack of infrastructure, and single-product markets did for their character?   Back in the homeland, these sweet and simple people had a real work ethic, handed down in their own authentic culture!  It was not denuded by the corruption of those violent, broken family inner city folk -- whom we shall not name here.  [Zuckerman: "negative behavior pattern of their peer groups."]  If only they could have maintained and acted on such principles in America.  Why, if only every American could – then any good family (or at least the most conservative, best of them) would achieve the great dream within a reasonable 20 years or 40.  But no, they are weak, just like those other inner city people of today.  Hint: you really know the Blacks are the penultimate failures right.  And you do believe, it’s their nature and not policy and racial discrimination at fault, right?" 

          In case it’s not perfectly clear:  No.  I don’t buy that.  But if one does accept that line, then it becomes much more feasible to simultaneously blame liberal policies that many immigrants don't succeed economically -- and at the same time, to blame the immigrants for failing to tough it out anyway!  Much the same reasoning used to tell the legal, White underclass that they are to blame if they don't organize their finances, families and even personal lives to be perfectly secure and more immediately, to be approved under conservative eyes.  Never mind those financial crises, declining public services, etc.  The American dream lives!  Just do it how we tell you, it'll be okay for your grandchildren while we cut schools and public transit, make new incomprehensible derivatives to sell, and spend on another year or ten of war...  That’s quite a juggling act. 

…the children of today’s immigrants “form a rainbow underclass, caught in a cycle of downward assimilation, poverty combined with racial segregation. Often separated for long periods from their parents, especially their fathers, during the immigration process, they stop doing homework, reject their parents’ values, and succumb to the dangers of an overcrowded inner-city culture. They face overwhelmed teachers, limited social service resources, and a decaying infrastructure, and they often adopt the negative behavior pattern of their peer groups, such as academic indifference and substance abuse, leading to dropout rates three times as high as for native-born Americans. Even the stellar performance of Asian children declines - studies show that by the third generation, Chinese students no longer exceed whites in educational success.”

There has been a steady negative trend reflected by the laxing of our border control and immigration policies. Turning a blind eye to it is beyond me.

That’s written as if social decay is an obvious consequence of permissive immigration as such.  It’s missing the continuing history of racial policies that affect immigrants after they enter the country.   You’re suggesting that both the structural inequality immigrants face in the American system and their failure to overcome it all is a natural result of immigration law combined with liberal social policies like affirmative action.  In fact, liberal platforms have generally been gutted to support upper-class tax breaks and wars.  They haven’t been funded as originally intended nor allowed to run the course, with the notable exception of Medicare.  I suspect it is more accurate to say that immigration has been permissive until politicians need a scapegoat (such as in economic downturns) and – more problematically – that immigration policy has combined with discriminatory race policies.  The discrimination is a real problem, but I would prefer to have more opportunity and equality for everyone.  Which brings me to this: 

I question who pays for the overrun of relatively impoverished newcomers eligible for welfare, free schooling, and other expensive services?

Limited resources is a more worthy concern in my book.  If they are eligible, then the immigration law may now be in conflict with the welfare law.  (I can't help pointing out, this is often what happens if you "follow" the law closely enough.  You have to choose which one to follow.)  I don’t have data on how many are actually eligible for these services, and how many would (more I suspect, would not) raise their public profile to collect.  Aside from the long-term costs of removing their (rather exploitative) labor from the country…  I think this also should be part of a broader discussion about using finances efficiently.  That means a more effective national health care policy and a tax policy that doesn’t allow the upper-class to stow away so much wealth.  Let’s start expanding the pie, first. 

          In contrast:  If we police immigration based upon a conservative view of that law, the pie stays the same.  We probably increase the costs of policing and agriculture.  The economic downturn remains, either way.  If it were actually feasible to deport many, I doubt it would cost much less to replace them with legal workers, without shaking up the whole (more money, more hunts for political scapegoats in the short run).  Finally, I suspect, the right would continue to cry foul.  Expect continued talk about how Blacks, gays, single mothers, and public spending on education and infrastructure are the “real” problems.   

[Lyell]

You 'sense' the principles and then believe you can summerize my underlying thought process? How does that fall under you not presumming to know what I'm reading and believing? There's something about me I think you misunderstand. My friends throughout school included blacks, hispanics and gays, and I was raised by a single mother who was financially responsible. There's something to note about public spending on education and infrastructure too. It's done based on the documented population. A number generated by those who answer the census. People who fear deportation probably avoid the census and lead to numbers skewed against any public benefit they might have benefitted from. Why you felt it necessary to list those and insinuate I would claim them to be "real" problems and your simplified "rant" story aren't any less discriminatory than the twist you put onto my stances. You presume I intend 'all of X race.' I'm not as xenophobic as you're trying to imply. Nor are all republicans, but you'd have anyone willing to listen to you believe that. That's called discrimination. If you're attatching it to white people exclusively, well that's just racist.

This nation doesn't believe it has limited resources. The U.S. feeds other countries before it'll feed its own people. The U.S. pay farmers not to plant crops. The U.S. is willing to shoulder as many people that can cross into its border with no consideration for the aftermath. Okay, that may be over simplifying, but there's a lot of that going on in this thread. As for who is or would be qualified to recieve welfare, again this is slightly over simplifying the answer but anyone below the state's poverty line qualifies, with increased benefits based on the number of children in the household assuming they (the children) attend public school while they are of the appropriate age. So there is inscentive to have more children and work less. Now, before the notion gains momentum that I believe all illegal immigrants exploit the system this way, I have SEEN households like this. Not a lot of them. Not even a majority of hispanic households that I personally have seen do this. Hell, not even all of them were hispanic. I think there's even white families that do this. Did I cover all my bases there?

Let's get some numbers in here. Suppose a family makes less than $15,000 a year, below a states poverty line and certainly difficult to live on. Easily, that family could qualify for $30,000 in government aid/welfare. However, if the family were to recieve a raise and their income were bumped up to $16,000 they would no longer qualify for that government aid. It's an all or nothing system that provides no incentive to work yourself out of it. Compile that onto the costs of free lawyers, free ER treatment and increased public transit maitnance costs and it's not hard to see where this is going. Nobody wants to say where it's going because sugar-coating the future is far more appealing.

And yes, I am suggesting that both the structural inequality immigrants face in the American system and their failure to overcome it all is a natural result of immigration law combined with liberal social policies like affirmative action. Changing the qualifications of a job to include someone's color of skin is no less discriminatory than excluding them for the same reason. Why have some risen to middle and upper class status? Are they special? If equality is on the agenda, why is gender or race required when applying for a job? Why is it all not just blind to everything except a person's qualifications and their (if any) criminal background? Why do we need diversity quotas if people are supposed to be judged by merit and not by their genitailia or skin tone? I'm also not ignorant of the fact that policies get gutted, cut and fixed into the government's budget, nor that increasing said budget comes out of the tax payers wallet. And it happens on both sides of the fence. Do not try to imply that any recent conservative bills have made it into law without scrutiny, modification and unrelated policies being tacked on by the opposing party.

Why is lowering somene else's standard of living, taking someone else's hard work away from them the answer? Explain that one to me. "I've got a successful business, I used my money wisely and now I have to give it to someone else?" Fixing our nations policies is important. Opening the borders to be freely invaded isn't the way to do it. And if the federal government would do its damn job and enforce border control there wouldn't BE an Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law thread.

[kylie]

You 'sense' the principles and then believe you can summerize my underlying thought process? How does that fall under you not presumming to know what I'm reading and believing?

It's plain enough that you quoted some of what you’ve read, and I quoted it back and responded to it.  I realized later that I might have said, I don't know about what else you’re reading.  Or we could make the sentence still busier to include, or what part of your reading do you believe or want to emphasize the most.  I was trying to hold open the possibility that you aren’t really as xenophobic as the material you quoted seems to be.  Or at least, I wanted to believe that you might be confused about the technical merits of the argument you select.  I'm having my doubts about now. 

There's something about me I think you misunderstand.   My friends throughout school included blacks, hispanics and gays, and I was raised by a single mother who was financially responsible.

That isn’t really here nor there to me.  That is, unless you’re going to use it to demonstrate something that can be generalized with further support.  It’s a common fallacy of rightist racial politics that if you simply have a few acquaintances from some group, you are somehow immune to distorted arguments about race.  Not true.   

There's something to note about public spending on education and infrastructure too. It's done based on the documented population. A number generated by those who answer the census. People who fear deportation probably avoid the census and lead to numbers skewed against any public benefit they might have benefitted from.

There may be something to this, but I’m not totally swayed by it.  The government makes estimates of various populations it cannot easily count (others including the homeless; even cell phone users are not fully counted but extrapolated in surveying).  If you are correct that they use public services, then some math or observation might also tell us more about them...  Plans are always made partly based upon estimates.  There have also been efforts in recent years to better count those immigrants that can be reached (and thus to make estimates better), for example by recruiting more Spanish interviewers and increasing the percentage of actual footwork versus phone calls. 

You presume I intend 'all of X race.' I'm not as xenophobic as you're trying to imply.

I don’t know about you, but what you’ve been arguing is claiming an original injustice that I think is based upon false premises.  You said you have a problem with the “rights” concept and then you pinned that specifically on Black Americans who you said are illegitimately crying “victimhood.”  I said, well look, there have been and still are so many abuses of these people as a class.  Now, you’re going on about demand for aid being some sort of theft against some presumptively unconnected White population – while continuing to ignore the cycle of injustice against Blacks and immigrants.

          Whether you happen to believe that just a few incorrect leaders played a race card to get policies that a group didn’t deserve, or whether you believe many Blacks (and since this is your source of precedent, by extension, immigrants) will push for these policies and must be opposed as a group…  It’s not so material to me.  The argument ends up at the same place either way, as far as the immigration law is concerned.

This nation doesn't believe it has limited resources. The U.S. feeds other countries before it'll feed its own people. The U.S. pay farmers not to plant crops. The U.S. is willing to shoulder as many people that can cross into its border with no consideration for the aftermath.

If you believe the resources are not sufficient for something, please argue that.  What you have been presenting so far is more a moralizing fairy tale about theft of virgin resources from Whites. In fact, as I have argued and you apparently prefer to ignore, those resources are not virgin to begin with.

As for who is or would be qualified to recieve welfare, again this is slightly over simplifying the answer but anyone below the state's poverty line qualifies, with increased benefits based on the number of children in the household assuming they (the children) attend public school while they are of the appropriate age. So there is inscentive to have more children and work less. Now, before the notion gains momentum that I believe all illegal immigrants exploit the system this way, I have SEEN households like this.  Not a lot of them. Not even a majority of hispanic households that I personally have seen do this. Hell, not even all of them were hispanic. I think there's even white families that do this. Did I cover all my bases there?

Even assuming you saw what you thought and it means what you think…  If such households are in the minority as you say they are, how exactly do you think that is related to the Arizona law?  You’re using a claim that a minority of the apples are bad, as a reason to toss the entire basket.

Let's get some numbers in here.

Before we try to stretch numbers designed for legal citizens to people who are not living in the same circumstances, and follow that up with various conflicting estimates about immigrants per se…  I don’t know that so many immigrants as you suggest are actually collecting social services.  To me, there is a disconnect between the claim that the government can’t find them and the claim that they are soaking up benefits on a massive scale.  And then if they were, have you even generally considered the cost of hunting, deporting, and replacing them consistently?
 

And yes, I am suggesting that both the structural inequality immigrants face in the American system and their failure to overcome it all is a natural result of immigration law combined with liberal social policies like affirmative action. Changing the qualifications of a job to include someone's color of skin is no less discriminatory than excluding them for the same reason. Why have some risen to middle and upper class status? Are they special? If equality is on the agenda, why is gender or race required when applying for a job?

Equal economic opportunity, ideally at least, presumes that all households have historically been offered similar chances (while in the US) to accumulate assets.  The fact is that the government has been, and to a marked extent still is, complicit in denying some of those chances to Blacks and immigrants.  (Examples mentioned in previous post.)  Affirmative action is a recognition that we have historically moved so far away from that ideal of original equality as a country – and still haven’t really gotten back there.  Doing away with it now, would mean the Whites keep all the ill-gotten goodies they can, and keep re-investing them to keep the vast majority of the pot.  And no counterweight to government support for the same, which does continue.  Although in fact… If you appreciate White women, you might be relieved to know that companies have actually responded to affirmative action by hiring more of them rather than Blacks.  But that’s another discussion.

Why is it all not just blind to everything except a person's qualifications and their (if any) criminal background?

Employers are not blind to either – but some are more concerned with race.  For instance, a study by Devah Pager (2003) fed some employers resumes and mock job candidates.  Then she observed what kind of applicant received a callback or interview.  http://srhall.iweb.bsu.edu/626/Wuetrich.pdf   

(pp. 957-958, footnotes omitted)  Figure 6 presents the percentage of callbacks received for both cate-gories of black testers relative to those for whites. The effect of race in these findings is strikingly large. Among blacks without criminal records, only 14% received callbacks, relative to 34% of white noncriminals (P < .01).  In fact, even whites with criminal records received more favorable treatment (17%) than blacks without criminal records (14%). The rank ordering of groups in this graph is painfully revealing of employer pref- erences: race continues to play a dominant role in shaping employment opportunities, equal to or greater than the impact of a criminal record.

          The magnitude of the race effect found here corresponds closely to those found in previous audit studies directly measuring racial discrim- ination. Bendick et al. (1994), for example, find that blacks were 24 per- centage points less likely to receive a job offer relative to their white counterparts, a finding very close to the 20 percentage point difference (between white and black nonoffenders) found here. Thus in the eight years since the last major employment audit of race was conducted, very little has changed in the reaction of employers to minority applicants. Despite the many rhetorical arguments used to suggest that direct racial discrimination is no longer a major barrier to opportunity (e.g., D'Souza 1995; Steele 1991), as we can see here, employers, at least in Milwaukee, continue to use race as a major factor in hiring decisions.

I'm also not ignorant of the fact that policies get gutted, cut and fixed into the government's budget, nor that increasing said budget comes out of the tax payers wallet. And it happens on both sides of the fence.

I’m thinking of liberal programs that even during Roosevelt’s time but certainly since then, have hardly been fulfilled.  We've been too busy panicking and  about "invasions" by peasant nationalists in Southeast Asia or geographically overstretched Russians whose supplies were paper thin.  Now those Reagan-Bush bills that oversaw us from surplus far into deficit and leaving crumbling bridges, billions in military aid to Israel alone, police state cities and a struggling education system...  Perhaps you feel those programs were slashed too much, and not allowed to go far enough? 

[Lyell]

That isn’t really here nor there to me.  That is, unless you’re going to use it to demonstrate something that can be generalized with further support.  It’s a common fallacy of rightist racial politics that if you simply have a few acquaintances from some group, you are somehow immune to distorted arguments about race.  Not true.   

A common liberal/progressive fallacy is the assumption that anyone who is opposed to illegal immigrants is so because they're a racist bigot. And until caucasians, asians, blacks, cubans, arabs and whatever other race you can think of starts crossing the U.S./Mexico border to get into the U.S. illegally, I guess we'll have to endure. College Law teaches that certain ethnicities are predispositioned to commit certain crimes no matter the conditions of their upbringing. They support that by providing statistical data based on convictions across all races and all crimes. I'd provide statistical information about undocumented illegal aliens being here illegally except that they ARE undocumented, so any number I do pull would have to be from my ass.

          There may be something to this, but I’m not totally swayed by it.  The government makes estimates of various populations it cannot easily count (others including the homeless; even cell phone users are not fully counted but extrapolated in surveying).  If you are correct that they use public services, then some math or observation might also tell us more about them...  Plans are always made partly based upon estimates.  There have also been efforts in recent years to better count those immigrants that can be reached (and thus to make estimates better), for example by recruiting more Spanish interviewers and increasing the percentage of actual footwork versus phone calls. 

There's actually nothing to it. I was wrong. It's not decided by the census, it's decided by who pays property taxes. I guess that would involve a lot less since they only have to tally how many people pay said taxes. But that leaves a larger margin for error when guessing what portion of the population doesn't pay those taxes.

          I don’t know about you, but what you’ve been arguing is claiming an original injustice that I think is based upon false premises.  You said you have a problem with the “rights” concept and then you pinned that specifically on Black Americans who you said are illegitimately crying “victimhood.”  I said, well look, there have been and still are so many abuses of these people as a class.  Now, you’re going on about demand for aid being some sort of theft against some presumptively unconnected White population – while continuing to ignore the cycle of injustice against Blacks and immigrants.

I never said they were illegitimately crying "victimhood." I said that the situation most of them are in is a cycle of perpetual "victimhood" that they have no reason to leave. The race card is so effective because no company wants a civil rights lawsuit. I saw one man moved around in a company for eight years while they tried to find some position he could be in where he didn't have to interract with anyone. Have you ever considered THAT as a deterrant to hiring someone of colored skin?

Before we try to stretch numbers designed for legal citizens to people who are not living in the same circumstances, and follow that up with various conflicting estimates about immigrants per se…  I don’t know that so many immigrants as you suggest are actually collecting social services.  To me, there is a disconnect between the claim that the government can’t find them and the claim that they are soaking up benefits on a massive scale.  And then if they were, have you even generally considered the cost of hunting, deporting, and replacing them consistently?

Before you completely disregard my example keep in mind that it wasn't intended for illegal immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare. They ARE however, eligible for the other free services I listed (proper representation in court, use of our roadways and ER treatment). It WAS intended for the illegal immigrants that the democrats are pushing to give complete amnesty to for being here illegally and instantly make them legal citizens. Legal citizens that I ask, where will the money come from to pay for their welfare?

Equal economic opportunity, ideally at least, presumes that all households have historically been offered similar chances (while in the US) to accumulate assets.  The fact is that the government has been, and to a marked extent still is, complicit in denying some of those chances to Blacks and immigrants.  (Examples mentioned in previous post.)  Affirmative action is a recognition that we have historically moved so far away from that ideal of original equality as a country – and still haven’t really gotten back there.  Doing away with it now, would mean the Whites keep all the ill-gotten goodies they can, and keep re-investing them to keep the vast majority of the pot.  And no counterweight to government support for the same, which does continue.  Although in fact… If you appreciate White women, you might be relieved to know that companies have actually responded to affirmative action by hiring more of them rather than Blacks.  But that’s another discussion.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees the divine right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the government shall not infringe upon. It does not guarantee equal results. Not only are companies warming up to women, but people with tattoos down the length of thier arms and males with long hair are getting attention. If they were just hired based on physical perception, I'm sure there'd be someone more traditionally clean-cut and office executive appearing to hire over them.
         

Employers are not blind to either – but some are more concerned with race.  For instance, a study by Devah Pager (2003) fed some employers resumes and mock job candidates.  Then she observed what kind of applicant received a callback or interview.

Suprize! This is one area where I actually agreed that current policies in place aren't effective. My string of questions wasn't to insinuate that current practices or even past practices were legitimate in being equal.  Rather I was trying to infer what should be strived for in place of the rediculous patch that's on the problem now. (My previous comment about the complications and possible consequences behind hiring a person of color come to mind.)

I’m thinking of liberal programs that even during Roosevelt’s time but certainly since then, have hardly been fulfilled.  We've been too busy panicking and  about "invasions" by peasant nationalists in Southeast Asia or geographically overstretched Russians whose supplies were paper thin.  Now those Reagan-Bush bills that oversaw us from surplus far into deficit and leaving crumbling bridges, billions in military aid to Israel alone, police state cities and a struggling education system...  Perhaps you feel those programs were slashed too much, and not allowed to go far enough?

You've already established that the systems are strained and in disrepair. The president has to make a budget request. It doesn't have the power to tax, though. Congress does. Congress has to budget and tax for public services in accordance to the people who do not have enough to afford them. The president writes and Congress approves (or debates over) the budget ('til approved). The fiscal year extends from October to September. Obama and Congress decided on the current budget. It takes more than one man to destroy a nation or to incite war. In our case, it took 2,995. Protection from enemies foriegn and domestic are included in those services. But the ones that get the most attention are the ones closest to home. Is it going to take occupation by an alien power before funding the military and police is a legitimate concern? Or perhaps we should inflate the number of people who qualify for public services so we can force money out of the military and police, or face rioting masses. Brilliant plan.

Dismantling ICE should be a start. Let's get rid of them and put that into education and infrastructure. They're refusing to deport illegal immigrants now anyways. Infact, some cities are declaring themselves havens for immigrants, saying they won't deport anyone that's there illegally.

         If you believe the resources are not sufficient for something, please argue that.  What you have been presenting so far is more a moralizing fairy tale about theft of virgin resources from Whites. In fact, as I have argued and you apparently prefer to ignore, those resources are not virgin to begin with.

Money grows on trees and I've got one in my back yard. Gotcha.

Even assuming you saw what you thought and it means what you think…  If such households are in the minority as you say they are, how exactly do you think that is related to the Arizona law?  You’re using a claim that a minority of the apples are bad, as a reason to toss the entire basket.

Just don't want to ignore this one. Actually, I can't. I've already touched on why it's related to the Arizona law, but if pitching the basket were the answer I would have proposed that. I never said tossing the basket was the answer for ANY of the underlying problems. FIX the system! Don't put more strain on it first!

[Serephino]

I could be wrong here, but wouldn't making illegals legal be a good thing that will help?  For one, their employers would have to start paying at least the minimum wage.  They're living in such poor conditions now because they're getting a whole lot less.  An employer can basically pay them whatever they want now because they don't have the protection under minimum wage laws.

To add to that, once they are legal and start getting paid minimum wage, they're going to have to pay taxes.  Isn't that what people are complaining about?  That these people are getting services that are paid for by taxpayers such as schools, and they don't pay taxes...  If they start paying taxes, then where's the problem?  They aren't getting a free ride anymore then.  And think of all that extra money going to the government. 

There would probably be some that would go on welfare, but you can't say that they all would.  Right now they are coming here and doing all kinds of crap jobs for 'slave wages'.  If they're willing to work like slaves now, if you improve working conditions it would only stand to reason that they'd still be willing to work. 

Also, people looking for a free ride aren't limited to Hispanics.  I live in a mostly white area.  I'm talking like 98% of the county's population is white, and I know a few people who leech off the system.  Instead of focusing on getting rid of illegals, wouldn't it be better to keep everyone regardless of race from leeching off the system?  Fix the broken system instead of focusing on one area.   

[RubySlippers]

Excuse me ,these people are not law abiding nationals visiting the US to work under permission or go to schoo, they are ILLEGAL so by default are criminals. Round them, their children and kick them out of the country. If the children want to stay let them stay if born her and deport the parents. I'm tired of people making escuses for criminal activity because ,gasp, they are Hispanic or poor foreigners. There are legal ways to come here work visas which I agree should be increased with strong monitoring, they can join our armed forces that is a fine way to citizenship or apply to immigrate and wait.

Why is it fair those folks coming here legally to work or immigrate like a soldier in the army get leapfrogged by those breaking our laws? Its not by my mind. And I'm not anti-immigration I'm anti-ILLEGAL immigration the first is lawful the second group is criminal.

Their economic benefit means little to me when the truth - criminals trying to use secondary issues protect their crinomal activity is what matters.

[Serephino]

Okay, so, I sometimes drive over the speed limit.  That's breaking a law.  Granted, I don't know many people who don't break that law....  I've also jaywalked and shop lifted.  So am I a horrible criminal that needs to be locked up?  Honestly, things are very rarely that cut and dried.

Deportation isn't working obviously.  For everyone one illegal you deport it seems like ten more cross the border, so whatever they are coming here to get away from is worth the risk to them.  From what I understand, legal Visas cost money, a lot of money.  If someone is living in poverty then they can't afford it.  Also, I believe that only so many Visas are given out a year.  Even if a family could scrape together the money, they could be on the waiting list for years.  If they live in a small village ravaged by drug wars, can they really afford to wait? 

I think the only way this problem is going to be solved is to completely overhaul the system.  Quick and simple fixes just aren't going to cut it; they never do. 

[Trieste]

I don't know if anyone missed this, but there are something like 11 million (estimated, obviously) illegal aliens residing and probably working in the US at any given time. Rounding up and deporting 11 million people would be a logistical and financial nightmare. It's just not possible without going into more debt; there needs to be a different solution that will be better for our country (which is responsible for the logistics and the money) while still holding people who have broken the law responsible.

From what I've heard of them, I generally support the plan Obama has put forth for these people to pay a fine while working toward legal status.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I firmly believe nothing serious is going to be done about illegal immigration, because the corporations that own America and pull Obama's and Congress' puppet-strings want our wages to go down, and all the cheap labor coming from Mexico is an integral part of their plan.  So their front men (Obama and Congress) will pay lip service to the idea of reform, but nothing will be done.  The money likes things just as they are.

[Lyell]

Okay, so, I sometimes drive over the speed limit.  That's breaking a law.  Granted, I don't know many people who don't break that law....  I've also jaywalked and shop lifted.  So am I a horrible criminal that needs to be locked up?  Honestly, things are very rarely that cut and dried.

Deportation isn't working obviously.  For everyone one illegal you deport it seems like ten more cross the border, so whatever they are coming here to get away from is worth the risk to them.  From what I understand, legal Visas cost money, a lot of money.  If someone is living in poverty then they can't afford it.  Also, I believe that only so many Visas are given out a year.  Even if a family could scrape together the money, they could be on the waiting list for years.  If they live in a small village ravaged by drug wars, can they really afford to wait? 

I think the only way this problem is going to be solved is to completely overhaul the system.  Quick and simple fixes just aren't going to cut it; they never do. 

Do you do it because you think the law is stupid and arbitrary or do you do it because you have no concern for your own safety or the safety of those around you? Do you know why speed limits exist? They're there because the government told the states "you will post speed limits and require your officers to ticket people who violate them, or we will deny you funding to improve your roadways." SB-1070 isn't government sponsored or threatened, but it is EXACTLY on the lines of federal law. The only difference being state agents will be handling the issue of those who have successfully crossed as opposed to preventing those who have not yet.

Do I think you're a horrible criminal? No. Do I think you have respect for the law? No. Do I think you would commit other crimes if you thought you could get away with it, no chance of getting caught? Yeah.

Deportation doesn't work because they can cross again. As far as I know we have no standard internal activity that actually prevents illegal immigrants from abusing whatever perks they already can. Arizona is going to enact a law to help ICE do it's job and ICE is saying that they won't do the job they signed up to do once it goes active. Once the drug war runs out of victims in Mexico, where do you think it's going to go?

[Serephino]

Do I think you're a horrible criminal? No. Do I think you have respect for the law? No. Do I think you would commit other crimes if you thought you could get away with it, no chance of getting caught? Yeah.

Those are rather bold statements to make considering you don't know me.  Just because I go a little over the speed limit sometimes doesn't mean I have complete disregard for laws or others' safety.  I'm actually a fairly safe driver compared to the jackasses I share the road with.  I get passed all the time, that or my ass ridden to get me to speed up more.  It's also been about three years since I last shop lifted anything.  It was a phase I went through.  It's over now. 

I was simply responding to Ruby saying they were criminals and therefore needed punished.  My point was some laws mean more than others.  I know they all exist for a reason, but to paint everyone who has broken a law with the same brush is a little absurd.  There's a reason speeders are given tickets while drug dealers go to jail. 

[Lyell]

Ofcourse different crimes carry different levels of punishment. You assumed I meant murder or theft? Posession seems to carry little more than a slap on the wrist these days if the amount is small enough. Note, posession. Not trafficking. 

And infiltrating the country by illegally crossing the border is right along the lines of speeding just a little over the limit? I'm sorry I don't quite follow.

[kylie]

College Law teaches that certain ethnicities are predispositioned to commit certain crimes no matter the conditions of their upbringing.

"Predisposed."  You're broadcasting much more attitude than proof of good research.  That word is more often associated with disease, moral decay, and ill intent.  Show me an ethnic identity without any effect on background.  Blacks are much more likely to be forced into low-income, low-infrastructure neighborhoods.  Those who aren't, are more likely to also be struggling to deal with the issues of acquaintances who are.

They support that by providing statistical data based on convictions across all races and all crimes. I'd provide statistical information about undocumented illegal aliens being here illegally except that they ARE undocumented, so any number I do pull would have to be from my ass.

So they have statistics, which you offer above.  Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.

There's actually nothing to it. I was wrong. It's not decided by the census, it's decided by who pays property taxes. I guess that would involve a lot less since they only have to tally how many people pay said taxes.   But that leaves a larger margin for error when guessing what portion of the population doesn't pay those taxes.

Beats me; I don't pay them either.  Perhaps they could choose a better method of surveying.  I've already gone into that.  However, if there's no reasonable guess now, then how can you be clear on how many to multiply across those social services you claim are being used either?  You were arguing it cost too much originally.  Although overall I honestly think you would rather just scream moral injustice, and never mind the numbers.

I never said they were illegitimately crying "victimhood." I said that the situation most of them are in is a cycle of perpetual "victimhood" that they have no reason to leave. The race card is so effective because no company wants a civil rights lawsuit.

I don't see the difference between your first set of scare quotes and the second one.  "Victim" which you disbelieve was such, or another of the same.  You're talking about anything but the the inequality that preceded the civil rights movement and still hasn't been completely pushed aside.  And much of it affects immigrants in similar ways.

         "The race card."   You do tons of smoke and no substance with this line.  First, you try to say it's racist if I point out that inequality has long existed and continues to.  Now, you want to make it unacceptable for liberals to talk about race again.  As if racial inequality were some big game (playing cards) and for you, it apparently started with the civil rights movement for no good reason.

I saw one man moved around in a company for eight years while they tried to find some position he could be in where he didn't have to interract with anyone. Have you ever considered THAT as a deterrant to hiring someone of colored skin?

Japan is treated as a less racially diverse society, and they have historically been infamous for keeping people on the job without function.  Show us that White networks don't do something similar.  Or perhaps, give preferential access for good old boys to transfer.

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare. They ARE however, eligible for the other free services I listed (proper representation in court, use of our roadways and ER treatment).

With the possible exception of local roads, I'm skeptical that they consistently show up to utilize all of the services you might list.  Court and ER without paperwork to count who uses it?

It WAS intended for the illegal immigrants that the democrats are pushing to give complete amnesty to for being here illegally and instantly make them legal citizens. Legal citizens that I ask, where will the money come from to pay for their welfare?

Hop some threads and if you prefer, deny that there's a whopping chunk of money to be saved on tax and health care reform.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees the divine right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the government shall not infringe upon. It does not guarantee equal results.

It does not retract that earlier thing about freedom of representation and all created equal.  The law is called an equal opportunity law.  We're still working on that equal part.  It sounds to me like you're now arguing specifically in the direction of a land where opportunity should not be equal...  After all, if it's not guaranteed...  What follows?  Women were not originally guaranteed the vote either.  Why, that'll put those single mothers back in their place so Reaganomics can cut welfare again!

Not only are companies warming up to women, but people with tattoos down the length of thier arms and males with long hair are getting attention. If they were just hired based on physical perception, I'm sure there'd be someone more traditionally clean-cut and office executive appearing to hire over them.

I'd ask according to whom, which companies, and are they the sort that (say, Arizona) immigrants have access to based on wealth, documentation, gender performance, and social networks.  If I were to take up your "I saw one" way of evidence, well I've been denied a job clearly based upon the length of my hair.

The president writes and Congress approves (or debates over) the budget ('til approved). The fiscal year extends from October to September. Obama and Congress decided on the current budget. It takes more than one man to destroy a nation or to incite war. In our case, it took 2,995.

There's a little blame to go around, sure.  But they weren't all sitting in the Executive Branch calling themselves "the Decider" to make their case, requesting and presenting as fact faulty selections from the intelligence community, and shouting to the people about mushroom clouds.  I put more of the culpability with the office of the president on certain matters like these, where it's that job in particular to show better judgment.

Protection from enemies foriegn and domestic are included in those services. But the ones that get the most attention are the ones closest to home. Is it going to take occupation by an alien power before funding the military and police is a legitimate concern? Or perhaps we should inflate the number of people who qualify for public services so we can force money out of the military and police, or face rioting masses. Brilliant plan.

That lovely undercurrent of the right doesn't get what it wants, then there will be violence?  Sounds like a good reason to crack down harder on firearms to me!  A little more seriously though, about now?  I'd worry more about mass protests for bailing out Wall Street too liberally, stalling in Congress on financial reform (and possibly health care), and opposition to unemployment benefits.  It could be kind of hard to pass all that off as a "liberal" fillibuster.

Dismantling ICE should be a start. Let's get rid of them and put that into education and infrastructure. They're refusing to deport illegal immigrants now anyways. Infact, some cities are declaring themselves havens for immigrants, saying they won't deport anyone that's there illegally.

I have some issues with ICE actually..  But weren't you the one saying if the feds won't act, it is up to the states?  It sounds like you want the feds to trust the states to follow the spirit of federal laws and let them have at it...  Until you determine that the locals are not in compliance of (whichever law you put first, say immigration at the border versus social service provision) and then you want the feds to take over again?  Weren't you just blaming the left for making conditions that encourage trigger-happy people to play chicken?

[Lyell]

          "Predisposed."  You're broadcasting much more attitude than proof of good research.  That word is more often associated with disease, moral decay, and ill intent.  Show me an ethnic identity without any effect on background.  Blacks are much more likely to be forced into low-income, low-infrastructure neighborhoods.  Those who aren't, are more likely to also be struggling to deal with the issues of acquaintances who are.
          So they have statistics, which you offer above.  Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.

Actually, that was bait. Bait you took eagerly and turned against me. I didn't say what the statistics were, who had them or who they favored. So here's the dirty. 70 percent of all burglary arrests are of whites, 28 percent of blacks. Two-thirds of those arrests are over the age of eighteen and 90 percent of them are male. Ofcourse these numbers DO come from the UCR and they admit to thier own inaccuracy and lack of accountability for crimes that occur without arrests. Happy yet?
 

          Beats me; I don't pay them either.  Perhaps they could choose a better method of surveying.  I've already gone into that.  However, if there's no reasonable guess now, then how can you be clear on how many to multiply across those social services you claim are being used either?  You were arguing it cost too much originally.  Although overall I honestly think you would rather just scream moral injustice, and never mind the numbers.

Because there is a clear estimate of how much the cost will increase. There are many figures floating around but the general consensus seems to be somewhere in the 7 million to 20 million range. (CNN's Lou Dobbs, Tuscon sector Border Patrol union local 2544, John McCain, Sam Zamarripa, Time Magazine) They all seem to agree that the number is increasing every day though. Is this the part where I'm supposed to scream moral injustice? Do I hear an untrustworthy/invalid source claim brewing?

             I don't see the difference between your first set of scare quotes and the second one.  "Victim" which you disbelieve was such, or another of the same.  You're talking about anything but the the inequality that preceded the civil rights movement and still hasn't been completely pushed aside.  And much of it affects immigrants in similar ways.

  "The race card."   You do tons of smoke and no substance with this line.  First, you try to say it's racist if I point out that inequality has long existed and continues to.  Now, you want to make it unacceptable for liberals to talk about race again.  As if racial inequality were some big game (playing cards) and for you, it apparently started with the civil rights movement for no good reason.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where African-Americans were still picking cotton in fields for a meal a day and a shoddy roof over thier heads and white people regarding them as property was still the status norm. Last I checked you couldn't do that anymore, and I and my parents never owned slaves. So how long is that going to be held over our heads? How many more generations down the line will "I'm sorry for the mistakes of my ancestors" be enough? Oh, wait. It won't be. Not until every person of colored skin is in a $250k home that they didn't have to pay for with a steady income from a white collar job. You get right to funding that, too.

I really hope the day comes where a white male gets fired by a black supervisor and there's a civil rights lawsuit over it. I wonder how much controversy that will bring?

       

Japan is treated as a less racially diverse society, and they have historically been infamous for keeping people on the job without function.  Show us that White networks don't do something similar.  Or perhaps, give preferential access for good old boys to transfer.

Did you really just tell me other countries do it too, so that makes it okay?

With the possible exception of local roads, I'm skeptical that they consistently show up to utilize all of the services you might list.  Court and ER without paperwork to count who uses it?

Immigrants, illegal or not, have a right to leagal counsel, and to competent council in immigration court. It falls under the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of our justice system.

"Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available." -The Wall Street Journal

Hop some threads and if you prefer, deny that there's a whopping chunk of money to be saved on tax and health care reform.

Oh, the data's out there so I have to go search for it? Double Standard much?

So they have statistics, which you offer above.  Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.

Tsk tsk.

It does not retract that earlier thing about freedom of representation and all created equal.  The law is called an equal opportunity law.  We're still working on that equal part.  It sounds to me like you're now arguing specifically in the direction of a land where opportunity should not be equal...  After all, if it's not guaranteed...  What follows?  Women were not originally guaranteed the vote either.  Why, that'll put those single mothers back in their place so Reaganomics can cut welfare again!

Opportunity was once expressed to me as a moment where preparedness meets luck. Everyone has a near certainty of education, at scholarships, reimbursment or financial aid for higher education. Performance history usually is a good indicator that investors and donators act on. These resources are nearly provided. Preparedness you can guarantee. Luck you can not. And even with that door opened, some choose not to step through. Something happened that put that single mother where she was. It was a choice.
         

I'd ask according to whom, which companies, and are they the sort that (say, Arizona) immigrants have access to based on wealth, documentation, gender performance, and social networks.  If I were to take up your "I saw one" way of evidence, well I've been denied a job clearly based upon the length of my hair.

-The Wall Street Journal ("The Tattooed Executive," Mielikki Org, Thursday August 28, 2003) Didn't mention whether or not it was a company accessable by immigrants. I suppose that would require finding out which company it is and giving them a call.

There's a little blame to go around, sure.  But they weren't all sitting in the Executive Branch calling themselves "the Decider" to make their case, requesting and presenting as fact faulty selections from the intelligence community, and shouting to the people about mushroom clouds.  I put more of the culpability with the office of the president on certain matters like these, where it's that job in particular to show better judgment.

Were this any other poster I would probably say "yes, and I won't go over an itemized list over all the lies Obama has told" either, but I'm making a special exception for you.

1. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 "We will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all." -Barack Obama's Comprehensive Tax Plan

President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar. It wasn't part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it's not part of any proposed legislation that can be found. (White House, Remarks by the President on taxes , April 15, 2009. Social Security Administration, Economic Recovery One-Time Payments Information. Office of Budget and Management, Budget Documents for Fiscal Year 2010. Office of Budget and Management, Summary Tables)

2. End no-bid contracts above $25,000 "We will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid." -Obama's Plan for America: Fiscal

Indeed, since Obama took office, none of the instructions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget -- which serves as the administration's controller -- has put any limits on the value of no-bid contracts. The guidance from the president and OMB appears to acknowledge that federal agencies may not always bid a project competitively, and instead has encouraged managers to do more to increase competition among contractors.

There is a paper trail:

In a memo March 4, 2009, President Obama ordered the OMB to develop rules to "govern the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes." But no mention of any $25,000 rule.

The OMB followed up with a July 29, 2009, memo ordering agencies to cut by 10 percent the total dollars awarded via three types of so-called "risky" contracts, including no-bid or single-bid contracts. Again, nothing on a $25,000 rule.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2009, the OMB's Office of Federal Procurement issued guidelines for agencies that asked procurement officers to find more ways to use competitive contracts. But it didn't mention the $25,000 rule that candidate Obama had promised either.


3. Allow imported prescription drugs "We will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." -Obama health care plan

But such a provision was not included in the final health care law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president.

The motivation for the promise came from an existing trend of Americans crossing the Canadian border to buy cheaper prescription drugs. Yet for the most part, it remains illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs there -- for safety reasons, the Food and Drug Administration says.

But in the wake of negotiations with the prescription drug industry -- one of the first big health industry players to support the White House's health care reform effort -- Obama's drug importation promise faded into the background. Now, with passage, it's officially off the table.

I suppose I should stop now. I mean, the man DID make substantial progress with putting a leash on the credit industry, expand loans for small businesses and brought some transparency to health care providers (not that he's done as much for the administration.)

That lovely undercurrent of the right doesn't get what it wants, then there will be violence?  Sounds like a good reason to crack down harder on firearms to me!  A little more seriously though, about now?  I'd worry more about mass protests for bailing out Wall Street too liberally, stalling in Congress on financial reform (and possibly health care), and opposition to unemployment benefits.  It could be kind of hard to pass all that off as a "liberal" fillibuster.

You are consistant with your tactics if nothing else. I was referring to the people who won't be getting thier government handouts because the system is overloaded. They'll be the ones rioting. You won't have to worry about the gun owners. They'll likely hunt for food if the need presents itself, and protect what they own from looters. Congress is currently intentionally avoiding hot topics like financial reform because elections are right around the corner. With it, they can claim the republicans are stonewalling them and present them as an evil. Otherwise, all Obama has for the campaigning he's doing is democrats = good.

I have some issues with ICE actually..  But weren't you the one saying if the feds won't act, it is up to the states?  It sounds like you want the feds to trust the states to follow the spirit of federal laws and let them have at it...  Until you determine that the locals are not in compliance of (whichever law you put first, say immigration at the border versus social service provision) and then you want the feds to take over again?  Weren't you just blaming the left for making conditions that encourage trigger-happy people to play chicken?

Federal law criminalizes being in the country illegally; Arizona’s law mirrors federal.  The Arizona law simply allows local law enforcement to enforce what is already federal law. The only way the government may restrict a state's law-making power is ultimatums regarding funding, or the law is declared unconstitutional in The Supreme Court. ICE is a FEDERAL organization. Arizona's police force is a state organization. Federal agencies have requested cooperation from local authorities in the past to aid in investigations. Now, the reverse is true. Arizona's law enforcement will be charged with identifying and prosecuting illegal aliens and ICE doesn't want to do the deportation on the grounds that any illegal alien identified by Arizona's new proceedure has been identified unconstitutionally. Okay, so the reverse would be true if the state organization could go to the federal organization and expect help.

[kylie]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where African-Americans were still picking cotton in fields for a meal a day and a shoddy roof over thier heads and white people regarding them as property was still the status norm. Last I checked you couldn't do that anymore, and I and my parents never owned slaves. So how long is that going to be held over our heads? How many more generations down the line will "I'm sorry for the mistakes of my ancestors" be enough? Oh, wait. It won't be. Not until every person of colored skin is in a $250k home that they didn't have to pay for with a steady income from a white collar job. You get right to funding that, too.

We may have an impasse where the rest of the conversation is going to fall apart.  You’ve surely guessed it:  I’m about to conclude you’re ignorant about how race operates in the US.  You can go on pulling the “how do you know what you know” and make it sound very educated with the tactical feel of critical inquiry all you want.  Never mind that the right has long openly declared its total contempt of both reflexivity – you know, that’s saying just where one gets ideas from, like minorities do when they point to discrimination – and deconstructionism, or taking apart an argument based on its politics as well as its structure!.  The sad irony is that the right distorts the history of critical theory to the extent that it’s a history of asking questions related to identity formation and equality for less centrally supported minorities (as opposed to the right which tends to have a whole lot of backing already).  It’s not merely a technical means of shooting down everything that comes its way. 

That doesn’t change the fact that the history of discrimination is not confined to the pre-Civil War era.  It is ongoing on a massive scale, and you are apparently dead set against recognizing it.  Which is not precisely the same as presuming hopeless racism…  But yes, I would be a little suspicious of your sources.  As I’ve said already, there is a geneaology of abuses that strings from the Jim Crow laws on up to current election “monitoring” politicking.  Add in real estate prices rigged against Black communities, federal and state urban policies rigged to encourage investment in the outskirts away from historically Black neighborhoods.  Just for one quick source:  http://www.answers.com/topic/ghetto  (Under “African American Ghettos”)   

        The "Racial" Provisions of FHA Underwriting Manual of 1938, included the following guidelines which exacerbated the segregation issue:
Recommended restrictions should include provision for: prohibition of the occupancy of properties except by the race for which they are intended …Schools should be appropriate to the needs of the new community and they should not be attended in large numbers by inharmonious racial groups.[14][22]
        This meant that ethnic minorities could secure mortgage loans only in certain areas, and it resulted in a large increase in the residential racial segregation and urban decay in the United States.[23] The creation of new highways in some cases divided and isolated black neighborhoods from goods and services, many times within industrial corridors. For example, Birmingham, Alabama’s interstate highway system attempted to maintain the racial boundaries that had been established by the city’s 1926 racial zoning law. The construction of interstate highways through black neighborhoods in the city led to significant population loss in those neighborhoods and is associated with an increase in neighborhood racial segregation.[24] By 1990, the legal barriers enforcing segregation had been replaced by decentralized racism, where whites pay more than blacks to live in predominantly white areas.[9] Some social scientists suggest that the historical processes of suburbanization and decentralization are instances of white privilege that have contributed to contemporary patterns of environmental racism.[25] 

And there is the local level.  Just for example:  Recently, NYT ran an article about a very new Black high school being closed while parents of Whites in a building from the 1950’s refused to bus their children to the newer facility, where students received higher test scores. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/us/11biloxi.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=black%20school%20close&st=cse  The laws against inter-racial marriage are finally gone (a full century after the Civil War having passed to achieve that), yet some high school districts still act to create de facto segregated proms…  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html
         
         But freedom of speech swings both ways, and you may just go on denying that this is only a partial list of relevant concerns.
 

Did you really just tell me other countries do it too, so that makes it okay?

I believe Whites do it too, and you haven’t addressed the likelihood of that.  Japan simply shows that it’s quite possible for a dominant group to save lots of positions for itself.  In their case, it actually happens to be the men among that group, but my point is that not only minorities are capable of creating preferential slots.  The majority simply does based upon playing favorites to use and distribute profits themselves derived partly from discriminatory laws (some old, some newer).  The government has a duty to redress that, as long as it claims there is equal opportunity.

"Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available."

This is getting perhaps more substantial, but I’m not sold that it’s more costly than the sort of policy in the Arizona law will be…  Nor that we couldn’t afford it by managing the overall economy better.

Congress is currently intentionally avoiding hot topics like financial reform because elections are right around the corner. With it, they can claim the republicans are stonewalling them and present them as an evil. Otherwise, all Obama has for the campaigning he's doing is democrats = good.

I’m not sure which sort of reform you wanted to say they’re avoiding?  One just passed, after protracted (but by now predictable) Republican stonewalling.  It is also not limited to restraining credit card issues alone, although that is significant.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/wall-street-reform-clears_n_647393.html

Perhaps most significantly, the law will limit the total amount of derivatives speculation a single bank can engage in, aimed at preventing a run-up in food or energy prices. In 2008, Goldman Sachs and other swaps traders drove the price of wheat to levels that caused starvation around the globe. Oil prices similarly skyrocketed as a result of speculation. Lincoln's reforms will restrict the activity that led to the soaring prices and should, said Greenberger, bring down food and energy prices around the globe.

And with that, I think you’ve presented enough other items for a separate thread on Obama financial policy.  I might be more inclined to join you, if you hadn’t earlier advertised your presumption that education is only visible in Obama through the use of mirrors, teleprompters, or whatever technophilia that kitsch image was trying to satire.  If that was all it took to “reasonably” attack a political figure, then we could have saved ourselves from super-technical MacNamara and much of Vietnam, and recent talk of WMD in Iraq.  Technical spectacle, indeed.

The Arizona law simply allows local law enforcement to enforce what is already federal law. The only way the government may restrict a state's law-making power is ultimatums regarding funding, or the law is declared unconstitutional in The Supreme Court. ICE is a FEDERAL organization. Arizona's police force is a state organization. Federal agencies have requested cooperation from local authorities in the past to aid in investigations.

Immigration is federal business.  As you've said it's a federal law to begin with!  It's up to Washington how to interpret the spirit and context at any given time.  It is not up to Arizona under the Constitution to take steps that could be easily interpreted as militarizing the border.  If Arizona calls for troops and doesn't get them, or calls for a certain police action and doesn't get it, they don't have a lot of recourse.  Now they're playing chicken with the feds:  "You won't stop us from detaining more people under a federal with local police using a non-approved local expansion of that law, will you?"  New York might as well decide that if there is a federal tax of 1% on interstate shipping, it will add another 5% of its own because well, if the feds can do it why can't we.  At some point, the center is going to cry foul on principle.  If not out of concern that the action does more actual harm than good. 

[Valerian]

This might be an excellent opportunity for the two of you to try out the brand-new Dialogues area of the P&R forums, since this seems to have become a lengthy conversation between the two of you.

[Lyell]

No. I'm done. I can't say anything without several pages of data or examples before any single points are valid. And when they are they're ignored. So yeah, I'm pretty much done debating the issue.

[Zakharra]

Immigration is federal business.  As you've said it's a federal law to begin with!  It's up to Washington how to interpret the spirit and context at any given time.  It is not up to Arizona under the Constitution to take steps that could be easily interpreted as militarizing the border.  If Arizona calls for troops and doesn't get them, or calls for a certain police action and doesn't get it, they don't have a lot of recourse.  Now they're playing chicken with the feds:  "You won't stop us from detaining more people under a federal with local police using a non-approved local expansion of that law, will you?"  New York might as well decide that if there is a federal tax of 1% on interstate shipping, it will add another 5% of its own because well, if the feds can do it why can't we.  At some point, the center is going to cry foul on principle.  If not out of concern that the action does more actual harm than good. 

The problem is, is the Fed isn't enforcing the federal law that much, if at all. They know were some illegals are and the raids they do seem to be geared more for PR purposes than for an agency actually following the law they are supposed to be upholding. If the fed isn;t upholding a law they are supposed to, then who is? The only ones who can are the States.

I think someone here posted that Obama and ICE are not going to deport anyone that is caught under the Arizona law. People that will likely be proven to be illegals. If that's true, that is a huge black mark against the government. Polls by agencies and polling firms on both sides have shown that a lot of people are angry at the Feds for not enforicjng the law. That most Americans support the law (over 60-70% I believe). It's that inaction for a problem and the willingness to forgive the illegals and give them a path to citizenship, that's making people made.  The Fed knows there's a problem and isn't doing a damned thing about it.

[kylie]

The problem is, is the Fed isn't enforcing the federal law that much, if at all.

         Once you choose to ground your argument in the letter of federal law, then you're binding yourself to federal jurisdiction.  I don't know of anywhere in federal law or the Constitution that says "and the states will act when their leaders deem that the federal government has failed to effectively enforce its laws."  If the States will not respect the federal government's decisions about how or when -- or even, under which conditions -- to either perform or delegate actions on federal matters, and they will not continue to negotiate that through the federal system, then those states are risking a Constitutional crisis.  At best it's usurping federal power, and at worst it's called leaning toward secession. 

          The federal government can choose to do lots of things -- or not do them right yet! -- based upon various standing laws in combination.  The mere existence of a particular, single law expressing one out of so many directions and principles does not force them to place say, enforcing border patrols over maintaining the price of agricultural goods.  They may even feel that it's actually more important to maintain fair diplomatic relations with Mexico this year, and that is a federal decision too.  The feds have the authority to delegate immigration control to the states if they wish.  The states only have the capacity to request and negotiate from the feds.  They do not have some blank check to determine how federal laws will be applied, nor to intensify border policing by their own choice. 

        By analogy:  If the US formally declares war with Canada but Washington does not see a need to deploy forces and actually press the issue, that does not mean Montana has any Constitutional right to send its National Guard ahead to invade. 

[Lyell]

Article IV, Sections I, II and IV of the Constitution

Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Ammendment X - Ratified 12/15/1791.
Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Zakharra]

         Once you choose to ground your argument in the letter of federal law, then you're binding yourself to federal jurisdiction.  I don't know of anywhere in federal law or the Constitution that says "and the states will act when their leaders deem that the federal government has failed to effectively enforce its laws."  If the States will not respect the federal government's decisions about how or when -- or even, under which conditions -- to either perform or delegate actions on federal matters, and they will not continue to negotiate that through the federal system, then those states are risking a Constitutional crisis.  At best it's usurping federal power, and at worst it's called leaning toward secession. 

          The federal government can choose to do lots of things -- or not do them right yet! -- based upon various standing laws in combination.  The mere existence of a particular, single law expressing one out of so many directions and principles does not force them to place say, enforcing border patrols over maintaining the price of agricultural goods.  They may even feel that it's actually more important to maintain fair diplomatic relations with Mexico this year, and that is a federal decision too.  The feds have the authority to delegate immigration control to the states if they wish.  The states only have the capacity to request and negotiate from the feds.  They do not have some blank check to determine how federal laws will be applied, nor to intensify border policing by their own choice. 

        By analogy:  If the US formally declares war with Canada but Washington does not see a need to deploy forces and actually press the issue, that does not mean Montana has any Constitutional right to send its National Guard ahead to invade.

If the federal government isn't enforcing a law it is supposed to and has said it will NOT do so because of a state, the the States have the right to take matters in their own hands. Each state has the responsibility to guaruntee it's citizens safety. Esprcially when the federal government isn't doing that.

[Jude]

Calling illegal immigration invasion is clearly exaggeration for the sake of emotional manipulation.  As is claiming that it's a matter of safety unless you have the statistics to show that illegal immigrants are a serious threat to safety.  Do you?  One or two instances of criminal illegal aliens is not enough evidence.

[Lyell]

Playing down problems for the sake of pushing through the policy you want is deception.

Testimony of District Attorney John M. Morganelli before the House Subcommittee on immigration, Border, Security and Claims

"Unfortunately, the majority of illegal aliens who are here are engaged in criminal activity. Identity theft, use of fraudulent social security numbers and green cards, tax evasion, driving without licenses represent some of the crimes that are engaged in by the majority of illegal aliens on a daily basis merely to maintain and hide their illegal status.

In addition, violent crime and drug distribution and possession is also prevalent among illegal aliens. Over 25% of today's federal prison population are illegal aliens. In some areas of the country, 12% of felonies, 25% of burglaries and 34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens."

[Zakharra]

Calling illegal immigration invasion is clearly exaggeration for the sake of emotional manipulation.  As is claiming that it's a matter of safety unless you have the statistics to show that illegal immigrants are a serious threat to safety.  Do you?  One or two instances of criminal illegal aliens is not enough evidence.

The plain fact they are here illegally is breaking the law in and of itself. That's enough in my book to kick their butts out of the country. After taking finger and retinal prints to catalog them.

[BCdan]

I don't think the new immigration law is going to work because it doesn't address the basic economics of the issue.  The most effective way is to prosecute employers who are breaking the law.  Make them pay some very steep fines and just make it economically infeasible to hire illegal immigrants.  When the demand for illegal immigrants dries up, supply will very likely go down.  Couple that with cleaning up the bureaucracy that comes with trying to be a citizen (90% of which is the time it takes to file paperwork) and you are basically left with the real actual criminals amongst the illegal immigrant population, which I think federal and local law enforcement can clean up. 

Checking peoples immigration status and deporting individuals is treating symptoms, not the actual cause of the problem, which is permissive behavior towards illegal hiring practices. 

[Lyell]

I don't think the new immigration law is going to work because it doesn't address the basic economics of the issue.  The most effective way is to prosecute employers who are breaking the law.  Make them pay some very steep fines and just make it economically infeasible to hire illegal immigrants.  When the demand for illegal immigrants dries up, supply will very likely go down.  Couple that with cleaning up the bureaucracy that comes with trying to be a citizen (90% of which is the time it takes to file paperwork) and you are basically left with the real actual criminals amongst the illegal immigrant population, which I think federal and local law enforcement can clean up. 

Checking peoples immigration status and deporting individuals is treating symptoms, not the actual cause of the problem, which is permissive behavior towards illegal hiring practices.

The problem with this solution is the same problem with the Arizona law. Penalties already exist, as taken from MinnesotaLawyers.com.

"There are civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Sec. 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work. An employer that violates these laws can face penalties of:

· $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual;

· $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or

· $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order.

The employer could also be fined $100 to $1,000 for each individual “paperwork” violation.

The criminal penalties for a pattern and practice violation can be up to $3,000 for each unauthorized alien, imprisonment up to six months, or both. "

Is I.C.E. or any federal organization going to have the resources to systematically check every employer?

[kylie]

        Expulsion of a person from the country is not a matter that defaults to the states, even if the federal government fails to satisfy them.  It is not as if the federal government can be forced to turn over its discretion over border control whenever some state decides it wants a specific action or other but the feds do not oblige.  You can see this in the judge's questions about items in the Arizona law. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/16/20100716arizona-immigration-law-court-hearing.html#ixzz0uTN4PQE

•  A peace officer without a warrant may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

     "Who gets arrested that couldn't get arrested before?" Bolton asked. "The determination of what makes an individual removable from the U.S. is a determination only the federal government can make."

•  In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

     "Isn't that really just an attempt to get around the fact that Arizona can't have its own alien-registration law?" Bolton asked.

While there is always a certain degree of tension in practice between formal federal authority and some local practices, I think it would take a rather bizarre judgment to allow the entire law.  Reading about the present court case, it seems some portions are receiving more scrutiny from the bench (the above) than others (potential conflicts with separate federal enforcement efforts and drain upon federal resources for an unapproved approach).

         There is the claim that Arizona is merely asking the government for information about every person it chooses to consider merely suspect.  This is already sneaking past Bolton's question above though -- because if the federal government says the Arizona officers are not properly trained to enforce immigration even at the level of deciding "suspects," that would be that.  The federal case is saying, we the feds would not normally detain people under a standard with the breadth Arizona appears to be indicating it will pursue.  [Edit: They do explicitly say that, if I read correctly.]  And that's federal power of decision on immigration already.  Back to square one.  Accept federal authority on a federal matter, or be a vigilante.

         However, if the court ignores that hard Constitutional bottom line and chooses to assume more that as a practical matter, the Arizona police must be somehow active in enforcing one application or another of federal law, then there is an argument about whether the foreseeable process of enforcement will be acceptable.   Then, you have to explain exactly how they might determine suspicion of illegal presence in the first place without racial profiling.  Which at least in a sweeping and highly visible case like this, should be shot down as something the federal government is clearly committed to oppose.  Setting up  immigration "enforcement" in a way that directly threatens civil rights for legal residents is a non-starter in this regard.

[BCdan]

The problem with this solution is the same problem with the Arizona law. Penalties already exist, as taken from MinnesotaLawyers.com.

"There are civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Sec. 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work. An employer that violates these laws can face penalties of:

· $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual;

· $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or

· $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order.

The employer could also be fined $100 to $1,000 for each individual “paperwork” violation.

The criminal penalties for a pattern and practice violation can be up to $3,000 for each unauthorized alien, imprisonment up to six months, or both. "

Is I.C.E. or any federal organization going to have the resources to systematically check every employer?

I think if these penalties, especially for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and hiring multiple illegal immigrants, could be increased greatly and those penalties used to help pay for enforcement.  Right now, if an employer keeps a worker for lets say a year before being fined, he can make much more money by paying that illegal worker far below minimum wage than can be fined.  The economic incentive to hire illegal workers needs to be removed by greatly raising the cash penalties to those employers. 

[Lyell]

I think if these penalties, especially for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and hiring multiple illegal immigrants, could be increased greatly and those penalties used to help pay for enforcement.  Right now, if an employer keeps a worker for lets say a year before being fined, he can make much more money by paying that illegal worker far below minimum wage than can be fined.  The economic incentive to hire illegal workers needs to be removed by greatly raising the cash penalties to those employers.

Even with the penalties increased, as prevalent as the problem is, I ask again, how is I.C.E. or any government agency supposed to enforce them without manually checking every corporation? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but it seems like we'd just be exchanging one modification to procedure routine stops meant to assist a government agency in doing its job for a money sink that would take more time to properly implement. Plus, I can only imagine the court cases revolving around 'I didn't know their papers were fake!'

[BCdan]

Even with the penalties increased, as prevalent as the problem is, I ask again, how is I.C.E. or any government agency supposed to enforce them without manually checking every corporation? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but it seems like we'd just be exchanging one modification to procedure routine stops meant to assist a government agency in doing its job for a money sink that would take more time to properly implement. Plus, I can only imagine the court cases revolving around 'I didn't know their papers were fake!'

I think it would still be vastly cheaper that deporting random people off the street who aren't going to pay a fine or do anything.  And you asked how ICE is going to get the resources to do this, not how they are going to enforce it.  I don't think you are going to find a single solution that somehow makes money to pay for enforcement, but not doing anything about millions of undocumented people simply isn't going to work.  Hopefully a higher penalty will make it economically infeasible to hire illegal workers, but the Arizona law isn't going to address the core problem. 

And saying 'I didn't know their papers were fake!' could be fixed by drawing a line as to what employers have to do to not be prosecuted.  Make the legal language clear and unambiguous. 

[RubySlippers]

I just want again to point out are state level officers required or not to aid in the enforcement of Federal Laws or not, that is the debate for me.

If the Fderal Government can nitpick you must aid us in finding ,say, a murderer of a Fderal agent up for just a Federal crime but no immigration is our turf and then why should the states bother helping in Federal crimes. I would say if I was the Governor of Arizona fine unless a crime is a state crime but Federal no officer from the local to state level will assist you in any cases. Your on your own.

Why shouldn't they its so far has been accepted that states have every right to arrest Federal criminals and illegal immigrants fit that bill don't they? Precedent backs that up at many court cases dealing with organized crime, terrorism, treasury crimes and the like when the Feds insisted on Federal charges and juristiction.

And to that the law is not even in effect it could work they want to stall it on Possible problems and infractions not cases that have happened that is unprecedented as well. What are they afraid of the law works and makes them look bad?

[cassia]

They don't have to check everyone. Randomly selecting employers to check compliance merely needs increased and made more thorough when it does happen. The more that are subject to such inspections, the greater the chilling effect on others. Some may decide to gamble anyway and hire illegal immigrants on the hope that they will be lucky, but if the financial consequences are enough, many will decide it's not worth the risk. Especially if the penalties were modified so that larger businesses pay a larger penalty - a portion of the fines being based on a percentage of profit or a percentage of the corporation's gross income. That would help avoid the problem of stricter enforcement leading to small businesses unable to pay the fines complying while large companies decide to try their luck, able to absorb one or two fines without having to fold.

Secret shoppers under the age of 21 go to stores and bars from time to time attempting to buy liquor. The fairness of a law designed to deny young adults, old enough to join the military, the rights that slightly older adults have aside - these compliance shops are random and do not go to every retailer every time. Nonetheless, they are very useful for enforcement because you never know if and when they'll show up. Almost no one wants to run the risk of getting caught with their pants down, so they obey the law even when it causes a slight loss of business. The few retailers and bar managers who soak up the extra business by allowing under-21 patrons to buy alcohol are playing a very dangerous game and usually get caught and punished eventually.

There's no reason that each and every employer would have to be monitored frequently to make sure there are no illegal immigrants on their payroll. Randomly auditing a large enough minority annually would make most think twice.

[Oniya]

Randomly auditing a large enough minority annually would make most think twice.

Hey, it works for the IRS.

[Zakharra]

 

Expulsion of a person from the country is not a matter that defaults to the states, even if the federal government fails to satisfy them.  It is not as if the federal government can be forced to turn over its discretion over border control whenever some state decides it wants a specific action or other but the feds do not oblige.

The problem is, is the federal government is actively failing to enforce a law it SHOULD be enforcing. The Arizona law would be taking the illegals that are caught and handing them over to ICE. Not deporting them like you are saying. They'd be handed over to the proper legal Federal authorities to be deported.

         However, if the court ignores that hard Constitutional bottom line and chooses to assume more that as a practical matter, the Arizona police must be somehow active in enforcing one application or another of federal law, then there is an argument about whether the foreseeable process of enforcement will be acceptable.   Then, you have to explain exactly how they might determine suspicion of illegal presence in the first place without racial profiling.  Which at least in a sweeping and highly visible case like this, should be shot down as something the federal government is clearly committed to oppose.  Setting up  immigration "enforcement" in a way that directly threatens civil rights for legal residents is a non-starter in this regard.

The law is a State law, not a Federal law. The State law is helping enforce a Federal alone. It is not infringing on any Federal regulations or privileges. Besides, States are allowed to make laws more restrictive than Federal laws if they want. Minimum wage? There are a number of states that have a higher min wage than the Federal requirment.  Why shouldn't a state be allowed to make sure that legal citizens and legal alien residents are the only ones living there?

[Lyell]

I think it would still be vastly cheaper that deporting random people off the street who aren't going to pay a fine or do anything.  And you asked how ICE is going to get the resources to do this, not how they are going to enforce it.

I'm sorry, I was unaware that the cost of recruiting, training and providing an organization the resources required to enforce said policies was non-existant. Imagine for a moment, that instead of it just being bars with secret shoppers, EVERY establishment in the country is a potential bar. Instead of secret shoppers we have secret investors or secret clients.

I don't think you are going to find a single solution that somehow makes money to pay for enforcement, but not doing anything about millions of undocumented people simply isn't going to work.

The federal government, sanctuary cities and the head of I.C.E. disagree. They'd rather do nothing.

Hopefully a higher penalty will make it economically infeasible to hire illegal workers, but the Arizona law isn't going to address the core problem. 

The penalties would have to be so great that they compensate for any length of time said illegal worker(s) were generating profit via their lower wage. The core problem is that there is no strong contingency plan for identifying and deporting individuals who've successfully crossed the border and integrated with society.

And saying 'I didn't know their papers were fake!' could be fixed by drawing a line as to what employers have to do to not be prosecuted.  Make the legal language clear and unambiguous.

The matter is already fixed and has precedence. Pulling from the bar analogy, any establishment that knowingly or unknowingly serves alcahol to a minor is guilty of that crime. That the "victim" produced a false I.D. is not a valid defence. It would essentially be a no tolerance environment.

This produces another problem because it places the burden of identity upon the employer. Thorough background checks to ensure that the american citizen trying to get hired on really is an american citizen and not some identity thief? Would they eat that cost or would they rather just hire someone else with less of an accent and darker or lighter skin?

[kylie]

The problem is, is the federal government is actively failing to enforce a law it SHOULD be enforcing.

There is a certain amount of discretion in any police work, and it isn’t the only law or concern that the federal government has to follow.  As much as you try to skirt around that, in the end it’s a federal matter just what “should” be done.   If I adopt your argument, then every time someone jaywalks, the police “should” be doing something…  So first, we need more people monitoring jaywalking instead of policing the border.  Don't you laugh, this issue is important and people across the whole country could save lives!  Oh, wait, but how many intersections are the county sheriffs going to guard all day...   Which neighborhood intersections will they choose to watch more?  What other laws will they devote less time to following up on?  "Get off the street, you dolts.  It's more important that you're in the bars making sure everyone is 21.  No, no, you have to leave now and take this guy all the way to the police station because he just broke the speed limit and is afraid to speak to you in English, but he doesn't have papers.  Never mind how many murders and rapes are happening while you do it."

         Speaking of frequency of crimes per population...  Honolulu actually tried to patrol against downtown jaywalking actively for a short time.  They even used some undercover cops!  They did it to make a point, after a number of people being hurt on the downtown streets.  Puffy middle class office workers were getting $75 tickets along with some blue collar folks working downtown.  Well, it didn’t last too long.  We can fairly assume that some other police operations were not getting done as fast at the same time.  But while it lasted, let's say Lyell went and counted "what kind of people" were receiving tickets.  Hawaii is pretty multi-ethnic, so apart from so many Filipinos simply living there, I doubt he would have found very much on race.  He might have concluded that office work is directly associated with jaywalking.  Or more reasonably, that more people are apprehended from a population when you demand the attention of police on one particular law and quite a few of them cross that law in the process of trying to survive.   But it also helps if you have a law that makes it easier to arrest them for day to day life and (in practice, often enough) then interrogate them some more in search of anything else that fits the  expanded profile of criminality by race...

The Arizona law would be taking the illegals that are caught and handing them over to ICE. Not deporting them like you are saying. They'd be handed over to the proper legal Federal authorities to be deported.

          Well in filing suit against Arizona, the federal government is already saying, you know we would not detain people using this kind of process in the first place.  They might instruct ICE to refuse to deal with them.  Arizona might say ICE wasn’t looking for them very hard before.  But this would seem to stymie the Arizona circus of “doing something” about a matter they didn’t have real authority on in the first place.

[kylie]

If the Fderal Government can nitpick you must aid us in finding ,say, a murderer of a Fderal agent up for just a Federal crime but no immigration is our turf and then why should the states bother helping in Federal crimes

The simple answer is that federal law preempts state law.  That’s the price of being in a federal system.  If the federal government wished, it could cut all sorts of funding to Arizona because it doesn’t like how they’re operating. 

I would say if I was the Governor of Arizona fine unless a crime is a state crime but Federal no officer from the local to state level will assist you in any cases. Your on your own.

Yes, anyone can play at doing it their way anyway.  Do they want Arizona criminals tracked across state lines at all (first immigrants, then it could be more as Washington becomes more exasperated)?  It’s going to become like the gay marriage situation.  You’re allowed here, but you lose your benefits and children if you cross that state line again…  At least until push comes to shove, when the federal government could finally use federal agents or even the military to actively monitor the situation specifically for state abuses.  Or perhaps better:  We could take off what federal patrols are on the border looking south for a month or so, just to make a point.  Not too good for law and order, would probably leave the area with some murders of immigrants…  But I doubt even the local militia groups would be sizeable or qualified enough to replace the federal assets, complain though the state might about wanting more.

         Far before that, though…  Even if the court upheld the Arizona law, the Executive can simply say:  “We don’t think this is the right time to do this,” or “It’s going to place an unacceptable drain upon us.  You say you’re enforcing federal law, but we have the right to determine who goes and to keep immigration records.  When you call us to do that, you’re going to face an endless phone tree until you revoke that law.  If you detain or deport without our say so, then the courts have already said that much is in violation.  Must we station ICE primarily to monitor and let people out of jail, if necessary?”

[kylie]

They don't have to check everyone. Randomly selecting employers to check compliance merely needs increased and made more thorough when it does happen.

Perhaps, although I think there is actually a class aspect to this.  If it’s true that illegal immigrants tend to be less wealthy than other residents, then the police may be even more likely to scrutinize poorer people as well as those who they think fit a racial type.  I also expect more employers might oppose the law if it were focused as you say, making it more likely to affect them directly.  The state seems happy to pick on people suspected of a crime (did they say suspected but not convicted?!), but revamping industry arrangements may be another thing entirely. 

         We also haven’t established about how many of these immigrants remain employed in Arizona each season, as opposed to moving on to other places.  At which point, the courts might reexamine things like commerce law.  Does immigration law trump commerce law such that Arizona has the right to shut down other states’ economic dealings with immigrants, simply because they committed some misdimeanor and then were suspected of being illegal…  Because it seems that is the part of the story they’re offering.

[Zakharra]

 Ok then Kylie, here's a question for you. When should the States DO the job the federal government is actively and purposefully failing to do? The federtal government has admited it is NOT enforcinbg the immigration laws and is alowinbg cities to openly hide illegals. At what point is it ok for the States to tell the feds to Fuck off and do the job within in their own borders?

Remember, the federal government only has the authority given to it by the Constitution. EVERYTHING else automatically goes to the States. EVERYthing.  You seem to be arguing that if the Federal government passes a law, no State can make a law that is more restrictive/less restrictive or do anytrhing that might have a smidgin of a chance of hindering it.

One of the functions of the Fed is to protect the LEGAL citizens and legal aliems. Anyone that is here illegally is a criminal, just by being here. The federal government, pushed by the President (and he's a damned poor excuse for a President) is admitting that is had no intention of enforcing a law, a law already in place to deal with  the illegals.  They have a responsibility to enforce the law and they are deliberately ignoring that.

The Arizona law would noty deport the illegals, it would have them over to ICE, with proof of their illegality. The law as it stabds is not racist despite what some people might claim. It only deals with one thing and one thing only. Illegal aliens.

[Zakharra]

           Far before that, though…  Even if the court upheld the Arizona law, the Executive can simply say:  “We don’t think this is the right time to do this,” or “It’s going to place an unacceptable drain upon us.  You say you’re enforcing federal law, but we have the right to determine who goes and to keep immigration records.  When you call us to do that, you’re going to face an endless phone tree until you revoke that law.  If you detain or deport without our say so, then the courts have already said that much is in violation.  Must we station ICE primarily to monitor and let people out of jail, if necessary?”

So you are saying that the President can decide what laws to enforce and not to enforce? Even existing laws that are on the books?

[RubySlippers]

          The simple answer is that federal law preempts state law.  That’s the price of being in a federal system.  If the federal government wished, it could cut all sorts of funding to Arizona because it doesn’t like how they’re operating. 
          Yes, anyone can play at doing it their way anyway.  Do they want Arizona criminals tracked across state lines at all (first immigrants, then it could be more as Washington becomes more exasperated)?  It’s going to become like the gay marriage situation.  You’re allowed here, but you lose your benefits and children if you cross that state line again…  At least until push comes to shove, when the federal government could finally use federal agents or even the military to actively monitor the situation specifically for state abuses.  Or perhaps better:  We could take off what federal patrols are on the border looking south for a month or so, just to make a point.  Not too good for law and order, would probably leave the area with some murders of immigrants…  But I doubt even the local militia groups would be sizeable or qualified enough to replace the federal assets, complain though the state might about wanting more.

         Far before that, though…  Even if the court upheld the Arizona law, the Executive can simply say:  “We don’t think this is the right time to do this,” or “It’s going to place an unacceptable drain upon us.  You say you’re enforcing federal law, but we have the right to determine who goes and to keep immigration records.  When you call us to do that, you’re going to face an endless phone tree until you revoke that law.  If you detain or deport without our say so, then the courts have already said that much is in violation.  Must we station ICE primarily to monitor and let people out of jail, if necessary?”

Again, no issue save state level law enforcement should not then be required to involve themselves in any Federal Crime. There ARE Federal Law Enforcement after all why expect any in-state help? If immigration is de facto off limits then ALL Federal Crimes should be. Anyway they are following precedent locating criminals then turning them over to the Feds so why is that rong? If these were interstate/international slavers no one would argue arrests by a county sheriff as acceptable then sending them to the FBI.

This is no different.

[Lyell]

I would just like to point out that Arizona's law doesn't state any new authority to deport. What it is (supposedly) intended to do is to identify potential illegal immigrants among people who've already committed crimes. Actual discerning of whether or not the person is in the country legally is decided by INS.

[cassia]

If enough people in Congress think that the federal laws dealing with illegal immigrants are unfair or otherwise bad and not to be enforced, there are proper procedures for dealing with that. Looking the other way and outright refusing to enforce the federal law that the federal government created are not among them. They can seek to repeal it, create a new and less restrictive law that supersedes it, or formally amend it with exceptions and temporary suspensions. Until immigration law is officially changed, it is the law and the government has a responsibility to enforce it as well as possible. Even if it upsets some people.

[Lyell]

It sounds to me as though "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" has lost sight of who it serves when it decides when it shall and shall not enforce its laws.

[Zakharra]

It sounds to me as though "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" has lost sight of who it serves when it decides when it shall and shall not enforce its laws.

Pretty much.

[RubySlippers]

I would just like to point out that Arizona's law doesn't state any new authority to deport. What it is (supposedly) intended to do is to identify potential illegal immigrants among people who've already committed crimes. Actual discerning of whether or not the person is in the country legally is decided by INS.

Exactly the state law is "you must show legally issued identification when asked under consideration of another charge" in other words: what every officer does anyway. If they don't have identification a state identification, green card, passport, visa then its a misdemeanor in the state - a state charge. Then they turn the party over to the appropriate Federal agency for processing. They are not making a decision as to their immigration policy they are just enforcing the laws already in place as state officers are allowed and by courts required to do at this point.

If the INS refuses Arizona should sue them to take these criminals and do their jobs.

[kylie]

            Oh, I didn't realize this sort of link auto-inserted... Wow.   

U.S. v. Arizona - Complaint Filed 7-6-2010
         
          As I understand it, the Arizona effort attempted (and at least for now, failed) to make it a state requirement for many or all Hispanics (effectively) to carry documentation of their citizenship at all times.  Such a state requirement would violate equal protection by actively making a specific population more vulnerable to interference.  It doesn't matter who is legal.  Commit any crime whatsoever, and you are also held for immigration checks until proven innocent.  Who is most likely to be presumed guilty until reviewed for immigration with no other cause?  Hispanics.  (Bolding in the quotes is mine.)

It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s “attrition through enforcement” approach.

It also attempted to force local police to act on immigration law in a way that the federal government was not encouraging them to do, by explicitly making them liable to lawsuits.  This meant that the state would actually encourage anyone with the money, to go to court against local authorities in order to each argue their own interpretation of who should be merely "suspect" of immigration violations.  This means that there would not be one criteria for how people should be investigated for immigration violations.  There could be a slew of individual court cases constantly challenging standards in each town, or even each case.  Even before the fact, some local police stated flat out that they would refuse such a directive, and some parties expressed their intention to sue them.

The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country...  Implementation of the law will damage the United States' ability to speak with a single and authoritative voice to foreign governments on immigration matters…

Zak, Ruby, Lyell, I can't support certain premises:  1) That every law could be enforced in equal intensity, 2) that a law can stand without regard for other laws and policies, or 3) that discretionary application is really unique to this situation (or perhaps, less acceptable here than elsewhere).  Although it’s certainly possible to interpret the Tenth Amendment too broadly and say the states do whatever they want in the name of enforcing a particular federal policy, in order to rationalize AZ's formalizing a policy of rather indiscriminate sweep...  The particular sense of “action” Arizona has chosen undermines civil rights for legal citizens, weakens relations with Mexico, and so far harms the economy to boot.  All of those are valid federal matters.  These priorities also suggest possible reasons why the federal enforcement has been as limited as it has to date.  Yes, it is up to Washington which receives what kind of treatment, and when.  Unless one prefers to secede.  Argue about effectiveness of various Executive (or Congressional) directives  as you will, but that doesn’t make for legality.

19. In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal migration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest, but it is not the singular goal of the federal immigration laws. The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce; welcoming those foreign nationals who visit or immigrate lawfully and ensuring their fair and equitable treatment wherever they may reside; responding to humanitarian concerns at the global and individual levels; and otherwise ensuring that the treatment of aliens present in our nation does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad. Because immigration control and management is “a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program,” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950) (internal citations omitted), Congress vested substantial discretion in the President and the administering federal agencies to adjust the balance of these multiple interests as appropriate – both globally and in individual cases.

It would also be disingenuous to suggest that uncomfortable juggling of immigration etc. is something unique to the Obama administration.  Bush Jr., for one, tried to balance amnesty with added troops and walls.  When Republicans were in office, it was all “the decider,” but now that Obama shows up, hear the screams for more filibusters “more bipartisanship please” or else, oh it’s all “the dictator” and “a federal takeover.”  I’m still not impressed by the arguments at hand.  Argue about the money if you must (or human rights if you can), but the “enforcing law and order” rhetoric is a blunt and piggish instrument as applied by the right in this case.  The premises are  awkward to begin with.  Unless the point is to stir up anti-federal sentiment?  Then they’re lovely.  But the issue is not nearly as easy as that logic suggests.

          The federal government is apparently more interested in processing illegals associated with specific types of crime.  People with a history who authorities have taken some time to also build a serious immigration case against.  That is, not merely those picked up on the street for some minor violation, and then threatened with deportation on top of it.  The feds are not interested in receiving a large number of people against whom Arizona may have no more complaint than lack of documentation and undefined "suspicion."  Or perhaps all they have is “fleeing arrest,” if that person just really didn’t want to be held up in the police station today… 

In exercising its significant enforcement discretion, the federal government prioritizes for arrest, detention, prosecution, and removal those aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety. Consistent with these enforcement priorities, the federal government principally targets aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage; aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders; certain gang members; aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants; and fugitive aliens, especially those with criminal records.

Perhaps if Arizona could do any better in proposing a program that would actually uphold civil rights and not exacerbate so many other federal issues, the response would be different.  I don’t think the political reception for Hispanics is ideal as things are, and I believe some of the illegal workers face very exploitative conditions.  But I also think this law creates ever wider problems in the current environment.  In the process, it tries to make AZ exceptional and thus challenges DC for jurisdiction.  It may not even work the issue it claims to address, say if people go underground well or when various local courts maintain separate definitions of acceptable detention. 

          If the argument is going to be about upholding federal law, then Arizona has to uphold all concerns of law in the federal system.  It has to positively account for civil rights.  They should not be creating a situation where the center says, you’re both stepping into trade and diplomacy and not heeding current agency policy on immigration. 

16. The Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const., art. II § 3. Further, the President has broad authority over foreign affairs. Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements.

Add to that: If they’re going to make a state law encouraging action on any particular federal law, it must be able to specify how police could equitably include (or exclude!) people as suspects. 

          Now I don’t know that laws in general do that so elegantly, really…  Still, the Arizona move neglects those conditions so much, that it seems designed more to stir up xenophobia than to affect the issues.  I suppose if it were fully allowed (setting aside later civil rights suits), it might lead Washington to raise legal immigration quotas from South Asia.  Unless the national economy changes drastically, it’s just another gasp of “invasion” from a bloc that can’t seem to maintain anything domestically.  States don’t get to decide what is invasion, though.  Washington does.

[Lyell]

It seems to me as though a major factor is being over-looked, that being the actual proceedure and protocol in action. What driver who can communicate clearly with an officer, correctly identify themselves and has a proper driver's lisence (or DPS entry) and proof of insurance (both required, as far as I know, by most states) is going to be asked for their immigration papers? By practice the answer should be none. The reason behind there being a certain level of vaugeness to it, like most proceedures that are written, is to leave a certain level of discretion to the officer. If I had written that document however, I would have been much stricter with the criteria for determining suspicion. I would also have limited detention in regards to those with a questionable alien status to those convicted, awaiting conviction or staying in the "drunk tank" anyways. Minor offenders suspect to be illegal aliens I would probably have a make/model/V.I.N. and a list of their 'aliases' on file pending a go or no go from INS. Then again, I've just barely scratched the surface on law.

If you really are so hell bent on leaving the left vs. right out of this then why not stop leaning on that statement like a crutch? (And then bashing the right immediately afterwards.) We know we had a republican president for eight years, we know that you don't think Obama's a dictator. Trust me, you've only told us four times already. Recognising that there is a problem and the current solutions aren't fixing it is not the same as promoting political anarchy, try as you might to restate that time and again. It's not as though SB-1070 is the first to butt heads with federal law. Prop 215 outright contradicts federal law. How's that for anarchy? And if you really want to bring money into this again, I thought NAFTA was supposed to fix Mexico's economy and make it desirable to be there. Where did that go wrong? Why are people fleeing poverty? Why are you so sure we have the funds to shoulder that burden? These are questions I've asked repeatedly with no answer.

If the federal government had a tighter control on it's borders in the first place there wouldn't BE so many issues to exacerbate. As it stands I doubt truly whether a third of the illegal immigrant population could pass the citizenship exam without asking for a spanish version. One which will ofcourse have to be provided. Wouldn't want to upset the civil rights activists.

[RubySlippers]

I wrote a friend who is an aid to one of the Arizona state legislature and suggested this:

Make not having proper identification a higher level Misdemeanor if one is a legal adult helping people get one if homeless or thereis a reason its difficult with supports.

Make using a fake identification with a photo on it a Felony by an adult.

Make using said identification a crime and a Felony say: fraudulent identification to decieve a state officer or designated party who is required to use said identification.

Then make it if you meet all three standards a felony that must have the two felonies applied.

And add any Federal charge at the Felony level is treated as a Felony by the state for adding seriousness to the charge when considered bythe judge.

Since most illegals use fake documentation of some sort you can nail them on these as state charges and jail them, then at that time turn them over to the INS. They are very unlikely going to not act with a felon being properly convicted of state crimes back to their home nation. And since not carrying proper documentation happens to be a Federal crime they then have the added Federal Charge. Lock up enough of these illegals maybe they will just leave the state. And since all this is state crimes not even touching immigration proper it should be outside Federal consideration. And its race neutral if you use said ID to trick an employer or landlord or free clinic - BAMMO. Just as much as using it for other uses like identifying yourself to a police officer.

[Zakharra]

As I understand it, the Arizona effort attempted (and at least for now, failed) to make it a state requirement for many or all Hispanics (effectively) to carry documentation of their citizenship at all times.  Such a state requirement would violate equal protection by actively making a specific population more vulnerable to interference.  It doesn't matter who is legal.  Commit any crime whatsoever, and you are also held for immigration checks until proven innocent.  Who is most likely to be presumed guilty until reviewed for immigration with no other cause?  Hispanics.  (Bolding in the quotes is mine.)

The law is targeted to illegals. Not to hispanics.

[RubySlippers]

Thats why they should focus on the quality and legal use of the documents in the state, fake documents and using them should be two felonies and state level crimes to fight "identification crimes and use of documents unlawfully" a broad stroke that would include illegals. Then if arrested and convicted after serving their time the state could move to deport since they would now be guilty of two felonies in a state and illegally in the nation.

Do enough arrests you could get some impact and also go after any crimes that use identification that is false or misusing them.

[Lyell]

They don't even need to make arrests for the law to be effective at what it was intended to do. An article on CBS dated April 29th of 2010 reads:

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.

[Zakharra]

 Woo hoo! Positive impact.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Woo hoo! Positive impact.

An impact, yes.  Positive?  Depends on who you ask.  Let's bear in mind those workers do have families.  And this is going to distort the labor market there.  All well and good to say, "Oh, Americans will take those jobs," but will they really?

I'm not without sympathy for the argument that these immigrants take jobs.  But let's be real here.  The outsourcing and offshoring of America's industrial base (which was blessed by many of the same conservative politicians pushing immigration crackdowns) has inflicted orders of magnitude more damage to American workers than Mexican immigrants.  The migrants take almost exclusively low-end, unskilled jobs.  Many of the jobs lost through "free trade" were high-paying white collar jobs--the kind a man could work at and support a wife and a couple kids while saving for his own retirement.  So I would like to ask the pro-SB1070 crowd, well, if this is about jobs, what do they propose to do about the tens of millions of middle-class jobs lost to the free-trade obsession?

I think the short-term economic effects of this exodus of low-end labor will in fact be negative for Arizona.  Contrary to conservative propaganda, most of the immigrants came to work.  Most in fact do work.  So we're going to have fewer (in some cases, significantly fewer) workers dropping their pay into local businesses.  I see destruction of demand for all sorts of goods and services, as well as a hit to sales tax receipts in areas where the immigrants congregated, starting here in Q3 and continuing through at least Q4 if not Q1 and Q2 of 2011.   

[Lyell]

I just love this argument to pieces. Really, I do. Because for some reason I've had it shoved down my throat at every turn that I don't want these jobs that illegal migrants have taken. Have you ever actually asked someone who has lost their job to the economic downturn and hasn't been able to replace it? I've been unemployed for several months now and picking strawberries is looking very promising as a means to keep up with rent and bills. Imagine that same mind set across the nearly ten percent of Arizona's unemployed legal population. It's strange how being hungry and watching your investments wither into a fraction of their value will change your mind about working a minimum wage job. Assuming those markets are willing to pay minimum wage after getting away with slave wages for so long.

I predict that there will be more, perhaps even significantly more, money spent at local businesses because most of these people would be spending their money in the U.S. Instead of sending it to Mexico.

[Oniya]

Assuming those markets are willing to pay minimum wage after getting away with slave wages for so long.

This may be the point that the argument turns on.  I've been looking into minimum wage jobs to supplement the sometimes-erratic contract work I normally do, so I know how swamped the job market is.  A critical factor is making enough money to cover the cost of getting to work.  If the employers aren't willing to pay minimum wage, then I suspect that you might have second or third thoughts.

[Zakharra]

An impact, yes.  Positive?  Depends on who you ask.  Let's bear in mind those workers do have families.  And this is going to distort the labor market there.  All well and good to say, "Oh, Americans will take those jobs," but will they really?

I'm not without sympathy for the argument that these immigrants take jobs.  But let's be real here.  The outsourcing and offshoring of America's industrial base (which was blessed by many of the same conservative politicians pushing immigration crackdowns) has inflicted orders of magnitude more damage to American workers than Mexican immigrants.  The migrants take almost exclusively low-end, unskilled jobs.  Many of the jobs lost through "free trade" were high-paying white collar jobs--the kind a man could work at and support a wife and a couple kids while saving for his own retirement.  So I would like to ask the pro-SB1070 crowd, well, if this is about jobs, what do they propose to do about the tens of millions of middle-class jobs lost to the free-trade obsession?

I think the short-term economic effects of this exodus of low-end labor will in fact be negative for Arizona.  Contrary to conservative propaganda, most of the immigrants came to work.  Most in fact do work.  So we're going to have fewer (in some cases, significantly fewer) workers dropping their pay into local businesses.  I see destruction of demand for all sorts of goods and services, as well as a hit to sales tax receipts in areas where the immigrants congregated, starting here in Q3 and continuing through at least Q4 if not Q1 and Q2 of 2011.   

I understand they have families, but simply.. I don't care. They are here ILLEGALLY. I could care less if they have 6 children, 14 grandchildren and a  few great grandchildren on the way.  By being here illegally, they are profiting from this country and if businesses can't adapt, let them fail.  There might well be a short term hit, but long term can be good because the businesses that survive will be better and be hiring legal citizens so no ICE/INS raid will be able to fine them since there would be no illegals working there.

[RubySlippers]

An impact, yes.  Positive?  Depends on who you ask.  Let's bear in mind those workers do have families.  And this is going to distort the labor market there.  All well and good to say, "Oh, Americans will take those jobs," but will they really?

I'm not without sympathy for the argument that these immigrants take jobs.  But let's be real here.  The outsourcing and offshoring of America's industrial base (which was blessed by many of the same conservative politicians pushing immigration crackdowns) has inflicted orders of magnitude more damage to American workers than Mexican immigrants.  The migrants take almost exclusively low-end, unskilled jobs.  Many of the jobs lost through "free trade" were high-paying white collar jobs--the kind a man could work at and support a wife and a couple kids while saving for his own retirement.  So I would like to ask the pro-SB1070 crowd, well, if this is about jobs, what do they propose to do about the tens of millions of middle-class jobs lost to the free-trade obsession?

I think the short-term economic effects of this exodus of low-end labor will in fact be negative for Arizona.  Contrary to conservative propaganda, most of the immigrants came to work.  Most in fact do work.  So we're going to have fewer (in some cases, significantly fewer) workers dropping their pay into local businesses.  I see destruction of demand for all sorts of goods and services, as well as a hit to sales tax receipts in areas where the immigrants congregated, starting here in Q3 and continuing through at least Q4 if not Q1 and Q2 of 2011.   

Lets see you pay more for the work and offer benefits Americans will do most jobs the fact they used to work in animal meat processing and did it for safetymeasures, benefits and more pay proves that.  The new labor tossed out the old since they will work for less and don't care about safety as much as a union master butcher at a pork processing plant where myrelatives worked in the 70's and 80's before foreign labor came in.

Don't you ever say that Americans work hard but we do as ones of any race wants to make money sufficient for the efforts, say farm labor you pay an average High School grad $15 an hour plus benefits they would likely work at such jobs. But food would cost a little more. After all unpleasant work often had to pay higher wages my uncle at the time made over $28 an hour as head butcher on the line with his union training and seniority. But meat did cost more that is a fair exchangewith I will note these jobs needing only a High School diploma.

And illegal immigration is not fair to those that came here legally, to others that would take work if it paid properly and givien proper benefits must I add this includes everyone born here including those of many descents.

[mieko]

In my mind I have to say it's a simple cut and dry arguement. The fact that they are here 'illegally' means just that. They are doing something illegal. I'll never understand how there's any justification for it. They should have to follow the same procedures every other person who chooses to come to this country has to. My husband is from overseas and we had to do everything by the book. And believe me it's not cheap and it's tedious. So if we did it the right way, why should other's be excluded from that?

The fact of the job market is this, all of these companies that hire illegal immigrants need to be given more than a slap on the wrist, because they're as much to blame as the illegal immigrants. The fact of the matter is there is not such thing as employer loyalty anymore it seems. Companies want to get the cheapest labor they can and make the largest profit they can, and no matter how long you may have worked for them the'll dump you the first chance they get if they can hire someone to do the same job for half the price. o.0

Okay I'm not saying every company in the country is like this but it sure does seem that way sometimes doesn't it?

[kylie]

If the federal government had a tighter control on it's borders in the first place there wouldn't BE so many issues to exacerbate.

That is not historically accurate.  Slavery came before a long and continuing struggle for civil rights.  It was quite legal.  Chinese railroad labor came before the Chinese Exclusion Act, which then made it legal to target people the government was previously so interested in legally hosting.  If the atmosphere is heady enough, people can find a legal reason for all sorts of choices.  If only some judge of the day chooses to allow it, or some executive chooses to enforce it.  Or perhaps they'll take a look around, and decide hmm that isn't such a good idea for the good of the country and all the principles it has to balance.  http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=47

The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few nonlaborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to immigrate. But this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that they were not laborers because the 1882 act defined excludables as “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law.

The 1882 exclusion act also placed new requirements on Chinese who had already entered the country. If they left the United States, they had to obtain certifications to re-enter. Congress, moreover, refused State and Federal courts the right to grant citizenship to Chinese resident aliens, although these courts could still deport them.

In short, there have always been cross-cutting issues throughout the history of the United States.  That goes with having ready sources of labor for whatever the less desirable job of the day is, and with business giving workers in that industry low security and minimal payment.  In the short run, it's called national economic good.  In the long run, it happens to make for a more diverse and flexible culture, to the extent we don't manage to scare each group away completely after the fact.  To only mention the positively famous sorts:  Where would the US be without all the once-embattled Italians and Irish who built up the East, the Chinese doctors, German scientists, Jewish academics?  Not to mention historically the Black plantation laborers and now Hispanic field workers and housekeepers?  Legal or not, the economy hasn't been equal or fair to any of them.   

         Earlier, we've seen some people trying to argue that immigration is too easy on Hispanics because earlier immigrant groups had to suffer harder working conditions, and even discriminatory social conditions.  Which may or may not have been legal at the time, but would hardly pass muster now -- that is, if they were actually subjected to review.  Either support working one's way up through gross adversity without formal equality, or hold up equal opportunity under the law for everyone and keep it there.  But that's it.  The economy isn't set up to work that way.  We see it with glass ceilings on gender and elusive employer actions on race, too.  As long as there is little such basic equality, the government has a liability to everyone the system exploits -- no matter whether they happen to be citizens or not.  I do think it's more reasonable to argue about whether and heavens, how, that might change.  Rather than to go on and on:  Oh look this law is on the books, so we must toss aside everything else and go into the deep end of the pool about this and this only.  Anyway, I'm more than a little skeptical that the business leaders of America would really adopt an egalitarian system across the board.   

[Zakharra]

 I'm all for hammering the businesses that hire illegals. Hit them with a .5% tax rate increase for every illegal found working in their work force. They'd dump them so fast it wouldn't be funny. It would make them take a much harder look at their workers history, or at the least, verify the SS numbers are accurate and that they have proof they are in the country legally.

[Lyell]

         That is not historically accurate.  Slavery came before a long and continuing struggle for civil rights.  It was quite legal.  Chinese railroad labor came before the Chinese Exclusion Act, which then made it legal to target people the government was previously so interested in legally hosting.  If the atmosphere is heady enough, people can find a legal reason for all sorts of choices.  If only some judge of the day chooses to allow it, or some executive chooses to enforce it.  Or perhaps they'll take a look around, and decide hmm that isn't such a good idea for the good of the country and all the principles it has to balance.  http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=47
          In short, there have always been cross-cutting issues throughout the history of the United States.  That goes with having ready sources of labor for whatever the less desirable job of the day is, and with business giving workers in that industry low security and minimal payment.  In the short run, it's called national economic good.  In the long run, it happens to make for a more diverse and flexible culture, to the extent we don't manage to scare each group away completely after the fact.  To only mention the positively famous sorts:  Where would the US be without all the once-embattled Italians and Irish who built up the East, the Chinese doctors, German scientists, Jewish academics?  Not to mention historically the Black plantation laborers and now Hispanic field workers and housekeepers?  Legal or not, the economy hasn't been equal or fair to any of them.   

         Earlier, we've seen some people trying to argue that immigration is too easy on Hispanics because earlier immigrant groups had to suffer harder working conditions, and even discriminatory social conditions.  Which may or may not have been legal at the time, but would hardly pass muster now -- that is, if they were actually subjected to review.  Either support working one's way up through gross adversity without formal equality, or hold up equal opportunity under the law for everyone and keep it there.  But that's it.  The economy isn't set up to work that way.  We see it with glass ceilings on gender and elusive employer actions on race, too.  As long as there is little such basic equality, the government has a liability to everyone the system exploits -- no matter whether they happen to be citizens or not.  I do think it's more reasonable to argue about whether and heavens, how, that might change.  Rather than to go on and on:  Oh look this law is on the books, so we must toss aside everything else and go into the deep end of the pool about this and this only.  Anyway, I'm more than a little skeptical that the business leaders of America would really adopt an egalitarian system across the board.

You're seriously going to compare slaves, wartime refugees and legal immigrants to a mass exodus from poverty in Mexico? Bright, intelligent and skilled people who came from socialist and communist nations? Chinese laborers escaping a retirement plan that boiled down to a long nap in a shallow grave? Sorry, not going to buy that. It is the government's system that is doing all the exploiting. Illegal immigrants have confidence that they won't be deported, especially when a child would secure a place in the states or cities will loudly and proudly declare themselves 'sanctuary cities.'
It's the very lax current illegal immigrant policies themselves that have created the current problem. You're STILL trying to cram it down my throat that these illegal immigrants are just taking jobs that I and others don't want to do. Here's a secret: I don't want to do any work. I go to a job happily because the things I want require money. Money in amounts that the undocumented laborers will never see, because they're using what meager funds they aquire to eek out a living and send money back to their families. Me? I've already said I'd pick crops or slog through shit or dig trenches if it paid my bills. But why is anyone going to hire me to do that when any number of illegal immigrants is willing to do it for less than minimum wage?

Now, whoever benefitted from that person's slave wage can under-cut competing goods or services and still make more profit than some business who does everything by the books. Government policy is there to keep that from happening, so why does it not? Lack of enforcement. The policies are there to protect our own unskilled labor, but the federal government doesn't enforce those policies.

Compare Arizona a year ago to Arizona today. Police can now impound your vehicle for picking up a day laborer from the side of the street. A year ago you wouldn't find anyone in front of a Home Depot after 11 a.m. Now? There's a crowd standing around wondering 'what the shit?' Presence or percieved presence of state authorities and legislation to back them has done most of the enforcing for them, something the Feds never had or bothered to do.

You're right about the government making laws when the situation fits, but I'd have a pick in hand right now if there were any mines nearby that needed me.

[Jude]

Lets see you pay more for the work and offer benefits Americans will do most jobs the fact they used to work in animal meat processing and did it for safetymeasures, benefits and more pay proves that.  The new labor tossed out the old since they will work for less and don't care about safety as much as a union master butcher at a pork processing plant where myrelatives worked in the 70's and 80's before foreign labor came in.

That sounds like a solution, but if you offer better wages and benefits for those low income unskilled jobs then the cost of the products they make will skyrocket.  When you buy meat the grocery store you'll be paying those benefits and those increased wages.  Everything that currently uses cheap labor off the books will increase dramatically in price, which will cause a ricochet effect throughout the economy that essentially results in money being worth significantly less.  In the end, the unskilled laborer may benefit slightly, but everyone else suffers.  There's also no way they'd raise wages that high and offer benefits; they'd simply cater to high school dropouts for work, where they'd have to pay an extra 3-8% of what they currently do according to that study, however another study on the overall impact concludes that that Americans as a whole would lose about 4% of real wages from removing illegal immigrants from the labor pool.  That's a net loss, not a gain.

Don't you ever say that Americans work hard but we do as ones of any race wants to make money sufficient for the efforts, say farm labor you pay an average High School grad $15 an hour plus benefits they would likely work at such jobs. But food would cost a little more. After all unpleasant work often had to pay higher wages my uncle at the time made over $28 an hour as head butcher on the line with his union training and seniority. But meat did cost more that is a fair exchangewith I will note these jobs needing only a High School diploma.

You fail to realize that while this would help people with only a high school diploma, the price increase would destroy the finances of middle class people who are struggling to support families and barely make ends meet as is.  The net effect of removing illegal immigrants essentially sounds to me like rewarding unskilled workers at the cost of everyone else.

And illegal immigration is not fair to those that came here legally, to others that would take work if it paid properly and givien proper benefits must I add this includes everyone born here including those of many descents.

But as I've already said, the statistics show that the increase in wages for unskilled labor would not be dramatic as you claim; unless you have evidence to back that up.  In which case, is a 3-8% increase for high school drop outs, a loss of wealth for most everyone else, and higher prices really worth the cost it would take to actually enforce the immigration laws to begin with and somehow build an ironclad defensive line along the border with Mexico?

From a practical viewpoint it isn't possible, with a cost-benefits analysis it isn't worthwhile, and from a moral standpoint it's probably equally abominable to do mass-deportations:  I'm not really sure where the gain is here.

[cassia]

So the justification for allowing illegal immigration, which exploits these immigrants at the same time it allows them to flagrantly break the law and take benefits that only legal residents contribute to funding, is that the middle class would have to give up some luxuries and the ones at the bottom will slip to working-class?

If you're middle class and can't afford a 4% financial hit, you're living above your means. That 4% decrease in available income could happen at any time, if you get sick and have medical bills that eat it up, if you're injured and can't work as much for awhile, if your job cuts your hours, if you have to take a transfer to somewhere far enough away to triple your gasoline usage.

When our standard of living is inflated because we're depending on illegal activity to keep prices low, we need a reality check and to get used to living with a bit less. Maybe we need some other laws changed to ease the burden, like relaxing restrictions on how many people can live in a 2-bedroom apartment so more can share rent together, and offer more tax incentives to cities that build usable public transit systems.

We don't even need to deport anyone who's already here. Write the bill so that they can stay, if they allow themselves to be documented, pass a background check, and pay a fine. Those that can't or won't complete the process, or come over later, are the ones who wouldn't be allowed to stay.

[Jude]

If the wages that illegal immigrants are being paid are so terrible, then why do they come here?  And why would they stay when they do?  The answer simple:  they can live a better life as illegal immigrants here making less than minimum wage than they can if they stay in Mexico.  Offering someone a better life in exchange for economic benefits to the entire country doesn't really sound like exploitation to me.  It's more like a mutually beneficial agreement.

The point is, the people who believe illegal immigration is an economic issue are on the wrong side of the facts.  There are numerous studies that indicate that illegal immigration makes us more wealthy as a country.  Back in 1980 before the most recent flood of immigrants it was well-established amongst economists that illegal immigration was good for America, then there was a wave of massive immigration during the 90s (accompanied by massive economic growth I might add) which had no observable negative impact on the economy.  The data simply isn't there:  they took our jobs doesn't pan out.

As far as whether or not this would help the poor:  I doubt it.  You say people need to cut back, do you know what would happen if the middle class did that?  Less demand plus higher prices and increased frugality equals fewer jobs.  The very jobs we're discussing here are products which are sold to the middle class.  Lets see, less demand and more cost per laborer; how exactly does that add up to helping the poor?  Remember, the 3-8% increase is amongst people who didn't finish high school, not John Doe who got laid off by Boeing after working as an Engineer for 15 years and can't make his mortgage payment.

I wonder where the poor are going to get the money to relocate to these jobs (travel expenses, finding a place to stay, et cetera), considering the majority of positions that illegal immigrants take that have been discussed on this thread exist in the countryside and rural areas.

None of this even argues the practicality of any proposal.  Did you know that the Mexican border is 3141 km?  Building a fence would be one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken by the United States, and policing it so that people don't simply climb over it or dig under it... well, that's another problem.  Then there's the fact that a large portion of illegal immigrants are the type who come here and simply stay after their visa expires...

So lets see, it benefits us economically, it would cost us in both GDP and wealth to get rid of it, furthermore it would require more laws, government spending, and government power to actually enforce a ban on illegal immigration.  I have a feeling if I ever figure out why the conservative party in the US is against illegal immigration, the answer will have 42 letters.

[Serephino]

Jude does have a point.  People not spending money is what has caused the mess we're in now.  Can we really afford to make it worse?  I definitely things like outsourcing to India need to quit....  but if someone wants to come here and work...  Those immigrants spend the money they earn.

And forget about the middle class; what about me?  As it is, at the end of the month both my boyfriend and I have less than $5 in our bank accounts.  How are we, and others like us, going to afford an increase in goods.  Is wanting to eat and having heat in the winter living above our means?  We go out on a date once a month, but other than that, every penny goes to bills, rent, food, pet care, and clothes.  My stupid piece of shit car is fixing to blow up any day now. 

Assuming that people who can't afford an increase in prices are just living above their means and could scale back is wrong.  Maybe some, but not all.  When prices went up because the price of oil skyrocketed the one summer was enough of a catastrophe to make the evening news just about every day.  How would prices going up due to lack of cheap labor be any different? 

[Lyell]

Jude does have a point.  People not spending money is what has caused the mess we're in now.  Can we really afford to make it worse?

Unemployed Americans spend less than employed illegal immigrants.

And people spending money they DIDN'T have is more of a contributer to the 'mess' than anyone defending bending over backwards for the 'needy' wants to admit. Fannie May and Freddie Mac created a mortgage crisis by lending money to banks so that the banks could lend money to people for houses. Loans that those people couldn't pay. And everyone who defaulted passed the debt onto the government. Forclosure sales don't even compensate for half of the loss.

[Zakharra]

If the wages that illegal immigrants are being paid are so terrible, then why do they come here?  And why would they stay when they do?  The answer simple:  they can live a better life as illegal immigrants here making less than minimum wage than they can if they stay in Mexico.  Offering someone a better life in exchange for economic benefits to the entire country doesn't really sound like exploitation to me.  It's more like a mutually beneficial agreement.

The point is, the people who believe illegal immigration is an economic issue are on the wrong side of the facts.  There are numerous studies that indicate that illegal immigration makes us more wealthy as a country.  Back in 1980 before the most recent flood of immigrants it was well-established amongst economists that illegal immigration was good for America, then there was a wave of massive immigration during the 90s (accompanied by massive economic growth I might add) which had no observable negative impact on the economy.  The data simply isn't there:  they took our jobs doesn't pan out.

As far as whether or not this would help the poor:  I doubt it.  You say people need to cut back, do you know what would happen if the middle class did that?  Less demand plus higher prices and increased frugality equals fewer jobs.  The very jobs we're discussing here are products which are sold to the middle class.  Lets see, less demand and more cost per laborer; how exactly does that add up to helping the poor?  Remember, the 3-8% increase is amongst people who didn't finish high school, not John Doe who got laid off by Boeing after working as an Engineer for 15 years and can't make his mortgage payment.

I wonder where the poor are going to get the money to relocate to these jobs (travel expenses, finding a place to stay, et cetera), considering the majority of positions that illegal immigrants take that have been discussed on this thread exist in the countryside and rural areas.

None of this even argues the practicality of any proposal.  Did you know that the Mexican border is 3141 km?  Building a fence would be one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken by the United States, and policing it so that people don't simply climb over it or dig under it... well, that's another problem.  Then there's the fact that a large portion of illegal immigrants are the type who come here and simply stay after their visa expires...

So lets see, it benefits us economically, it would cost us in both GDP and wealth to get rid of it, furthermore it would require more laws, government spending, and government power to actually enforce a ban on illegal immigration.  I have a feeling if I ever figure out why the conservative party in the US is against illegal immigration, the answer will have 42 letters.

So... we should just ignore illegal imigration then and give them a pass on BREAKING THE LAW?! Screw that. I don't want them for one simple reason. They are here ILLEGALLY. Breaking the law. You who want to give them a pass are making a bad, a very bad mistake since you are wanting to put in a precedent to ignore a national law that a LOT of people want enforced. What do you think every other civilized and uncivilized nation would do to them if they found them? I will bet money most would arrest and deport them at the least.

I do not care if it is 'good for the economy'. That is a stupid argument. If there is a economic impact, we will overcome and grow out of it. By allowing illegals to be here and wanting to give them a pass (which is what ANY attempt to make them legal is), you are spitting on the legal immigrants that do go through the long drawn out process of becomong a legal immigrant.

[Jude]

So... make it not illegal.

[Lyell]

Yes, destroy the border. That couldn't possibly screw anyone over.

[Zakharra]

So... make it not illegal.

That doesn't work.  If we let anyone that wants in, in, immigration will be more out of control than ever. There are tens to hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants doing it the proper way. And millions of illegals who do not give a shit about our laws, doing it the wrong way.

It's the illegals that people like you Jude, want to help skip and IGNORE how they are breaking several laws. One of which is identity theft. If any illegal gives a SS number, they are participationg in a federal crime and should be kicked out when caught. They are stealing an American's SS humber for their own illegal usage. Should that be forgiven?  How many laws are you willing to overlook them breaking in order to make them legal? What about the people who are doing it the legal and proper way? How do you think it makes them feel wihen people are demanding to make the illegals, who are doing it the wrong way, be made legal citizens?

[Trieste]

While I'm not advocating mass amnesty, I'm a little tired of hearing that argument. My heart goes out to people who have gone through the correct channels, it really does, but they are only part of a whole. They are only a piece of the puzzle. The solution to this problem should be something that is beneficial to us as a country, and beneficial to the majority of the population. "How do you think that makes them feel?!" is all fine and good, but I believe they should be thinking about what's best for their new home country, not whether or not someone else had it 'easier' (I can tell you from personal experience that living in a country illegally is nerve-wracking and far from easy) than they did.

[Lyell]

The solution to this problem should be something that is beneficial to us as a country, and beneficial to the majority of the population.

There are several compelling arguments that don't involve other people's feelings and have everything to do with benefitting the country here:

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16701&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

[auroraChloe]

Those immigrants spend the money they earn.

And forget about the middle class; what about me?  As it is, at the end of the month both my boyfriend and I have less than $5 in our bank accounts.  How are we, and others like us, going to afford an increase in goods.  Is wanting to eat and having heat in the winter living above our means? 

How would prices going up due to lack of cheap labor be any different? 

they don't spend it all.  i have seen a rather large group sharing an apartment so their rent and bills are diluted by the sharing and a lot of their paycheck is sent back 'home' to relatives.  they don't pay taxes for like five years even when they do come in legally.  (this was the case some time ago when i worked in a factory so don't jump all over my ass if the law is changed.)

why would prices have to go up?  because the consumer will take the brunt of it rather than the corporation's profits and huge ass salaries.  rant/ walmart is great isn't it?  i think 70% or maybe more of their shelves are loaded with product made in china.  cheap overhead (labor & products) + low wages = capitalism.  there are like 3 members of the Walton family on the top ten gazzillionaires list.  keep shopping there to put money in their pockets. /rant   

but I believe they should be thinking about what's best for their new home country,

some adopt the usa as theirs, some use it for all its worth.  but that isn't much different from some long time citizens so. 

The solution to this problem should be something that is beneficial to us as a country, and beneficial to the majority of the population.

then again thinking of the country as a whole is akin to socialism.  that won't fly far.   

[Lyell]

then again thinking of the country as a whole is akin to socialism.  that won't fly far.

Please don't jump to a 'your phrasing insinuates socialism, therefor your ideals must be anti-capitalism!' It makes a them versus us, me versus you, left versus right atmosphere that detracts from actual debate.

[auroraChloe]

Please don't jump to a 'your phrasing insinuates socialism, therefor your ideals must be anti-capitalism!' It makes a them versus us, me versus you, left versus right atmosphere that detracts from actual debate.

well, i'm not a great debater.  it is just my observation that phrasing about benefiting the country as a whole is labeled as such.  and it flies with me just fine, just not everyone else. 

*bows out* 

[Trieste]

Lyell, do me a favor and ask for clarification next time as opposed to assuming, because you just made an ass of yourself by jumping on her.

I didn't take that statement as an anti-capitalist dig, but a wry commentary on how reactionary politics can get.

[Zakharra]

 

Those immigrants spend the money they earn.

That part I will take exception too. Most of the illegals money was not spent in the US, but sent to their familes back home.  Fully 10% of Mexico's GDP, I believe, was made from money their illegals here in the US sent -back- home. Hense a reason Mexico is trying to stop anything that can and will stop/bar the illegals here from working. Concidering Mexico's immigration policy and citizenship laws, they are being very hypocritical about the US's response.

While I'm not advocating mass amnesty, I'm a little tired of hearing that argument. My heart goes out to people who have gone through the correct channels, it really does, but they are only part of a whole. They are only a piece of the puzzle. The solution to this problem should be something that is beneficial to us as a country, and beneficial to the majority of the population. "How do you think that makes them feel?!" is all fine and good, but I believe they should be thinking about what's best for their new home country, not whether or not someone else had it 'easier' (I can tell you from personal experience that living in a country illegally is nerve-wracking and far from easy) than they did.

A lot of politicians and pundants are advocating that. At least a path that would get them voting a lot sooner. You recall the nation's responbse to that? A LOT of the population, well over 50%, was very mad about giving the illegals any benefits at all. There were even polls done with legal immigrants, and they were not pleased about that either. They had to jump through all of the hoops to get citizenship and it was looking like the Congress was going to give illegals a shortcut to that.

The solution is not an easy one, not will it be easy. Most people do not want to give the illegals a bone because they see the illegals benefitting from breaking the law. 'Break a law and get a gift', sort of thing. Most of the nation (over 50%) supports Arizona's law because they see the federal government doing -nothing- to enforce the borders and immigration.

Which is a alot of what this boils down to. The government not doing it's bloody job. Hells, it is openly stating that it will NOT do it's job if any illegals were handed over to INC/ICE.  How can the people trust the government when it's refusing to do one of the most basic tasks in the Constitution? Protecting the borders. If the Democrats are still parroting wanting to give illegals something, that is likely going to bite them in the ass this November.

[Jude]

Just for the record, FAIR is hardly a reliable resource.  They're true bigots in my opinion; they're not just against illegal immigration, they want to cut down on all immigration, even legal.

That part I will take exception too. Most of the illegals money was not spent in the US, but sent to their familes back home.  Fully 10% of Mexico's GDP, I believe, was made from money their illegals here in the US sent -back- home. Hense a reason Mexico is trying to stop anything that can and will stop/bar the illegals here from working. Concidering Mexico's immigration policy and citizenship laws, they are being very hypocritical about the US's response.

Please do research before you make bold claims.

The impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. economy.

• 8.1 million: illegal immigrants

• $1.8 trillion: annual spending, U.S.

• $220.7 billion: annual spending, Texas

• $652 billion : annual contribution to U.S. GDP

And that's really just a small snippet from the full report at:  http://americansforimmigrationreform.com/files/Impact_of_the_Undocumented_Workforce.pdf

The report's results are truly staggering, and it was performed by a collection of impartial economists known as the Perryman Group in Texas.

[Zakharra]

  I wasn't quoting FAIR. This is aadmitted by Mexico and borne out by other groups that have studied it. About 10% of Mexico's GDP was from illegals in the US, sending back money to Mexico. They don't want that flow stopped. Since the recession hit, that money flow has gone down. Which has hurt Mexico.

Ask yourself WHY doesn't Mexico want the border policy enforced or changed? WHY are they willing to spend money to help protect illegals isn the US? Because Mexico benefits from the illegals (about 10% of their population, Gods damned hypocrits)  being -here- and sending money back there. They are benefiting by illegals breaking the laws. Laws in their nation that they come down like a hammer of God to anyone that breaks them.

A 'Screw the US, give me the money!' attitude.

[Jude]

Please cite your resources for the 10% figure.

The FAIR thing was aimed at the other guy.

[Lyell]

Lyell, do me a favor and ask for clarification next time as opposed to assuming, because you just made an ass of yourself by jumping on her.

I didn't take that statement as an anti-capitalist dig, but a wry commentary on how reactionary politics can get.

Right, because everything is clear cut and dry on the internet. For what it's worth, I apologise to aurora for misinterpreting black letters on a blue backdrop that lack any emotional or tone context. Sorry.

Just for the record, FAIR is hardly a reliable resource.  They're true bigots in my opinion; they're not just against illegal immigration, they want to cut down on all immigration, even legal.

Anybody with a conservative agenda is going to be dismissed as a 'bunch of bigots' regardless of how accurate their information is or informed their opinions are.

Roughly the same information: http://usconservatives.about.com/od/williamweisscommentary/a/Illegal_Immigration_Amnesty.htm#

Oh wait, looky here, ProCon has several statements for and against amnesty! http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000771

But no, wait. Everyone on the Con (against) side is a conservative or republican, so they must all be bigots too.

[Trieste]

Again with the sarcasm and the aggression. Take a step back, take a deep breath, and try to debate logically instead of emotionally. There is always at least a little bit of sarcasm and whatnot floating around here, but having it drip from each line is not acceptable.

A skilled writer can convey tone, and whether you mean it or not, yours is nasty. Please take a breather, and come back when you're ready to make reasoned, level posts that make a point without elbowing the other people in the thread in the eye.