You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 10:44:26 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?  (Read 13750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #125 on: July 02, 2010, 10:23:04 AM »
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!

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #126 on: July 02, 2010, 02:26:18 PM »
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.

Online itsbeenfun2000

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #127 on: July 15, 2010, 12:43:51 AM »
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.


Offline Phaia

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #128 on: July 15, 2010, 12:20:09 PM »
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

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #129 on: July 15, 2010, 03:52:20 PM »
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.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2010, 03:56:51 PM »
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.

Online itsbeenfun2000

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #131 on: July 15, 2010, 08:32:56 PM »
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


Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #132 on: July 15, 2010, 09:26:35 PM »
Ahm.

Pennsylvania is not in the midwest.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #133 on: July 15, 2010, 09:35:21 PM »
I think Pittsburgh likes to pretend.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #134 on: July 15, 2010, 10:05:53 PM »
I am now picturing Pittsburgh, as a city, dressing up in overalls and plaid on weekends. And this is Oniya's fault.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #135 on: July 15, 2010, 10:32:44 PM »

Online RubySlippers

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #136 on: July 16, 2010, 02:45:11 AM »
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?


Online itsbeenfun2000

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #137 on: July 16, 2010, 05:26:06 AM »
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.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #138 on: July 16, 2010, 06:59:43 AM »

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'.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #139 on: July 17, 2010, 10:49:25 AM »
Quote from: Lyell
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote from: Zuckerman
…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.”
Quote from: Lyell
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: 

Quote
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.   


« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 10:58:49 AM by kylie »

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #140 on: July 17, 2010, 08:22:36 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 09:34:04 PM by Lyell »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #141 on: July 18, 2010, 02:37:26 PM »
Quote from: 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?
          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. 

Quote
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.   

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
 
Quote
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.

Quote
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?
 
Quote
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.

Quote
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   


Quote from: Pager
          (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.

Quote from: Lyell
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? 


« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 02:48:05 PM by kylie »

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #142 on: July 18, 2010, 11:14:16 PM »
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!

« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 02:13:36 PM by Lyell »

Offline Serephino

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #143 on: July 19, 2010, 08:20:26 PM »
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.   



Online RubySlippers

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #144 on: July 19, 2010, 08:44:15 PM »
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.


Offline Serephino

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #145 on: July 19, 2010, 09:31:28 PM »
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. 

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #146 on: July 19, 2010, 10:13:47 PM »
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.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #147 on: July 19, 2010, 10:28:23 PM »
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.

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #148 on: July 19, 2010, 10:31:51 PM »
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?

Offline Serephino

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #149 on: July 19, 2010, 11:07:05 PM »
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.