In California, Meg Whitman, In California, Meg Whitman, the Republican front-runner in the California gubernatorial primary, said that Arizona is taking the wrong approach to with its tough new law.
“I think there’s just better ways to solve this problem,” Whitman said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
I don’t support the law I don’t support the law because it’s inhumane and tyrannical. I don’t believe that people walking around doing their business should be subject to being asked for ID.
But those who support Arizona’s immigration law, why do you support it?
Or is the subject too controversial to discuss in the open?
pencilneck
April 27, 2010 @
2:58 PM
How many of us could provide How many of us could provide proof of our citizenship upon demand?
Currently, I could not. I would hate to live in a society where I would be required to always carry such paperwork or ID with me.
Enorah
April 27, 2010 @
3:06 PM
It’s a god-awful small
It’s a god-awful small affair
To the girl with the mousy hair
But her mummy is yelling “No”
And her daddy has told her to go
But her friend is nowhere to be seen
Now she walks through her sunken dream
To the seat with the clearest view
And she’s hooked to the silver screen
But the film is a saddening bore
‘Cause she’s lived it ten times or more
She could spit in the eyes of fools
As they ask her to focus on
Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
It’s the freakiest show
Take a look at the Lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he’ll ever know
He’s in the best selling show
Is there life on Mars?
It’s on Amerika’s tortured brow
That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Now the workers have struck for fame
‘Cause Lennon’s on sale again
See the mice in their million hordes
From Ibiza to the Norfolk Broads
Rule Britannia is out of bounds
To my mother, my dog, and clowns
But the film is a saddening bore
‘Cause I wrote it ten times or more
It’s about to be writ again
As I ask you to focus on
Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
It’s the freakiest show
Take a look at the Lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he’ll ever know
He’s in the best selling show
Is there life on Mars?
PatentGuy
April 27, 2010 @
7:21 PM
Enorah,
Thanks for the Enorah,
Thanks for the flashback to 1970s dorm living. I had the Honky Dory album. I probably bought because of “Changes” but who knows. The guy from YES or King Crimson (or both, I forget) played piano on the Life on Mars track, and Mick Ronson was his usual understated excellence on the guitar.
It’s on youtube for younger Piggs who may not have been around when this album/song was first released.
Enorah
April 27, 2010 @
8:10 PM
PatentGuy [quote=PatentGuy]Enorah,
Thanks for the flashback to 1970s dorm living. I had the Honky Dory album. I probably bought because of “Changes” but who knows. The guy from YES or King Crimson (or both, I forget) played piano on the Life on Mars track, and Mick Ronson was his usual understated excellence on the guitar.
It’s on youtube for younger Piggs who may not have been around when this album/song was first released.[/quote]
You’re welcome. I had just posted on the ET thread and it was in my head. Then I read this thread and realized the real reason it was in my head. I know there is a better way. I know it, feel it in my bones, a better way to relate and be and love. This separation carp is the same old story told again and again and again on this planet.
looking
April 27, 2010 @
3:07 PM
FYI, the provision that FYI, the provision that resident aliens (green card holders) carry their resident card is already the federal law. As an immigrant I carry that around and prior to that I carried my passport around (also as required). I have been asked once to see my passport when passing through the border checkpoints and that is legal. Is it a pain – yes, however, that is the law as it stands. My understanding is that if you are a citizen and say so, the police cannot require you to show evidence of it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
sd_matt
April 27, 2010 @
7:14 PM
looking wrote:FYI, the [quote=looking]FYI, the provision that resident aliens (green card holders) carry their resident card is already the federal law. As an immigrant I carry that around and prior to that I carried my passport around (also as required). I have been asked once to see my passport when passing through the border checkpoints and that is legal. Is it a pain – yes, however, that is the law as it stands. My understanding is that if you are a citizen and say so, the police cannot require you to show evidence of it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
To go any further they have to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion. Here in CA it us up to the CBP to establish probable cause. So the police will pull someone over, see that the individual has no id, and then call customs or the border patrol to establish citizenship. By the same token the border patrol can pull over a possible DUI but has to call CHP or the police for an “evaluation”. Different jurisdictions.
an
April 27, 2010 @
3:10 PM
pencilneck wrote:How many of [quote=pencilneck]How many of us could provide proof of our citizenship upon demand?
Currently, I could not. I would hate to live in a society where I would be required to always carry such paperwork or ID with me.[/quote]
Don’t you carry around driver license with you? Don’t you have to prove that you’re here legally to get a driver license? Don’t you have your citizenship paper at home (or somewhere safe)? Are there already check points when you leave SD, where they can pull you aside and check if you’re here legally or not? Don’t they already ask for your driver license when they pull you over for speeding?
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
3:24 PM
AN, cops don’t currently ask AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?
Eugene
April 27, 2010 @
3:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, cops don’t [quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
[/quote]
But the person asked for ID is suspected of having done something wrong: being in the country illegally, which is a federal as well as a state offense! Would it be acceptable for the police to stop you if you’re driving a car that’s been reported stolen, or if you’re seen two blocks from the scene of a robbery and you match the description of the robber? This is the same.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
3:36 PM
Well, if we have laws in Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.
Eugene
April 27, 2010 @
3:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:Well, if we [quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
I don’t think that laws in place allow police officers to check the immigration status.
an
April 27, 2010 @
3:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:Well, if we [quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
So you don’t really know exactly what this law say, but you know you object to it. Got it.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
3:49 PM
AN wrote:briansd1 wrote:Well, [quote=AN][quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
So you don’t really know exactly what this law say, but you know you object to it. Got it.[/quote]
I never said that it’s the same. It’s not. The new law is more punitive and give local cops, in AZ, more power to demand IDs of people who they suspect of being unauthorized.
But those who argue that it’s the same should oppose the new law because it adds nothing new.
an
April 27, 2010 @
3:52 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN [quote=briansd1][quote=AN][quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
So you don’t really know exactly what this law say, but you know you object to it. Got it.[/quote]
I never said that it’s the same. It’s not. The new law is more punitive and give local cops, in AZ, more power to demand IDs of people who they suspect of being unauthorized.
But those who argue that it’s the same should oppose the new law because it adds nothing new.[/quote]
Did I ever said that you said that it’s the same? I’m just asking a question, since I don’t know about this specific law. Eugene posted it. Now we all know what the exact wording is.
afx114
April 27, 2010 @
4:12 PM
Is this really about Is this really about illegals? The question we should be asking is how this affects legal citizens. There are plenty of legal citizens who will now be targeted simply because of their last name, skin, accent, or any other arbitrary means.
Imagine you are a legal immigrant who has dark skin, your last name is Gonzalez, you speak with an accent, you drive a beater, work in construction, rock your Chivas jersey on weekends, frequent the Bodega, and have a wicked mustache. You work hard, pay taxes, provide for your family, and are active in your community. Would you feel welcome in Arizona, even though you are a legal, productive member of society? Welcome to America, indeed.
an
April 27, 2010 @
3:34 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, cops don’t [quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?[/quote]
I totally disagree. There are plenty of people who are going through proper channels to get their visa and have been waiting for a long time. Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?
BTW, with your proposal, if it’s that cheap to get to be legalized citizen here, I can see a lot of people buying plain tickets to Canada, drive to the US, pay the $2500, and become a legal US resident.
I could have sworn that this law was about allowing cops to ask for residence info only after they pulled you over for some other infraction? Are you sure they can just pull you over without other infraction?
Eugene
April 27, 2010 @
3:37 PM
“AN” wrote:I could have sworn [quote=”AN”]I could have sworn that this law was about allowing cops to ask for residence info only after they pulled you over for some other infraction? Are you sure they can just pull you over without other infraction?[/quote]
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).
The same law also makes it illegal to seek work as a day laborer. Law officers are obligated to make “lawful contact” with prospective day laborers, and, once they are in contact, they are obligated to determine their immigration status if they suspect those day laborers to be here illegally.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
3:44 PM
AN wrote: Why reward people [quote=AN] Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?[/quote]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.
an
April 27, 2010 @
3:49 PM
briansd1 wrote:
They’d have [quote=briansd1]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
Sorry, still don’t agree. NO ONE should be allow to cut in line. Comparing illegals to refugees is quite a reach. Refugees don’t enter here illegally. They stay in camps and await their papers before they enter the US. They enter the US legally, through proper channels.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
4:04 PM
AN, not all refugees are AN, not all refugees are treated the same. For example, Cuban refugees get to stay in America if they can reach our shores, in whatever manner. Some have entered through Mexico.
CA renter
April 27, 2010 @
4:31 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote: Why [quote=briansd1][quote=AN] Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?[/quote]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
Wasn’t the point of amnesty in the 80s a way to start with a clean slate? The existing illegal immigrants (who resided here for at least four years, IIRC) were granted amnesty and then we were supposed to get tough on illegal immigration. That certainly didn’t seem to happen, so why should we trust them now?
That was when we were “nice” about those who lived her for awhile. Now, it’s time to finally do what the vast majority of U.S. citizens want: fix the problem of illegal immigration once and for all.
————–
The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both houses in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. This year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. First, employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, placated at least in part by the “affirmative defense” clause in the law which explicitly releases employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of documents presented to them. Second, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers’ lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.
With the technology that’s been developed since 1986, it shouldn’t be a problem having to comply with verifying the resident status of new employees, right?
Let’s at least enforce the 1986 law and ammend it so that employers are mandated to verify the legitimacy of the documents/legal status of the employee.
CA renter
April 29, 2010 @
12:25 AM
Looking for a response from Looking for a response from Brian, if you don’t mind. Why do we need to go through the whole amnesty debate again? We’ve already done that, and the problem was not solved.
[quote=CA renter]
[quote=briansd1]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
Wasn’t the point of amnesty in the 80s a way to start with a clean slate? The existing illegal immigrants (who resided here for at least four years, IIRC) were granted amnesty and then we were supposed to get tough on illegal immigration. That certainly didn’t seem to happen, so why should we trust them now?
That was when we were “nice” about those who lived her for awhile. Now, it’s time to finally do what the vast majority of U.S. citizens want: fix the problem of illegal immigration once and for all.
————–
The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both houses in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. This year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. First, employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, placated at least in part by the “affirmative defense” clause in the law which explicitly releases employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of documents presented to them. Second, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers’ lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.
With the technology that’s been developed since 1986, it shouldn’t be a problem having to comply with verifying the resident status of new employees, right?
Let’s at least enforce the 1986 law and ammend it so that employers are mandated to verify the legitimacy of the documents/legal status of the employee.[/quote]
CA renter
April 29, 2010 @
12:31 AM
As Investors Business Daily As Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:
“The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.”
Story Continues Below
Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: “Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That’s a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population.”
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson places the percentage of illegal aliens in U.S. prisons even higher. In 2001, he told Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly:
“We had problems related to the costs of educating children who were acknowledged to be in the country illegally, healthcare costs. One in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally.”
The Federation for American Immigration Reform also turned to the Justice Department to get statistics on criminal aliens. They report:
“In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones [including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings].
“In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens [who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges].”
Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics – but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.
As to the “hard-working” claim, CIS notes: “The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3 percent for native households.”
Investor’s Business Daily concurs: “Once [illegals] get here, they are 50 percent more likely to be on welfare than citizens.”
Judge: Arm Yourself
Ashtabula Judge: Arm Yourself
Ashtabula County, Ohio
Judge: Arm Yourself
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Budget cuts have whacked Ashtabula County so hard that just one sheriff’s cruiser now patrols 720 square miles, raising a troubling question: Who will protect residents of this sprawling, rural Northeast Ohio county when sheriff’s deputies are miles away? A county judge has a suggestion: Concerned people may want to arm themselves. “We are living in a large county, and you cannot count on the availability of your sheriff to come to your home if you are in danger in a prompt manner,” Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey said. http://www.governing.com/news-item/judge-arm-yourself
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
8:55 AM
CA renter wrote:Looking for a [quote=CA renter]Looking for a response from Brian, if you don’t mind. Why do we need to go through the whole amnesty debate again? We’ve already done that, and the problem was not solved.
[/quote]
The 1986 amnesty bill was signed by Ronald Reagan and was implemented through the late 1980s and 1990s.
It did solve the problem of unauthorized immigrants who were here since 1982. I think that’s what the bill meant to address.
The problem of unauthorized immigrants, as a whole, will never go away. We have to deal with it periodically. It’s like house maintenance. You do it over and over again.
Short of deporting all the unauthorized immigrants, there is no other solution but to give them amnesty. Mark my words, it will happen sooner or later.
I personally want to see a Republican Congress and President address the amnesty issue in the future.
meadandale
April 29, 2010 @
9:13 AM
briansd1 wrote:
The 1986 [quote=briansd1]
The 1986 amnesty bill was signed by Ronald Reagan and was implemented through the late 1980s and 1990s.
It did solve the problem of unauthorized immigrants who were here since 1982. I think that’s what the bill meant to address.
The problem of unauthorized immigrants, as a whole, will never go away. We have to deal with it periodically. It’s like house maintenance. You do it over and over again.
Short of deporting all the unauthorized immigrants, there is no other solution but to give them amnesty. Mark my words, it will happen sooner or later.
I personally want to see a Republican Congress and President address the amnesty issue in the future.[/quote]
Your premise is flawed. We don’t want to do this ‘over and over again’. The only reason that amnesty was passed in 1986 was because it was SUPPOSED to be coupled with more stringent enforcement of employers to reduce or eliminate the draw of people across the border. Effectively, what we did was give everyone amnesty and then turn a blind eye to more stringent enforcement.
The only way that I, and many like me, will support any kind of amnesty program again is to tighten AND ENFORCE the existing provisions to prevent the flood of people from continuing. Otherwise we should just give up our sovereignty, throw the door open and be done with it. Of course, giving up our sovereignty would mean dissolving our government since it would have no purpose anymore (there would be no ‘country’ to govern).
afx114
April 29, 2010 @
9:17 AM
Does anybody have data on Does anybody have data on those who were naturalized in the 1986 amnesty? What percentage of those people are now working, productive, tax-paying members of society, and what percentage of those people are in jail/gangs, criminals, on welfare, etc?
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
9:24 AM
meadandale wrote:
Your [quote=meadandale]
Your premise is flawed. We don’t want to do this ‘over and over again’. The only reason that amnesty was passed in 1986 was because it was SUPPOSED to be coupled with more stringent enforcement of employers to reduce or eliminate the draw of people across the border. Effectively, what we did was give everyone amnesty and then turn a blind eye to more stringent enforcement.[/quote]
I don’t think that 1986 bill was supposed to do anything more than what it did. Ronald Reagan sold it as what you think it was supposed to do. But that was just political salesmanship.
Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty bill. GHW Bush followed as president.
That’s why I want the Republicans to propose an immigration bill. Who are you gonna vote for then?
Your premise is flawed. We don’t want to do this ‘over and over again’. The only reason that amnesty was passed in 1986 was because it was SUPPOSED to be coupled with more stringent enforcement of employers to reduce or eliminate the draw of people across the border. Effectively, what we did was give everyone amnesty and then turn a blind eye to more stringent enforcement.[/quote]
I don’t think that 1986 bill was supposed to do anything more than what it did. Ronald Reagan sold it as what you think it was supposed to do. But that was just political salesmanship.
Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty bill. GHW Bush followed as president.
That’s why I want the Republicans to propose an immigration bill. Who are you gonna vote for then?[/quote]
For someone who thinks he’s informed, you continue to display your ignorance.
The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.
That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.
KSMountain
April 29, 2010 @
10:42 AM
meadandale wrote:That’s the [quote=meadandale]That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.[/quote]
That is my (somewhat fuzzy) recollection – that the “amnesty” at that time was partially sold on the basis that it was a one time deal to “fix” the problem.
That’s another reason why talking about “amnesty” again is somewhat annoying. Of course, if you weren’t here or weren’t old enough to remember the first you wouldn’t feel that way.
I understand briansd thinks this is something that should be done periodically I guess, preferably by republicans, ad infinitum.
I don’t consider that going after a “solution” by any means.
meadandale
April 29, 2010 @
10:45 AM
KSMountain wrote:meadandale [quote=KSMountain][quote=meadandale]That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.[/quote]
That is my (somewhat fuzzy) recollection – that the “amnesty” at that time was partially sold on the basis that it was a one time deal to “fix” the problem.
That’s another reason why talking about “amnesty” again is somewhat annoying. Of course, if you weren’t here or weren’t old enough to remember the first you wouldn’t feel that way.
I understand briansd thinks this is something that should be done periodically I guess, preferably by republicans, ad infinitum.
I don’t consider that going after a “solution” by any means.[/quote]
Yeah, I had just started college when this passed. I remember it well. Brian…he probably wasn’t even a twinkle in his mother’s eye yet.
That’s why I’m skeptical of this ‘financial reform’ bill. Seems like more lip service…when we’ll end up doing the same thing the next time this happens…and it will unless the reform has teeth. I don’t support endless bailouts anymore than I support endless amnesties.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
11:59 AM
KSMountain wrote:
I don’t [quote=KSMountain]
I don’t consider that going after a “solution” by any means.[/quote]
It depends what you’re trying to solve.
There is no solution to end all future problems, otherwise, we’d be in nirvana.
Remember the pursuit of happiness? It’s a never ending process.
Forming a more perfect union is also a never ending process.
The reality of demographics is such that there will come a time, again, when the majority of citizens in America will have parents who were not born and bred in America. Simple reality.
We have the choice of dealing with demographics in a humane and compassionate fashion; or we can let the demographics of numbers find the solution for us decades down the road. It’s our choice.
The more we isolate people who generate economic output, the less likely they will have a stake in the continuation of our way of life. When those socially marginalized, but economically necessary people outnumber us, then we’ll have a big and potentially explosive problem. At that time, we won’t win because we’ll be in the minority.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
1:29 PM
I’m going to be at the SD I’m going to be at the SD downtown rally, not to chant and yell (because it’s not my style), but to get a feel of people’s frustrations and to witness history.
*
LAPD officials expect crowd of up to 100,000 at immigration march on Saturday
San Diego County immigration activists are planning a rally at 11 a.m. Saturday in Chicano Park. The rally will be followed by a march to the downtown San Diego federal building, where another rally will be held at 1 p.m.
The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.
That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.[/quote]
Like I said the 1986 amnesty signed by Ronald Reagan did was it was supposed to do. We created more criminals.
But if you don’t knowingly hire an authorized immigrants, then you’re not a criminal.
I’d love for Republicans to propose another plan to stop the flood, as you put it. I’m sure that conservatives will support that new plan.
cdesilva44
April 27, 2010 @
8:27 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote: Why [quote=briansd1][quote=AN] Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?[/quote]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
My wife’s family will sure feel stupid for waiting in line for 20 years if that happens.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
9:05 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:
My wife’s [quote=cdesilva44]
My wife’s family will sure feel stupid for waiting in line for 20 years if that happens.[/quote]
No they won’t.
They waited 20 years so they should be eligible for a green card soon.
Had they come here, 20 years ago as unauthorized immigrants, they would have lived underground the whole time. You and your wife would likely have had to support them in some way or another.
They’d still be waiting, with nothing on the horizon. We may not have an immigration bill until the situation deteriorates further, and past 2016 when a Republican might be president.
My wife’s family will sure feel stupid for waiting in line for 20 years if that happens.[/quote]
No they won’t.
They waited 20 years so they should be eligible for a green card soon.
Had they come here, 20 years ago as unauthorized immigrants, they would have lived underground the whole time. You and your wife would likely have had to support them in some way or another.
They’d still be waiting, with nothing on the horizon. We may not have an immigration bill until the situation deteriorates further, and past 2016 when a Republican might be president.[/quote]
My wife’s parents waited patiently for 19 years and then finally got their green cards 11 years ago. My wife was under 21 at the time and was able to come with them, but unfortunately her brother was too old and had to re-apply on his own. My wife and her parents are now citizens, but her brother is still in the Philippines waiting for a green card.
BTW, they all speak fluent English and despise illegal immigration. They also support what Arizona is doing.
stockstradr
April 28, 2010 @
3:23 AM
My wife is Chinese. Her My wife is Chinese. Her parents live with us. I spent thousands of dollars, countless hours in paperwork to LEGALLY transition these three into American citizenship. They are proud to have followed the legal process. My wife worked hard to speak English fluently, to get her Masters degree in education, and to attain her tenure teaching at one of Silicon Valley’s best high schools.
My wife and her parents STRONGLY support the AZ immigration bill, and so do I.
Ask my wife about illegal immigrants. You’ll get an earful that will put your ears in pain. Yet she started out unbiased, a blank slate, when she took her first substitute teaching assignments in San Diego’s heavily Hispanic areas.
Those classrooms were filled with illegal immigrants, or legals with illegal parents.
A couple years teaching in those classrooms gave her a VERY strong opinion, formed simply from countless observations
The minute those kids walked out the classroom she would see them throw the stack of homework assignments they had just received right into the trash bins. But it was their attitudes that were too much for my wife, the attitude of entitlement “Hey we made it out of Mexico to the land of milk and honey so now we can just sit back and enjoy the Wonderful Life (of entitlements)”
She visited countless student’s home and every time it was ten kids sitting in front of a 60″ big screen TV that our tax dollars paid for. And mama said (in Spanish) “look I don’t force them to do homework. They can watch TV all the time. Look, you’re the teacher! Your job is to teach my kids and make ’em do homework!”
Those random teaching assignments also took her to classrooms filled with immigrant children from India, or from China, or Korea. What a contrast.
Those children brought back completed homework assignments ON TIME and ASKED FOR EXTRA HOMEWORK. The parents didn’t allow any TV until homework was DONE. Those children expressed an attitude of “I’ve made it to the land of milk and honey, where IF I WORK HARD then I get rewarded with a Wonderful Life”
As for fifty Mexicans milling around in front of every Home Depot?
Damn right they need to show the police proof of citizenship. And the police can ask any time they want.
And if they cannot produce proof, or their relatives cannot bring it to the jail holding cell within a few days, then the result is DEPORTATION. And if the family gets split up because you got deported, that’s a problem you created when you crossed the border illegally.
Anonymous
April 28, 2010 @
6:40 AM
Frankly stockstradr, your Frankly stockstradr, your wife’s beliefs have zero to to with the legal status of her students – does it? This is precisely why the law is problematic – because it conflates people’s categorical judgments about a group of people with the issue of legal status, two completely independent issues. One person’s distaste for a group of people (regardless of how ungrateful they seem – not a crime) is not an argument for implementing a law. It’s surprising that you would not realize this, given american beliefs about Chinese immigration. I wonder how Az would feel about a law banning further Chinese immigration? If it were on a ballot, what would happen? Are individual beliefs about groups really how you want US law to be determined? Scary vision.
Anonymous
April 27, 2010 @
3:41 PM
What is so difficult with What is so difficult with having to show ID to prove citizenship? I’m happy the police are finally being empowered to enforce these laws, it is a long time coming.
In San Diego, if a policeman pulls over an illegal for a driving violation, he is powerless to do anything. That is a sad joke.
Also, enough about “racial profiling” complaining. Yes most illegals are from Mexico and most of them have brown skin. However, I can spot an illegal from a mile away, it is obvious. Its not just the skin color, it is the way they dress, their overall appearance, the way they talk, smell, etc.
Stop letting political correctness get in the way of common sense. THANK YOU ARIZONA!
looking
April 27, 2010 @
4:10 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, cops don’t [quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?[/quote]
It is offensive to me as someone who did go through legal channels and know many people who went through legal channels to hear that people who came in illegally should be given a small fine and then be legal. Most people who come here on H1B pay a lot more than $2500 in just legal fees to get themselves through the maze of paperwork. I have previously joked with my co-workers that they would get work papers faster if they illegally entered the country.
an
April 27, 2010 @
4:16 PM
looking wrote:briansd1 [quote=looking][quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?[/quote]
It is offensive to me as someone who did go through legal channels and know many people who went through legal channels to hear that people who came in illegally should be given a small fine and then be legal. Most people who come here on H1B pay a lot more than $2500 in just legal fees to get themselves through the maze of paperwork. I have previously joked with my co-workers that they would get work papers faster if they illegally entered the country.[/quote]
If Brian gets his way, I can see all the H1B people declaring themselves as illegal, ask for amnesty, pay the $2500, and become legal resident. Then they’ll fly all their relatives over here, ask for amnesty, pay the $2500, and become legal resident. Rinse and repeat.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
4:26 PM
looking wrote: Most people [quote=looking] Most people who come here on H1B pay a lot more than $2500 in just legal fees to get themselves through the maze of paperwork. I have previously joked with my co-workers that they would get work papers faster if they illegally entered the country.[/quote]
The unauthorized aliens who are already here have already endured years of hardship in the underground economy.
H1B visa holders don’t have to endure that. I don’t think that H1Bs would want to endure years of deprivation.
BTW, I think that a new immigration bill, whenever it becomes law, will look very much like the 1986 bill signed by Ronald Reagan.
If I had my way, we’d have a repeat of the 1986 bill.
an
April 27, 2010 @
4:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:
The [quote=briansd1]
The unauthorized aliens who are already here have already endured years of hardship in the underground economy. [/quote]
What does that have anything to do with it? I can bet you $100 bucks that what they had to “endure” is better than what they would have to “endure” in their own country, else they wouldn’t have crossed over here illegally.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
4:44 PM
What you said is not What you said is not necessary true, AN.
The first European immigrants to America probably endured more hardship upon landing that they did back in Europe. Many died leaving offsprings in the new world.
Plus, if an unauthorized immigrant endured hardship in her home country does not mean that she doesn’t endure it here.
But you said that hardship has nothing to do with it; so why even bring up the relative hardship in America vs. the home country.
I, however, claim that hardship and suffering are relevant because this is a humanitarian issue. There is physical and psychological suffering.
an
April 27, 2010 @
5:02 PM
briansd1 wrote:What you said [quote=briansd1]What you said is not necessary true, AN.
The first European immigrants to America probably endured more hardship upon landing that they did back in Europe. Many died leaving offsprings in the new world.
Plus, if an unauthorized immigrant endured hardship in her home country does not mean that she doesn’t endure it here.
But you said that hardship has nothing to do with it; so why even bring up the relative hardship in America vs. the home country.
I, however, claim that hardship and suffering are relevant because this is a humanitarian issue. There is physical and psychological suffering.[/quote]
Are they the only one who’s suffering?
BTW, did you lose any family members who tried to escape the country, just for the hope that they can be in a camp. Just for a chance to come here legally? Like I said, if your proposal ever become reality, I know a few people who would love to take advantage of this amnesty.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
7:10 PM
AN wrote:
Are they the only [quote=AN]
Are they the only one who’s suffering?
BTW, did you lose any family members who tried to escape the country, just for the hope that they can be in a camp. Just for a chance to come here legally? Like I said, if your proposal ever become reality, I know a few people who would love to take advantage of this amnesty.[/quote]
If people are suffering in our country, then we are responsible. We are not responsible (or at least much less so) for suffering in other countries. So we have to solve the situation of unauthorized immigrants already in the country.
I’m not understanding what you’re getting at regarding the refugee issue.
If a bill similar to the 1986 amnesty law signed by Ronald Reagan ever comes to pass again, it would give amnesty to people who are already in the country since a certain date(e.g. since 1/1/2005).
People who then come here, believing they would get amnesty in the future, would have to wait as unauthorized aliens for an undetermined amount of time, perhaps forever. They would face imprisonment and deportation. So they wouldn’t benefit from the amnesty.
So AN, the people you know, who would benefit from amnesty, would have to be already here (since an earlier date) as unauthorized aliens.
an
April 28, 2010 @
1:13 AM
briansd1 wrote:
So AN, the [quote=briansd1]
So AN, the people you know, who would benefit from amnesty, would have to be already here (since an earlier date) as unauthorized aliens.[/quote]
How do you prove how long they’ve been here? What if they got here yesterday?
Just because illegal immigrant suffer w/in our borders, we supposed to give them amnesty, while we shouldn’t care about those who suffer much worse in other countries? They’re here illegally, so, they shouldn’t be here. Why give amnesty to people who enter a suffering by their own choice while not give amnesty to people who suffer much worse and not have a choice in the matter?
briansd1
April 28, 2010 @
10:05 AM
AN wrote:
Just because [quote=AN]
Just because illegal immigrant suffer w/in our borders, we supposed to give them amnesty, while we shouldn’t care about those who suffer much worse in other countries? They’re here illegally, so, they shouldn’t be here. Why give amnesty to people who enter a suffering by their own choice while not give amnesty to people who suffer much worse and not have a choice in the matter?[/quote]
AN, I’m glad that you believe that people who suffer in other countries should be given visas to America.
The legislature has the power to immediately give those suffering people expedited entry. I’m glad that you are voicing such support.
an
April 28, 2010 @
10:07 AM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote:
Just [quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
Just because illegal immigrant suffer w/in our borders, we supposed to give them amnesty, while we shouldn’t care about those who suffer much worse in other countries? They’re here illegally, so, they shouldn’t be here. Why give amnesty to people who enter a suffering by their own choice while not give amnesty to people who suffer much worse and not have a choice in the matter?[/quote]
AN, I’m glad that you believe that people who suffer in other countries should allowed visas to America.
The legislature has the power to immediately give those suffering people expedited entry. I’m glad that you are voicing such support.[/quote]
Oh, I have no issue with amnesty. I actually support it comepletely. I just have issue with how illegal gets here.
CDMA ENG
April 27, 2010 @
3:16 PM
briansd1 wrote:I don’t [quote=briansd1]I don’t support the law because it’s inhumane and tyrannical. I don’t believe that people walking around doing their business should be subject to being asked for ID.
But those who support Arizona’s immigration law, why do you support it?
Or is the subject too controversial to discuss in the open?[/quote]
Shiiitttt! You know the first time I ever realized that my grandfather was a immigrant is when I was walking with him in Lemon Grove. His father live in Lemon Grove and he was from Arizona. We were stopped by border patrol in this State and asked our citzenship…
Ok this was 30 years ago but it does happen… everywhere.
CE
jficquette
June 6, 2010 @
8:57 AM
briansd1 wrote:In California, [quote=briansd1]In California, Meg Whitman, the Republican front-runner in the California gubernatorial primary, said that Arizona is taking the wrong approach to with its tough new law.
“I think there’s just better ways to solve this problem,” Whitman said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
I am a legal imigrant, have I am a legal imigrant, have green card and am brown. New law tells me, do not bother crossing into Arizona state Border or expect harrasment. I will stay out of Arizona and hope I will be able to manage with the rest of the 47 + states.
Now, i am not sure, how long I would be able to live in this country and how my kids will fare in the future, though they are born citizens.
I hope immigrants breed a little more and balance the population with a little more brown.
I do not berate the nation or the American culture, I would say what I said while underlining the fact that America and Americans are the most welcoming and tollerating of all cultures and countries of the world.
Its just these fringe characters make it difficult.
Though I do my best to adapt to the culture, people and system and try to be just one of them , I am different – color – accent – life style and stand out a little more in teh crowd than my white friends and guess what, I get picked out easily.
Being an immigrant have always been subject to the law, that I would have to produce ID when required.
but do not feel very comfortable with the idea that local police and anyone who wears a badge would be looking around to spot the brown guy and harass for ID at every stop sign and gas station
so thats my rant, well I pay my taxes but who cares, i am brown, so second class – that dosent sound right, not in America
patientrenter
April 27, 2010 @
4:46 PM
Immigration from poor Immigration from poor countries in general is supported by professional Democratic politicians who want to expand their political base.
Immigration of all types is supported by employers because it lowers wages and salaries, increasing business profits. These business owners control most Republican politicians.
Most other people lose from large amounts of immigration, so they oppose it.
Put these together and you can see why we have our current system that outlaws most immigration in theory, but accommodates it with few limits in practice.
Eugene
April 27, 2010 @
5:13 PM
patientrenter [quote=patientrenter]Immigration from poor countries in general is supported by professional Democratic politicians who want to expand their political base.
Immigration of all types is supported by employers because it lowers wages and salaries, increasing business profits. These business owners control most Republican politicians.
[/quote]
One distinction is that Democrats want immigrants who vote, and Republicans want immigrants who can’t or don’t vote.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
5:49 PM
Eugene wrote:patientrenter [quote=Eugene][quote=patientrenter]Immigration from poor countries in general is supported by professional Democratic politicians who want to expand their political base.
Immigration of all types is supported by employers because it lowers wages and salaries, increasing business profits. These business owners control most Republican politicians.
[/quote]
One distinction is that Democrats want immigrants who vote, and Republicans want immigrants who can’t or don’t vote.[/quote]
What Eugene posted is very true. Otherwise, if Democrats were able to increase their base, business owners will lose out.
afx114
April 27, 2010 @
6:01 PM
Consider also how many Consider also how many major-league baseball teams have their spring training camps in AZ. Then imagine the wackiness that will ensue the first time one of those team’s players winds up in jail for Driving While Brown.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
6:15 PM
afx114 wrote:Consider also [quote=afx114]Consider also how many major-league baseball teams have their spring training camps in AZ. Then imagine the wackiness that will ensue the first time one of those team’s players winds up in jail for Driving While Brown.[/quote]
I think that AZ will come a pariah state like when they refused to honor the MLK holiday.
Enorah
April 27, 2010 @
6:43 PM
AZ Gov just killed domestic AZ Gov just killed domestic partnership rights today too. Said “God made her do it” or something like that.
sd_matt
April 27, 2010 @
6:55 PM
By the looter’s standards I By the looter’s standards I have the right to go to Mexico for twenty years illegally, make a peso or two, and then ask for full citizenship all in the name of civil rights.
But before then I’ll parade around in a car with “Made in the USA” bumper stickers. Because after all my civil rights status gives me the moral high ground to shove my dick in their faces.
And when the Brown Shirts in all their nerve ask me to present my papers I’ll dig up the body of MLK, hold a candlelight vigil, and wave my American flag. Oh wait. I’ll have to switch it to a Mexican one….until I get my Mexican citizenship.
No let’s not help Mexico solve her problems. Let’s look the other way while our big business buddies get cheap labor and while the other side purchases new voters with food stamps.
And boy are they exploited,so much so that they risk their lives coming over the border to get exploited. All the money they send back home just reeks of exploitation.
garysears
April 27, 2010 @
7:46 PM
In case anyone needs it, the In case anyone needs it, the full text of the bill is here:
My take is this doesn’t necessarily have open the door to racial profiling, but it is also hard to see how this won’t be legally challenged as such. Nothing in the law says anything about ethnicity or skin color but it leaves the interpretation to the officer. I don’t know what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” to presume someone is not legally present in the United States. I would think this needs to be carefully defined by the legislature.
I don’t see any section in the bill that mandates police verify the immigration status of everyone they contact. I just see a mandate to act on reasonable suspicion, if it is practical (convenient?) whatever that means.
A very unclear law in my mind.
paramount
April 27, 2010 @
8:05 PM
garysears wrote:In case [quote=garysears]In case anyone needs it, the full text of the bill is here:
My take is this doesn’t necessarily have open the door to racial profiling, but it is also hard to see how this won’t be legally challenged as such. Nothing in the law says anything about ethnicity or skin color but it leaves the interpretation to the officer. I don’t know what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” to presume someone is not legally present in the United States. I would think this needs to be carefully defined by the legislature.
I don’t see any section in the bill that mandates police verify the immigration status of everyone they contact. I just see a mandate to act on reasonable suspicion, if it is practical (convenient?) whatever that means.
A very unclear law in my mind.[/quote]
I don’t think you can define what an illegal might or might not look like, I would bet the feds will challenge this law for starters.
You can’t have states setting their own immigration laws, there has to be laws that are the same for every state.
I’m happy I don’t live in Arizona as screwed up as California is.
Your papers, please…
garysears
April 27, 2010 @
8:49 PM
“You can’t have states “You can’t have states setting their own immigration laws, there has to be laws that are the same for every state.”
I think this bill is very careful to state the goal is the implementation to the fullest extent of the law the existing federal immigration law.
The additions made to existing law don’t really seem to be setting immigration policy that is not in accordance with the federal law. I think the real complaint besides racial profiling potential is that federal law is actually going to be comprehensively and intentionally enforced.
No one wants to live in a state where the presumption is guilt and you have to have federally recognized ID on you at all times or face arrest or harassment. I think this could be the road this bill forces Arizona down.
The problem is I don’t see how you can justify “reasonable suspicion” to be anything other than lack of accepted federal ID. Without a 100% ID verification policy where “reasonable suspicion” is left to the discretion of the officer, this is just going to create a poor racial and political environment and legal mess. With a mandatory 100% ID verification law, that would just piss everyone off on all parts of the political spectrum.
I get irritated when I have to stop at the Border Patrol checkpoints 3 times in an afternoon and face questions about my immigration/citizenship status. But you have to play the game unless you want to be further delayed. I try to be nice but inside I have a hard time not saying something confrontational. Same thing goes for police “seat belt safety checks.” These types of enforcement policies reduce my overall respect for law enforcement and willingness to cooperate. And I always used to consider myself pro law and order and a good law abiding citizen.
paramount
April 27, 2010 @
9:01 PM
This is really good, Az This is really good, Az assembly members can’t even answer questions about their own bill:
do NOT tell the police do NOT tell the police officers to suck your 100% american meat penis when they ask if you’re a citizen. while not technically illegal arguably, it is definitely not a good move…
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
9:15 PM
sd_matt wrote:
No let’s not [quote=sd_matt]
No let’s not help Mexico solve her problems. Let’s look the other way while our big business buddies get cheap labor [/quote]
It not just Mexico.
There are unauthorized immigrants from all over the world — people from Europe who don’t need visas to visit and overstay, students who can’t get H1B jobs and overstay their visas, tourists who come by plane then stay, etc…
I believe that students who graduate from accredited US universities, in any field of study, should be automatically given a green card. We are losing valuable talent when we tell people whom we trained to go back. They came here as foreign students and paid for their own education.
It’s pretty stupid to send them back.
partypup
April 28, 2010 @
8:58 AM
I don’t support the AZ law, I don’t support the AZ law, but San Francisco’s response has been just as nutty as the law, itself. The LA city council has just voted to adopt the same measures. This, in a state that is flirting with bankruptcy. This place has no future. Nor does AZ, BTW.
“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It’s unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed.”
partypup wrote:I don’t [quote=partypup]I don’t support the AZ law, but San Francisco’s response has been just as nutty as the law, itself. The LA city council has just voted to adopt the same measures. This, in a state that is flirting with bankruptcy. This place has no future. Nor does AZ, BTW.[/quote]
But doesn’t the ban on city employee travel to Arizona save the state money? You should be supportive of that then, right?
partypup
April 28, 2010 @
12:10 PM
afx114 wrote:partypup wrote:I [quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I don’t support the AZ law, but San Francisco’s response has been just as nutty as the law, itself. The LA city council has just voted to adopt the same measures. This, in a state that is flirting with bankruptcy. This place has no future. Nor does AZ, BTW.[/quote]
But doesn’t the ban on city employee travel to Arizona save the state money? You should be supportive of that then, right?[/quote]
If that were the worst thing about the proposed legislation, I might be okay with it – you’re right, I’m all for trimming cash from the budget.
But the discussion of boycotting private CA businesses that engage in commerce with AZ – that’s going to do nothing but hurt innocent people who are just trying to make a living.
As a gay person, I am probably a little more sensitive to this issue after the Prop 8 madness. It burned me up to see Mormons pouring money into our state to influence legislation that could affect the way I live my life – in my state. I think that states (or any third parties) should simply stay out of the affairs of other states and not attempt to influence their actions. I personally feel that the AZ law is unconstitutional and will be overturned. So let the SCOTUS handle that. Let the process work as it should in a democracy.
KSMountain
August 1, 2010 @
7:07 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I believe [quote=briansd1]
I believe that students who graduate from accredited US universities, in any field of study, should be automatically given a green card. We are losing valuable talent when we tell people whom we trained to go back. They came here as foreign students and paid for their own education.
It’s pretty stupid to send them back.[/quote]
You might be right about this one. Perhaps there are arguments for and against this idea.
CDMA ENG
August 2, 2010 @
1:26 PM
KSMountain wrote:briansd1 [quote=KSMountain][quote=briansd1]
I believe that students who graduate from accredited US universities, in any field of study, should be automatically given a green card. We are losing valuable talent when we tell people whom we trained to go back. They came here as foreign students and paid for their own education.
It’s pretty stupid to send them back.[/quote]
You might be right about this one. Perhaps there are arguments for and against this idea.[/quote]
Not necessarily true. Case in point… Mi primos… My cousins. The both out stayed thier student visas while in this country because they could not get political asylum. They both fled Nicauragua because their father was a Colonel in Samosa’s Army. Going home was a very dangerous ordeal for them. The both out stayed thier visas in high school and entered the college system as illegals. They took out student loans and grants as illegals. They graduated with engineering degrees as illegals gained citznship and paid back those student loans BUT they did do it illegally and not with thier money. So the american tax payer got lucky on that one…
Also, what makes you think people want to stay here? Clinton (not saying good or bad) opened the flood gates of student visas so that more people could fill positions engineering and science position that was going unfilled by the local/indigenous population of americans (lazy us). They got thier degrees learned whatever techology then… Either lost thier work visa due to the dot.com bust OR decided they could go home and create thier own business abroad and do what american companies do… for less.
Once again… not making judgements just saying what is…
CE
briansd1
August 2, 2010 @
1:41 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:Case in [quote=CDMA ENG]Case in point… Mi primos… My cousins. The both out stayed thier student visas while in this country because they could not get political asylum. They both fled Nicauragua because their father was a Colonel in Samosa’s Army. Going home was a very dangerous ordeal for them. The both out stayed thier visas in high school and entered the college system as illegals. They took out student loans and grants as illegals. They graduated with engineering degrees as illegals gained citznship and paid back those student loans BUT they did do it illegally and not with thier money. So the american tax payer got lucky on that one…[/quote]
That used to be the case… but can’t do it anymore.
briansd1 wrote:CDMA ENG [quote=briansd1][quote=CDMA ENG]Case in point… Mi primos… My cousins. The both out stayed thier student visas while in this country because they could not get political asylum. They both fled Nicauragua because their father was a Colonel in Samosa’s Army. Going home was a very dangerous ordeal for them. The both out stayed thier visas in high school and entered the college system as illegals. They took out student loans and grants as illegals. They graduated with engineering degrees as illegals gained citznship and paid back those student loans BUT they did do it illegally and not with thier money. So the american tax payer got lucky on that one…[/quote]
That used to be the case… but can’t do it anymore.
Nope. Can still be done. You are not naive. If you aquired a Soc No. and have a driver license and history in the US how hard do you think it is to obtain? Just as long as you filed taxes you are usually in.
CE
briansd1
August 2, 2010 @
2:37 PM
CE, here is the info CE, here is the info regarding public school attendance as it pertains to the immigration reform of 1996.
Section 625 – Restriction on Foreign Students
Section 625 amends INA §214 to bar F–1 status for an alien who seeks to attend a public elementary school or a public adult education program. Entry to attend a public secondary school is also not permitted, unless:
1. the aggregate period of F–1 status does not exceed a year; and
2. the alien reimburses the school for the costs of providing education.
An alien who obtains an F–1 visa to attend a private school and then transfers to a public school (including publicly-funded adult education programs or adult education language training programs but subject to the above exception for public secondary school), is deemed to have violated F–1 status.
This section applies to individuals who obtain F–1 student status after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment (around December 1, 1996), and includes aliens whose status is extended after that period.
Nope. Can still be done. You are not naive. If you aquired a Soc No. and have a driver license and history in the US how hard do you think it is to obtain? Just as long as you filed taxes you are usually in.
CE[/quote]
Sure if I can obtain a fake birth certificate, a fake SSN and a fake id to go with it, anything can be done in this country. No amount of laws can prevent it. It’s an enforcement problem.
That does not mean that it easy/condoned/accepted/encouraged…
By the way if I had all fake papers how would cops in AZ deport me for example? If you say that they will check their legitimacy against some clean nationally accepted database, then in theory the college can do the same.
KSMountain
April 27, 2010 @
8:01 PM
afx114 wrote:Then imagine the [quote=afx114]Then imagine the wackiness that will ensue the first time one of those team’s players winds up in jail for Driving While Brown.[/quote]
What would be the charge in this scenario?
Enorah
April 27, 2010 @
8:05 PM
Did you all read the thing Did you all read the thing about domestic partnership rights being nullified? That AZ Gov is on some mission alright, she and Ellwood boys.
gandalf
April 27, 2010 @
9:33 PM
No, I don’t support it.
It’s No, I don’t support it.
It’s a racist law.
Think I’m wrong?
What happens to employers who hire illegals?
Nothing.
Serious approach to illegal immigration goes after employers.
Persecuting brown people with no money is racist.
GOP is full of racists these days.
What’s that saying? “You’re known by the company you keep…”
garysears
April 27, 2010 @
9:33 PM
“What happens to employers “What happens to employers who hire illegals?
Nothing.”
Pages 6-14 of the 16 page bill address employers hiring illegals. Admittedly, much of that is existing law, which has been amended in a fairly minor manner.
Serious approach to illegal immigration cracks down on employers.
Easier to ‘demonize’ Mexicans, political theater.
Open racism on the right wing of the GOP.
Anonymous
April 27, 2010 @
9:46 PM
The comments on this board The comments on this board have devolved into a false dichotomy between granting amnesty to illegals and the Az law. But this is not a choice we need to make (although it appears to be the one that our politicians want us to fight about). The Az law is unlike any other law in US history not because it requires us to carry ID, but because it requires officers to demand it if they have cause to suspect a person is illegal, AND to arrest them even if they are legal but are not carrying their paperwork. There are big, clear problems here. First, is that there is no physical trait that indicates whether someone is legal or not. Recall that in the not too distant future, most *legal* Americans will not be white. Still, the police now risk a flood of lawsuits if they do not stop people who *might* be illegal. No other law like this exists – e.g., stopping people who might be speeding, might be drunk, might be doing anything else illegal – without some probable cause (not just how someone looks). That is illegal. This law will simply not last because it is not constitutional and invades are most basic freedoms. If you don’t believe this, I ask you (if you can) to imagine 75 years from now when a Hispanic governor of CA proposes a law requiring all residents to prove they are not Canadian, and to carry ID proving that this. Any person who looks Canadian but cannot prove it will be taken immediately to jail, will not pass go, and will not collect $200. If they can’t raise bail, too bad. If they can’t find their papers, tough luck. Racial profiling? Naw – just protecting our borders, that’s all. If you can’t accept this scenario but you can accept the new Az law, it’s just plain old racism folks. Think about it.
garysears
April 27, 2010 @
10:18 PM
wug said:
“The Az law is wug said:
“The Az law is unlike any other law in US history not because it requires us to carry ID, but because it requires officers to demand it if they have cause to suspect a person is illegal, AND to arrest them even if they are legal but are not carrying their paperwork”
I’m not saying this is necessarily an incorrect assessment of what will reasonably happen. It is just reading something into the bill that I can’t see as a layperson. The reason I linked the bill earlier is to provide opportunity to cite specific parts of the bill and to read it in context. A large problem with internet argument IMO is most arguments appear to be waged without commonly agreed facts, grounds, or starting points. While this is good political theater, it is all just noise and emotion and ultimately is not constructive.
I don’t see anything in the bill that requires ID be carried. And I certainly don’t see anything that requires officers to arrest citizens who are legal but don’t have ID on them. I see a clause that requires peace officers to attempt to verify immigration status “if practical” upon “reasonable suspicion”. This vague wording without explanation of terms is the worst part of the bill to me since I don’t know how anyone can really explain what it means.
I can see how one might expect frequent abusive detaining of legal citizens but it is not a requirement. I’m not defending the law, just trying to accurately understand it for myself. I disagree with the clause because legal citizens/immigrants will certainly on occasion be presumed illegal based only on language and looks. I don’t like that legal Hispanic or foreign looking citizens will feel practically forced to carry ID and fear questioning/detainment that more “legal” looking citizens will not face.
The law has a hostile feel to it. That doesn’t seem to bode well for community relations with law enforcement. Then again, Arizona is the state with the photo speed traps. They really seem to like an aggressive police state there.
Zeitgeist
April 28, 2010 @
12:41 AM
The language of the law was The language of the law was taken from Federal Immigration Law, for the record.
On another note to follow up on Gandalf’s point about hiring illegals, the Feds are after the owner and an employee of the French Gourmet for violations:
“… the case against The French Gourmet[is] more than a simple immigration enforcement case. Prosecutors could have several reasons for seeking the property, legal experts said. They may want to make a prominent example of the restaurant as they pursue businesses that hire illegal workers. Or perhaps they want to increase the stakes and the pressure to get guilty pleas.”
“On Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office unsealed the indictment charging owner Michel Malécot, the restaurant corporation that he heads and manager and pastry chef Richard Kauffmann with knowingly hiring undocumented workers. The indictment seeks criminal forfeiture of the two land parcels the business occupies, which records show have an assessed value of more than $1.3 million.”
So these are not just interesting times for buying a house or investing, these are interesting times for the entire country.
wug wrote:The comments on [quote=wug]The comments on this board have devolved into a false dichotomy between granting amnesty to illegals and the Az law. But this is not a choice we need to make (although it appears to be the one that our politicians want us to fight about). [/quote]
I agree that the AZ law has nothing to do with amnesty. But amnesty would go a long way in solving the unauthorized immigration problem and that’s why I brought it up.
[quote=AN]
How do you prove how long they’ve been here? What if they got here yesterday?[/quote]
If an amnesty law is enacted, unauthorized immigrants will have to prove that they’ve been here since a certain time to benefit from amnesty. That’s how it worked in the past when the 1986 amnesty law was signed by Ronald Reagan.
Immigrants could show an I94 and a passport stamp if they entered America legally but overstayed permission.
Or they could present other proof, such as a consular registration card issued their country’s consulate in USA. They can present rental agreements, utility bills, automobile title and registration, or any documents that would allow verification of residency since a certain time (that would depend on the legislature when the law is written).
BTW, AN, if your relatives flew in today, their passports and I94s would be stamped with yesterday’s date. So they won’t qualify for amnesty.
an
April 28, 2010 @
9:32 AM
briansd1 wrote:
Immigrants [quote=briansd1]
Immigrants could show an I94 and a passport stamp if they entered America legally but overstayed permission.
Or they could present other proof, such as a consular registration card issued their country’s consulate in USA. They can present rental agreements, utility bills, automobile title and registration, or any documents that would allow verification of residency since a certain time (that would depend on the legislature when the law is written).
BTW, AN, if your relatives flew in today, their passports and I94s would be stamped with yesterday’s date. So they won’t qualify for amnesty.[/quote]
How many illegal immigrants who jump the border got their I94 or a passport stamp or a consular registration card? With regarding to rental agreements, utility bills, etc. That can be easily attainable with the right amount of money.
I never said they would fly straight to America. Even if they did, they could say they got mugged and lost all of their papers and give a brand new name so it’s not traceable.
But, the basic question is, why should we give amnesty to people who broke the law?
briansd1
April 28, 2010 @
9:41 AM
AN wrote:
But, the basic [quote=AN]
But, the basic question is, why should we give amnesty to people who broke the law?[/quote]
I don’t believe that there is a law that makes one a criminal for remaining in USA as an unauthorized alien.
Anyway, the simple answer is we have no other choice. The immigrants are already here. Do we want them to be part of economy or not?
BTW, the 1986 amnesty law signed by Ronald Reagan is still valid. It allows people who have been here since 1982 to be legalized. We could just amend the law to allow those who came later (e.g. since 2005) to remain.
an
April 28, 2010 @
9:55 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I don’t [quote=briansd1]
I don’t believe that there is a law that makes one a criminal for remaining in USA as an unauthorized alien.
Anyway, the simple answer is we have no other choice. The immigrants are already here. Do we want them to be part of economy or not?
BTW, the 1986 amnesty law signed by Ronald Reagan is still valid. It allows people who have been here since 1982 to be legalized. We could just amend the law to allow those who came later (e.g. since 2005) to remain.[/quote]
Wouldn’t jumping a fence somebody put up be considered trespassing? There is an immigration law, they didn’t abide by it, so yes, they broke that law.
We always have other choices. They can be part of this economy if they want, they just have to go back to their country and get in line like everyone else who abide by the US immigration laws. I have no issue w/ any of the illegal immigrant as a person. I just have an issue with how they got here. If they go back and get in line like everyone else, then I would welcome them with open arms.
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
9:57 AM
AN wrote:If they go back and [quote=AN]If they go back and get in line like everyone else, then I would welcome them with open arms.[/quote]
Even those who stood in line like they were supposed to will be second class citizens if they have to present ID at the whim of law enforcement.
an
April 28, 2010 @
10:02 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:If they [quote=afx114][quote=AN]If they go back and get in line like everyone else, then I would welcome them with open arms.[/quote]
Even those who stood in line like they were supposed to will be second class citizens if they have to present ID at the whim of law enforcement.[/quote]
Don’t you have to do that now when you get pulled over for speeding? Did Obama support the idea of a biometric ID for everyone? That means everyone who have to carry this ID w/ them? Wouldn’t that be enough proof that you’re here legally?
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
10:47 AM
AN wrote:Don’t you have to do [quote=AN]Don’t you have to do that now when you get pulled over for speeding?[/quote]
Of course, and that’s fine. But it’s easy to exhibit symptoms of speeding — namely driving over the speed limit. Likewise, if you’re robbing a store or buying drugs, it’s pretty easy to tell when you are doing so. But can you explain to me how someone can exhibit symptoms of being an illegal immigrant?
I don’t have a problem with having to show ID when breaking the law. And yes, illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should show ID. The problem is how do you know who is illegal and who is not without resorting to things such as skin color, accent, last name, choice in food/beer/music/sportsteam, etc?
Arraya
April 28, 2010 @
10:47 AM
Sir, you were pulled over for Sir, you were pulled over for suspicion of illegally immigrating
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
10:51 AM
del del
briansd1
April 28, 2010 @
11:08 AM
In Britain, they’re upset In Britain, they’re upset about immigrants from Eastern Europe who are legal.
Like I said before, unauthorized aliens are not just from Mexico. We have plenty of Europeans here too. But they just blend in better. They don’t look like Mexicans. But those Europeans do fly in and never leave.
an
April 28, 2010 @
10:55 AM
Arraya wrote:Sir, you were [quote=Arraya]Sir, you were pulled over for suspicion of illegally immigrating[/quote]
If they did just that, isn’t that a good bases for a lawsuit?
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
11:07 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:Don’t [quote=afx114][quote=AN]Don’t you have to do that now when you get pulled over for speeding?[/quote]
Of course, and that’s fine. But it’s easy to exhibit symptoms of speeding — namely driving over the speed limit. Likewise, if you’re robbing a store or buying drugs, it’s pretty easy to tell when you are doing so. But can you explain to me how someone can exhibit symptoms of being an illegal immigrant?
I don’t have a problem with having to show ID when breaking the law. And yes, illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should show ID. The problem is how do you know who is illegal and who is not without resorting to things such as skin color, accent, last name, choice in food/beer/music/sportsteam, etc?[/quote]
Easier than you think.
So the CHP pulls someone over and no license.
“So you forgot your license? Okay. Do you know your license number? No. Do you know your social security number? No?” This is enough for Reasonable Suspicion.
“Okay sir. What high school did you go to? Ummm uhhhhh. What year did you graduate? Umm uhhhhh I didn’t graduate. What junior high did you go to? Ummm. Uhhh. What was the mascot?”
A good question for someone who claims to have naturalized is the date and place where this took place. Those who did legally are typically proud and can recite this info by heart.
The theme is simple life details that anyone can fire off in rapid succession.
The 10-29 and 10-28 that he ran on the license plate before pulling over the speeder shows who the car is registered to and if the car has been reported stolen. A release of liability is a red flag. If his name does not match, then obviously, red flag.
Being in a place known for alien smuggling, labor ect…is an articulable fact.
Probable Cause can be established as easily with a Russian illegal or a Guatemalan illegal or Mexican illegal. If our hypothetical Russian illegals are known to hang out in certain areas then that is an articulable fact without having to mention race. An answer to an officers question that is out of line with his or her experience is an articulable fact.
“Totality of the circumstances” was the theme that overturned a prior Ninth Circuit Court decision.
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
11:16 AM
sd_matt wrote:
“So you forgot [quote=sd_matt]
“So you forgot your license? Okay. Do you know your license number? No. Do you know your social security number? No?” This is enough for Reasonable Suspicion.
“Okay sir. What high school did you go to? Ummm uhhhhh. What year did you graduate? Umm uhhhhh I didn’t graduate. What junior high did you go to? Ummm. Uhhh. What was the mascot?”
A good question for someone who claims to have naturalized is the date and place where this took place. Those who did legally are typically proud and can recite this info by heart. [/quote]
And what then of the legal Mexican immigrant who is now a US citizen that didn’t attend school in their hometown Mexican pueblo? How do you verify their claimed naturalization date/place? You’d have them arrested then because they were going 75 in the 65 zone and they left their papers at home?
I said this earlier in the thread: I’m more concerned with how this bill will affect my fellow legal US citizens than how it will affect illegal immigrants.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
11:21 AM
afx114 wrote:sd_matt [quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]
“So you forgot your license? Okay. Do you know your license number? No. Do you know your social security number? No?” This is enough for Reasonable Suspicion.
“Okay sir. What high school did you go to? Ummm uhhhhh. What year did you graduate? Umm uhhhhh I didn’t graduate. What junior high did you go to? Ummm. Uhhh. What was the mascot?”
A good question for someone who claims to have naturalized is the date and place where this took place. Those who did legally are typically proud and can recite this info by heart. [/quote]
And what then of the legal Mexican immigrant who is now a US citizen that didn’t attend school in their hometown Mexican pueblo? How do you verify their claimed naturalization date/place? You’d have them arrested then because they were going 75 in the 65 zone and they left their papers at home?[/quote]
If the overall picture indicates probable cause then possibly yes.
Again….the totality of the circumstances.
Detain them (detain versus arrest is another discussion but from their perspective they are being arrested) and roll their prints to find out who they are. The records come back that the individual is indeed naturalized.
“Have a nice day sir”
Just one fact by itself can get an officer in trouble. It has to add up.
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
11:30 AM
sd_matt wrote:
If the overall [quote=sd_matt]
If the overall picture indicates probable cause then possibly yes.
Again….the totality of the circumstances.
Detain them (detain versus arrest is another discussion but from their perspective they are being arrested) and roll their prints to find out who they are. The records come back that the individual is indeed naturalized.
“Have a nice day sir”
Just one fact by itself can get an officer in trouble. It has to add up.[/quote]
I’m assuming then that the same standards will apply to a white English speaking person?
urbanrealtor
April 28, 2010 @
12:12 PM
afx114 wrote:sd_matt [quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]
If the overall picture indicates probable cause then possibly yes.
Again….the totality of the circumstances.
Detain them (detain versus arrest is another discussion but from their perspective they are being arrested) and roll their prints to find out who they are. The records come back that the individual is indeed naturalized.
“Have a nice day sir”
Just one fact by itself can get an officer in trouble. It has to add up.[/quote]
I’m assuming then that the same standards will apply to a white English speaking person?[/quote]
AFX:
You know as well as I do that white English speakers are inherently good and blameless.
That’s why the English banned the Irish language.
They were being compassionate.
Bill O’Reilly is a good example of how savages can be made to seem almost white (and civilized).
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
1:41 PM
AFX
The process would be the AFX
The process would be the same if it were Turkish or English immigrants. Any hint of race in the officer’s narrative (the officer’s account of the arrest) and the case goes bye bye.
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
2:16 PM
sd_matt wrote:The process [quote=sd_matt]The process would be the same if it were Turkish or English immigrants. Any hint of race in the officer’s narrative (the officer’s account of the arrest) and the case goes bye bye.[/quote]
You mean like “Russian illegals are known to hang out in certain areas” ?? Unless you can prove that only Russian illegals hang out in that certain area, I don’t see how it can be seen as anything but a hint of race.
Tell me, what ‘certain areas’ do Mexican illegals hang out at? Chula Vista? Home Depot? La Bodega? Soccer fields? What of the non-illegal Mexicans who also frequent those places?
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
2:43 PM
There was a good talk on KPBS There was a good talk on KPBS today about the bill with equal time from both sides. Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter and the ACLU’s Kevin Keenan. Some good clarifications about the actual bill:
afx114 wrote:sd_matt [quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]The process would be the same if it were Turkish or English immigrants. Any hint of race in the officer’s narrative (the officer’s account of the arrest) and the case goes bye bye.[/quote]
You mean like “Russian illegals are known to hang out in certain areas” ?? Unless you can prove that only Russian illegals hang out in that certain area, I don’t see how it can be seen as anything but a hint of race.
Tell me, what ‘certain areas’ do Mexican illegals hang out at? Chula Vista? Home Depot? La Bodega? Soccer fields? What of the non-illegal Mexicans who also frequent those places?[/quote]
I am stating how it currently works. You need only to state that a place is frequented by illegals. If you want to argue it then that’s your prerogative Brian Junior. Do a ride along with the police or the Border Patrol as you don’t seem to believe me.
UCGal
April 28, 2010 @
12:05 PM
A few thoughts as I recover A few thoughts as I recover from reading/skimming this very long thread.
With the exception of AZ (now) – it is not criminal to be in this country illegally. It is a civil offense. The same is true for hiring illegals. This law makes it a misdemeaner – and hence criminalizes it.
Drivers licenses and state IDs are only recently becoming proof of citizenship – part of the REALID act of 2008. Not all states are fully compliant, and licenses issue prior to 2008 may not have required proof. (Depends on the state.) So there are a whole lot of people who’s licenses are NOT proof of citizenship.
I’m of the pragmatic mind about illegal immigration:
– Protect the borders
– Clamp down hard – CRIMINALLY – for employers who hire illegals. This is everyone from large meat processing plants in the midwest to contractors who hire entire crews of undocumented workers to people who hire a cleaning person, babysitter/nanny, gardener. Make it criminal, not just a civil fine… something that goes on the employers record. If you do those things, illegal immigration would reverse.
In the meantime – harassing anyone with brown skin is NOT the way to go.
PCinSD
April 28, 2010 @
3:13 PM
UCGal wrote:
With the [quote=UCGal]
With the exception of AZ (now) – it is not criminal to be in this country illegally. It is a civil offense. The same is true for hiring illegals. This law makes it a misdemeaner – and hence criminalizes it.
[/quote]
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure it’s a federal criminal offense to be here illegally:
“Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
“Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.”
[quote=UCGal]
– Clamp down hard – CRIMINALLY – for employers who hire illegals. This is everyone from large meat processing plants in the midwest to contractors who hire entire crews of undocumented workers to people who hire a cleaning person, babysitter/nanny, gardener. Make it criminal, not just a civil fine… something that goes on the employers record. If you do those things, illegal immigration would reverse.
[/quote]
Same with this, I believe it is a crime to hire illegals:
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.”
And don’t forget the various IRS code violations which are likewise criminal in nature.
Aecetia
April 28, 2010 @
3:24 PM
UCG-
Then people need to UCG-
Then people need to start using E-verify.
E-Verify program confirming workers’ legal status grows in popularity despite concerns about the reliability of the Web-based U.S. program to block hiring of illegal immigrants, 1,000 new businesses are signing up each week, with nearly 10,000 in California enrolled.
The federal government’s E-Verify program, which seeks to reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants, is becoming increasingly popular, with 1,000 new businesses signing up each week despite concerns about its reliability.
More than 124,000 businesses, including nearly 10,000 in California, are signed up for the Web-based identification program that enables employers to check whether an employee is authorized to work, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Among the employers enrolled in the state are restaurants, hospitals and temporary employment agencies.
E-Verify program confirming workers’ legal status grows in popularity despite concerns about the reliability of the Web-based U.S. program to block hiring of illegal immigrants, 1,000 new businesses are signing up each week, with nearly 10,000 in California enrolled.
The federal government’s E-Verify program, which seeks to reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants, is becoming increasingly popular, with 1,000 new businesses signing up each week despite concerns about its reliability.
More than 124,000 businesses, including nearly 10,000 in California, are signed up for the Web-based identification program that enables employers to check whether an employee is authorized to work, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Among the employers enrolled in the state are restaurants, hospitals and temporary employment agencies.
I would think that this would be only as good as we have the manpower to execute it.
Or maybe random audits or inspections from ICE.
As to race profiling that is an easy one to get around. Your intel that you get from the apprehended illegals tells you who tends to hire them. And what’s more, this approach is not race profiling. And remember to word the question as “From what you have seen who hires undocumented laborers?” not “Who hires Mexican laborers?”
Afx are you listening?
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
3:25 PM
Last time I asked (about a Last time I asked (about a year ago) a 1324 typically requires 12 or more aliens to be smuggled for prosecutions to accept it. It’s the threshold they set. We don’t have the resources to prosecute everyone that is caught smuggling. The smugglers know this so they bring in 11 or less people, or whatever the current number is that is set by prosecutions. Smugglers do, however, lose their vehicle which is why most of them use pieces of crap to do it.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Coming in after a felony conviction is a felony. I think that is a 1326.
Since we are limited in prison space the more cost effective solution ( IMHO ) is better border enforcement. Then step up prosecutions for those few that get through.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
3:31 PM
sd_matt wrote:Last time I [quote=sd_matt]Last time I asked (about a year ago) a 1324 typically requires 12 or more aliens to be smuggled for prosecutions to accept it. It’s the threshold they set. We don’t have the resources to prosecute everyone that is caught smuggling. The smugglers know this so they bring in 11 or less people, or whatever the current number is that is set by prosecutions. Smugglers do, however, lose their vehicle which is why most of them use pieces of crap to do it.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Coming in after a felony conviction is a felony. I think that is a 1326.
Since we are limited in prison space the more cost effective solution ( IMHO ) is better border enforcement. Then step up prosecutions for those few that get through.[/quote]
Or perhaps a lottery system to see who gets prosecuted.
Aecetia
April 28, 2010 @
3:40 PM
As long as the government is As long as the government is ambivalent about enforcement of those who hire illegals, there will be no stopping the ingress. As long as the States harbor them with housing, food, welfare and health care they will continue to violate the law. This applies to all illegals, whether they are Eastern Europeans or those from South of the Border.
KSMountain
April 28, 2010 @
4:05 PM
Or even Northern Europeans. Or even Northern Europeans. I knew some Swedes who were overstaying their visas. They were well aware of it and fully expected to be sent back if they were ever caught.
In my mind, they were obviously as illegal as anyone else in the same situation. It has nothing to do with race. That lady holding the scale has a blindfold on.
If you chose to focus on Mexicans, and mention them specifically, then it is YOU who is being racist, by definition.
patientrenter
April 28, 2010 @
4:26 PM
KSMountain wrote:……I knew [quote=KSMountain]……I knew some Swedes who were overstaying their visas……..
If you chose to focus on Mexicans, and mention them specifically, then it is YOU who is being racist, by definition.[/quote]
I am always amazed at the crowds of Swedes hanging out outside Home Depot, looking to work for cash because they are here illegally. This illegal immigration is mainly a Swedish problem.
briansd1
April 28, 2010 @
9:55 AM
AN wrote:
How many illegal [quote=AN]
How many illegal immigrants who jump the border got their I94 or a passport stamp or a consular registration card?
[/quote]
Any Mexican citizen can obtain a consular card at the Mexican Consulate by presenting Mexican ID. They don’t need US identification.
[quote=AN]
With regarding to rental agreements, utility bills, etc. That can be easily attainable with the right amount of money.
[/quote]
Sure fake documents can be obtained… but are they verifiable? SDGE does keep records and landlords do too.
It’s up to the legislature to build in some verification process.
[quote=AN]
I never said they would fly straight to America. Even if they did, they could say they got mugged and lost all of their papers and give a brand new name so it’s not traceable.
[/quote]
If your relatives come from a country that has diplomatic relations with USA, then the information is traceable. Your relatives would have to provide names of parents, birth dates, birth place, etc…
BTW, entering Canada by plane gets you a passport stamp. The entering passenger is recorded in the Canadian database which then gets uploaded to Interpol. That’s how travelers are traced. Passport stamps are physical evidence for travelers but they are mostly for show.
FormerOwner
April 27, 2010 @
9:47 PM
Although, I don’t support Although, I don’t support people sneaking over the border illegally, I don’t think this type of Nazi-ism is the right way to stop it. I think if the federal government were serious about stopping illegal immigration, it would not be happening.
Anonymous
April 27, 2010 @
9:52 PM
I do hesitate to pull out the I do hesitate to pull out the much over-used Nazi analogy, but it is striking that this is only a step away from pinning stars onto chests.
air_ogi
April 27, 2010 @
10:03 PM
FormerOwner wrote:Although, I [quote=FormerOwner]Although, I don’t support people sneaking over the border illegally, I don’t think this type of Nazi-ism is the right way to stop it. I think if the federal government were serious about stopping illegal immigration, it would not be happening.[/quote]
It doesn’t even have to be federal government. If Arizona said that hiring an illegal immigrant is punishable by 6 months in prison, Arizona would lose 75% of its illegal population in less than a year.
gandalf
April 27, 2010 @
10:08 PM
That’s the truth. That’s the truth.
air_ogi
April 27, 2010 @
10:00 PM
In 2007, Arizona passed the In 2007, Arizona passed the what was termed the strictest employee verification law.
After 2 years in effect, number of businesses sanctioned is not many more than a handful, and only notable punishment was imposed on Subway franchise. The punishment was a fine of $431 and forced closure for 2 full days.
All businesses were provided with access to E-Verify, only something like 6% implemented it to screen employees.
Of course, politicians are not pushing this issue further, since business owner both vote and donate money.
The new law will be both ineffective and expensive. Law enforcement agencies will be stuck between lawsuits accusing them of racial profiling on one side and inaction on the other. Illegal immigrants deported will return quickly since there is no way that Arizona is willing to spend a boat load of money required to keep tens of thousands additional people in jail. And you can forget about tourism, especially from Mexico.
All in all, it is pretty funny how quickly the libertarians in Arizona are willing to beg for Big Brother when immigrants move in their neighborhoods.
nocommonsense
April 28, 2010 @
7:34 AM
As a legal asian immigrant, I As a legal asian immigrant, I support this law with mixed feelings. It took me 11 long hard years and a lot of sacrifices to get my green card. I did it because I love this country and respect her laws. Would I feel uncomfortable or even discriminated against should the police ask me for proof of legal status? I probably would. But the fact of the matter is the law needs to be enforced. The rule of law is part of what made this country so great in the first place. Let’s not forsake that.
To those immigrants who are opposed to this law: you should blame both parties, especially the democrats for lacking the courage to stand up to illegal immigration for fear of losing votes.
KSMountain
April 28, 2010 @
2:49 PM
nocommonsense wrote:As a [quote=nocommonsense]As a legal asian immigrant, I support this law with mixed feelings. It took me 11 long hard years and a lot of sacrifices to get my green card. I did it because I love this country and respect her laws. Would I feel uncomfortable or even discriminated against should the police ask me for proof of legal status? I probably would. But the fact of the matter is the law needs to be enforced. The rule of law is part of what made this country so great in the first place. Let’s not forsake that.
To those immigrants who are opposed to this law: you should blame both parties, especially the democrats for lacking the courage to stand up to illegal immigration for fear of losing votes.[/quote]
I liked this quote. Do we really want to reduce the requirements for citizenship to “just show up with $2500” as someone suggested earlier?
ocrenter
April 28, 2010 @
7:54 AM
I support this bill.
let I support this bill.
let Arizona experiment how a state will do without immigrants. As this law WILL deter immigrant of color legal or illegal from migrating to that state.
we all pay lip service that immigrants are really the backbone of this country’s continued success. but until a state actually go out on the limb and enact a law that discourage the arrival of new immigrants, we will never actually see the impact of continued immigration on our economy, good or bad.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
8:40 AM
Stockstrader
I’m with you. Stockstrader
I’m with you.
Wug….no way.
We will always need immigrants. If this country is going to continue to be great then we need to keep it full of good people like the one Stocktrader talked of.
I DISCRIMINATE WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE!!!!…..I discriminate against those who are pieces of crap. I want the best of Mexico not the worst. And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.
Brian
Quite correct we should do more to retain the talent that gets educated over here. As for the illegals….FUCK EM. If I went to Mexico to work I would expect to be in the underground. I would expect my gravy train to end at any time and plan accordingly. Yeah Mexico would be exploiting my cheap labor but I’m getting mine too.
IT GOES BOTH WAYS.
briansd1
April 28, 2010 @
9:14 AM
sd_matt wrote:
I DISCRIMINATE [quote=sd_matt]
I DISCRIMINATE WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE!!!!…..I discriminate against those who are pieces of crap. I want the best of Mexico not the worst.
[/quote]
[quote=sd_matt]
Brian
Quite correct we should do more to retain the talent that gets educated over here. As for the illegals….FUCK EM. [/quote]
Discriminating with a clear conscience is one way to do it. But that’s not the way we do it.
If we wanted the best, we would give Green Cards to those who have the most money and those who have the best education. That would be good immigration policy in my view.
But immigration is mostly based on family connection (children sponsoring parents, etc… ).
Immigration causes resentment from many citizens regardless of the people you allow in.
1) If you allow rich and educated people in, citizens will feel overwhelmed and complain that foreigners are causing inflation and driving up the curve.
2) If you allow poor immigrants in, then people will complain that the poor are lowering the standards for everyone.
The facts are that in order to have a healthy, dynamic, and growing economy, we need immigration of all kinds.
I’m predicting that as our public debt increases in the next few decades, congress will have no choice but to open up the door to more legal immigration.
I’m also predicting that there will eventually be an amnesty bill for unauthorized immigrants already in the country.
The politics are such that Obama may never sign an immigration bill. But the Congress and President after 2016 may not have a choice.
Anyway, time will tell…
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
9:34 AM
sd_matt wrote:And about half [quote=sd_matt]And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.[/quote]
Citation needed.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
10:22 AM
afx114 wrote:sd_matt [quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.[/quote]
Citation needed.[/quote]
Observation, I do the records checks on a regular basis.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
10:34 AM
sd_matt wrote:afx114 [quote=sd_matt][quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.[/quote]
Citation needed.[/quote]
Observation, I do the records checks on a regular basis.[/quote]
And keep in mind this is just my area of responsibility. Most of these people are labor. We rarely see drugs. Most of the drug trafficking is in Arizona. I imagine the cats that cross over there are much worse.
urbanrealtor
April 28, 2010 @
10:01 AM
So riddle me this:
Why don’t So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?
Enorah
April 28, 2010 @
10:04 AM
divide and conquer
us and divide and conquer
us and them
round and round we go
been there done that countless times on this planet
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
That’s the question. Same goes with drugs and prostitution. There are here regardless so why not generate some revenue?
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
10:44 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:So riddle [quote=urbanrealtor]So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
I don’t imagine any of the illegals will pay for what they already have. They suffer little consequences for crimes. At least not the consequences that an American citizen would. The current solution is to send them back over the border or formally deport them. It’s common to see three or more DUIs on a record without any prison time. I’ve seen up to five.
All who are caught are rolled and their records are checked. Federal,state and county. We know who most are already.
Typically it is only the aggravated felons that are prosecuted. The rest are sent back over the border. Many of the rest being multiple DUI, Domestic abuse or Possession or mixes of the three.
So they would simply ignore this too like many other laws since paying a coyote $1500 to $3000 to get smuggled back in is cheaper than $10K.
urbanrealtor
April 28, 2010 @
11:21 AM
sd_matt wrote:urbanrealtor [quote=sd_matt][quote=urbanrealtor]So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
I don’t imagine any of the illegals will pay for what they already have. They suffer little consequences for crimes. At least not the consequences that an American citizen would. The current solution is to send them back over the border or formally deport them. It’s common to see three or more DUIs on a record without any prison time. I’ve seen up to five.
All who are caught are rolled and their records are checked. Federal,state and county. We know who most are already.
Typically it is only the aggravated felons that are prosecuted. The rest are sent back over the border. Many of the rest being multiple DUI, Domestic abuse or Possession or mixes of the three.
So they would simply ignore this too like many other laws since paying a coyote $1500 to $3000 to get smuggled back in is cheaper than $10K.[/quote]
I actually came up with this idea while hanging with friends, several of which were illegals. Most have multiple jobs. They thought it would be a great idea. Getting a 4th job is a small price to pay for less fear (on the immigrants’ part) and some color of legal status.
So, in sum, i actually ran this past a focus group.
I think it would work.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
11:30 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:sd_matt [quote=urbanrealtor][quote=sd_matt][quote=urbanrealtor]So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
I don’t imagine any of the illegals will pay for what they already have. They suffer little consequences for crimes. At least not the consequences that an American citizen would. The current solution is to send them back over the border or formally deport them. It’s common to see three or more DUIs on a record without any prison time. I’ve seen up to five.
All who are caught are rolled and their records are checked. Federal,state and county. We know who most are already.
Typically it is only the aggravated felons that are prosecuted. The rest are sent back over the border. Many of the rest being multiple DUI, Domestic abuse or Possession or mixes of the three.
So they would simply ignore this too like many other laws since paying a coyote $1500 to $3000 to get smuggled back in is cheaper than $10K.[/quote]
I actually came up with this idea while hanging with friends, several of which were illegals. Most have multiple jobs. They thought it would be a great idea. Getting a 4th job is a small price to pay for less fear (on the immigrants’ part) and some color of legal status.
So, in sum, i actually ran this past a focus group.
I think it would work.[/quote]
I re-read your post. For those that only crossed and nothing else. Yeah possibly. Especially since the going for a coyote is going up lately. If it becomes easier/cheaper to cross in the future then that attitude would likely change.
I’ll put that question to my own “focus group” since is a rather large one and get back to you in a few months.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
11:38 AM
Brian
Well said about the Brian
Well said about the rich and poor. But you sidestepped my point.
Rich or poor, come here legally. Rewarding those who came here illegally ( a high percentage that are genuinely bad people )builds a future on a foundation of shit.
Rewarding those who break the rules, in all aspects, tears down society. I don’t think you grasp this.
Aecetia
April 28, 2010 @
12:00 PM
The Fall of Rome
Arnold J. The Fall of Rome
Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke
In contrast with the declining empire theories, historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the Roman Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception, and that the entire Imperial era was one of steady decay of institutions founded in Republican times. In their view, the Empire could never have lasted longer than it did without radical reforms that no Emperor could implement. The Romans had no budgetary system and thus wasted whatever resources they had available. The economy of the Empire was a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed élite exempt from taxation. With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.
There are two Americas for There are two Americas for people in AZ
1) the one where you don’t get carded by the police
2) the one where you do
AZ has never been shy about treating people of different colors differently. The law doesn’t surprise me but the illegals are not the cause of the US’s biggest problems. Crappy education, white collar greed (white guys in suits ripping off everyone) are much bigger issues but the rank and file simply don’t get it. So the pols hang illegal immigration and abortion to get you to vote against your interests while companies (run by who and governed by pols) ship jobs overseas and over the border.
Wake up
poorgradstudent
April 28, 2010 @
10:36 AM
There are parts of it I like. There are parts of it I like. On balance though, it’s a terrible law.
As written, it could cause an unreasonable amount of economic harm to legal immigrants and natural born citizens of Mexican descent. My friend, who was born in Mexico and married an American man and became a citizen, basically now has to carry a passport to go to ARIZONA. Good immigration laws protect the rights of citizens first. Going after illegals can only be done as a secondary priority.
All that said, here’s the part I LIKE:
“_ Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.”
You know how to solve the illegal immigration problem in this country? Target those who hire illegals. This includes all you who hire people of questionable legality to mow your lawns and clean your homes. Target employers with tough fines and random checks. Employers are expected to be able to provide SS Numbers and tax info for all employees.
Honestly, this bill is like treating a bacterial infection and fever by putting an ice bag on your head. Yeah, it may cool your head off, but it doesn’t really address the actual issue, employers.
KSMountain
April 28, 2010 @
3:05 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:My [quote=poorgradstudent]My friend, who was born in Mexico and married an American man and became a citizen, basically now has to carry a passport to go to ARIZONA.[/quote]
Do you really believe that, or is that just hyperbole? Don’t you think your friend would be just fine with a drivers license? Heck I bet even w/o a drivers license on her, she could verbally give her address or SSN and would be just fine.
It probably would never even get to that point though.
Let’s be honest: your friend will probably NEVER even be asked. Cops are pretty smart about picking up cues. They will likely know instantly by looking at her or just conversing briefly that she is a citizen.
sd_matt
April 28, 2010 @
3:13 PM
KSMountain [quote=KSMountain][quote=poorgradstudent]My friend, who was born in Mexico and married an American man and became a citizen, basically now has to carry a passport to go to ARIZONA.[/quote]
Do you really believe that, or is that just hyperbole? Don’t you think your friend would be just fine with a drivers license? Heck I bet even w/o a drivers license on her, she could verbally give her address or SSN and would be just fine.
It probably would never even get to that point though.
Let’s be honest: your friend will probably NEVER even be asked. Cops are pretty smart about picking up cues. They will likely know instantly by looking at her or just conversing briefly that she is a citizen.[/quote]
Quite correct.
Coronita
April 28, 2010 @
11:26 AM
So this is interesting. How So this is interesting. How do police figure out who is “suspiciously illegal”?
Anonymous
April 28, 2010 @
4:38 PM
I think it is funny that this I think it is funny that this is so divisive. Racism being thrown around. Fascism??? On the other side we have the 70% of AZ populace who are in favor of this. Seems similar to the CA prop 187 which won with the same type numbers. I read all of your comments and agree with a lot of what you all say. There is no panacea. All things must be done. E-verify, clamp down on the border (Hard-UCG said), bust the employers, and unfortunately because the Fed’s have dropped the ball for so long, the states must make their laws to protect themselves.
I hope though that sooner rather than later that this 600lb gorilla (or maybe a burro) in the room is talked about and the tough issues are settled. The Dem’s want voters we know that. The repub’s want the cheap labor (and no unions), I get it. But everybody cannot keep paying for these problems. I guarantee Obama comes to the rescue this year with amnesty as a way to save social security. Just looking to the future to see where we are going and you heard it here first, maybe not first but I think I was first. Prepare for the debate on that one.
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
5:19 PM
PlnrBoy wrote:I guarantee [quote=PlnrBoy]I guarantee Obama comes to the rescue this year with amnesty as a way to save social security.[/quote]
I heard as much from Robert Reich on a radio editorial he did on NPR. His argument was that Social Security is broke because there are more old people than young people, and first world nations don’t produce young people in the amounts that third world nations do. His solution was to open the immigration floodgates and let millions and millions of young people from third world countries come here legally. They enter the workforce, pay taxes, and save social security for all the old retired first worlders.
I bet that’s what we’ll see coming down the pipes soon. Not sure if it will be “amnesty” but definitely an increase in immigration numbers sold as a fix for Social Security.
Aecetia
April 28, 2010 @
7:52 PM
I think you are correct, but I think you are correct, but fixing one problem with another problem might create more problems down the line.
Hobie
April 28, 2010 @
8:14 PM
Absolutely Aecetia. But Absolutely Aecetia. But politicians have a tendency to not support real solutions that may jeopardize their career.
Ricechex
April 28, 2010 @
8:51 PM
This reminds me of Prop 187 This reminds me of Prop 187 as well. The problem I had with 187 is that it mandated teachers to seek out the illegal students and report them. The teachers job is to teach, and so dumping this on teachers was certainly not right IMO.
The AZ law is similar by dumping the problem on police. The police are supposed to “protect” and they shouldn’t be out searching for illegals to report.
I think the reason that Prop 187 passed overwhelmingly is because people were angry about illegals, and were grabbing at any straws to stop the problem. It is the same today. They are still angry, nothing has been done in 20 years, so any measure seems like it is a move in the right direction.
As 187, it will likely be deemed unconstitutional and if not, it will be ineffective and taking up our officers’ time arresting illegals. Of course, perhaps it is a back door so that the TPTB can hire more police….
Stockstrader: Interesting post. Matt_SD: also interesting posts. We know what we see and experience, and one can call it racism (and it very well may be) but we know who we work with. It does shape our beliefs.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
9:00 AM
PlnrBoy wrote:I guarantee [quote=PlnrBoy]I guarantee Obama comes to the rescue this year with amnesty as a way to save social security. Just looking to the future to see where we are going and you heard it here first, maybe not first but I think I was first. Prepare for the debate on that one.[/quote]
If Obama wants to get reelected, he would be smart to stay away from this hot potato. Or at least let the Republicans propose a bill first so that they can’t make political hay out of opposing a Democratic sponsored bill.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
9:16 AM
PlnrBoy wrote:On the other [quote=PlnrBoy]On the other side we have the 70% of AZ populace who are in favor of this. Seems similar to the CA prop 187 which won with the same type numbers. [/quote]
Prop 187 was a godsend for Democrats. It drove social conservative Latinos (Catholics with good “family values”) into the arms of the Democrats. It turned California pretty solidly blue.
Pete Wilson though he won a big victory with Prop 187 but it undermined his administration and legacy. It might have cost him the presidency.
This AZ law will solidify Latino support of the Democrats for the another generation.
hipmatt
April 28, 2010 @
10:59 PM
heck ya, good law, not heck ya, good law, not inhumane. CA needs this law even worse.
DWCAP
April 29, 2010 @
1:29 AM
This thread is a good thing. This thread is a good thing. With all the yelling and headline seaking, actually talking about this is a very good thing in my opinion. That is one of the things that keeps me coming back to the pigg. It may get loud and stupid, but atleast it doesnt get quiet, that is when I get really scared.
I am torn on this issue. I am dating an immigrant, litterally born in a grass roofed hut. She immigrated legally, went to school in a REALLY seedy neighborhood, went to college with no help, and has made a total success of herself. It is one of things I find most attractive about her. Irronically many of her ‘yellow’ immigrant bretherin are smoking mad about the whole classification of the issue. They feel cheated, becuase apparently the laws and regulations of this land only apply to those born far away from it. If not, then it is ok, no biggie. Special treatment for those who can demand it seems to be the rule of the decade.
My big problem with the ‘solution’ of ammenesty is that it isnt a solution. I want to know how the next round will be any different than the first. ‘We’ll let in the people who have been here a long time, but not the new commers’, didnt work out so well cause we are right back where we started from. I want a real solution, not another ‘kick the can 15 years down the road’ solution. Going after buisnesses sounds great and all, but it requires funding and manpower. You can bet that will not be a popular devision in the police force. First thing cut in a budget cut will be that one. And what is the punishment of picking up a little illegal labor? $500 fine? What did it cost to hire the cop and run the operation that caught it? $50k?
I also disagree with the notion that there are jobs people wont do, and that is why we need immigrants. I feel there are jobs people wont do, FOR THAT WAGE. Id pick tomatoes for $200/hr. I have very good friends who pick tomatoes for far less than that now. Thing is, they pick those tomatoes/lettuce/produce, and then take them back to the lab for analysis. It is the analysis they get paid for. But ive been in the fields, ive seen what they do, and I feel I could do it, for the right price. $7/hr is not the right price.
And this comes back to why I think the Federal government hasnt really done anything about this issue. The rewards/costs are not evenly distributed. Most taxes illigal immigrants pay are sales taxes or federal, SS and medicade and such. Most benifits they get are state/local based, health care and police/fire and such. Plus the cheap labor provided to the economy helps keep inflation down. Federal/national benifits, with state/local costs. No wonder states are rebelling at a time like this.
Having said all that, I am blonde hair and blue eyed and have been profiled. No way you can tell me that being stopped 4 times in one night, never getting a ticket or anything, catching 3 cops lying to my face about why they pulled me over wasnt profiling. (4th just didnt say) Old HS friend of mine is a sherrif now back home, and he talks all the time about how kids today ‘need to learn their lesson’. They had a mini-rash of DUI deaths and were out to ‘protect’ me, cause everyone knows that the 18 year old in the truck is a drunk driver. I ended up begging the last one to call my parents after he threatened to ‘check up on me’. Begging. Cause then he could explain to my parents what he was doing, and what the other 3 cops had been doing, and WTF was going on. Only time in my life I have seen a cop run back to his squad car to get away.
(BTW, that was during a first date for me. Great night that was! Thanks for letting me take you out, hope you liked meeting all those cops!)
I understand the anger and frustration that comes with this kinda behavior. I can see why opponents of this bill will automatically assume that every cop out there will start driving by the soccer fields and looking for guys names Jose. I think it is funny that they assume it only happens to them, but it is such a not funny topic it has no humor.
So I am torn. Anything that opens the door to the behavior the police are being accused of commiting in the future makes me remember that night, fuming. But just sticking our heads in the sand doesnt work either.
Problem is, this is a problem with no good solutions.
afx114
April 29, 2010 @
8:18 AM
Nice post DWCAP. Sums things Nice post DWCAP. Sums things up nicely.
Let us remind him of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Apparently he believes that rights should be hereditary rather than inalienable.
meadandale
April 29, 2010 @
8:35 AM
The 14th amendment was never The 14th amendment was never intended to give ‘anchor babies’ citizenship.
afx114
April 29, 2010 @
8:48 AM
meadandale wrote:The 14th [quote=meadandale]The 14th amendment was never intended to give ‘anchor babies’ citizenship.[/quote]
Then put forth an amendment to repeal the 14th amendment. As sd_matt so eloquently put above: “I am stating how it currently works. If you want to argue it then that’s your prerogative Brian Junior.”
moneymaker
April 29, 2010 @
9:13 AM
I spoke with a border patrol I spoke with a border patrol agent a while back and he said “if the illegals that they are chasing make it to an industrial park or residential neighborhhod then they have to stop chasing them”. Whether this is because the border patrol doesn’t want to be seen as permeating our neighborhoods or some little loop hole in the law I don’t know. It is precisely because of policies like this though that I believe Arizona felt compelled to pass their enforcement code. I remember when i first found out, law enforcement could not arrest illegals for being here illegally, I was flabbergasted. Currently there are 31 countries that are listed as dangerous to travel to, 2 of them are not in Africa or the Middle-east, 1 of those 2 countries is Mexico.
Let us remind him of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Apparently he believes that rights should be hereditary rather than inalienable.[/quote]
I believe Duncan Hunter went too far suggesting ‘deporting’ US citizens, however, you can legally be effectively deported if you are a minor if both parents are deported. Just separation of family is NOT considered ‘undue hardship’.
nocommonsense
April 29, 2010 @
8:37 AM
Is America the only country Is America the only country on earth where enforcing its law to protect its borders and deporting aliens are considered evil?
This notion is so rediculous that it surppasses the point of being commical in my eyes as someone who grew up in another country.
I fear this stupidity will eventually bring America down. Unfortunately I think this decaying process is already well underway.
meadandale
April 29, 2010 @
8:44 AM
nocommonsense wrote:Is [quote=nocommonsense]Is America the only country on earth where enforcing its law to protect its borders and deporting aliens are considered evil?
This notion is so rediculous that it surppasses the point of being commical in my eyes as someone who grew up in another country.
I fear this stupidity will eventually bring America down. Unfortunately I think this decaying process is already well underway.[/quote]
And ironically, all of the European countries that we seem so eager to emulate don’t have birthright citizenship (14th amendment) like we do and have much stronger border and immigration enforcement.
Casca
April 29, 2010 @
1:35 PM
Ahhhh, time to resort to a Ahhhh, time to resort to a time-tested model. These folks should be transported far far away to a hostile and forbidding place. Some of the more remote areas of Afghanistan come to mind. It’s a land of opportunity, and they shouldn’t have much problem in subjugating the locals.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
1:58 PM
Casca wrote:Ahhhh, time to [quote=Casca]Ahhhh, time to resort to a time-tested model. These folks should be transported far far away to a hostile and forbidding place. Some of the more remote areas of Afghanistan come to mind. It’s a land of opportunity, and they shouldn’t have much problem in subjugating the locals.[/quote]
Maybe you’re talking about the Indian Removal Act that forcibly moved the Cherokees from Georgia to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears.
What tested model are you referring to?
ibjames
April 29, 2010 @
1:47 PM
Some nurse just called into Some nurse just called into the talk show I am listening to and was talking about how illegals come in all the time pregnant. She said she sees it over and over and they sit down on the bed and say “guess what, I’m pregnant” with a smile on their face and the next sentence is “Can you go get me an application for Cash Aid”. She also has to learn Spanish.
We need more immigration laws, that is a fact.
I have a friend that is in the process right now, she is from Brazil, she has an education, white collar professional. Has payed 15k in fees.
She applauds AZ, and hopes more states will follow. The US is the only place that illegal immigrants walk down the street in a rally and demand their rights..
We are going to PC ourselves to death, afraid someone’s feelings get hurt.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
1:59 PM
ibjames wrote:
I have a [quote=ibjames]
I have a friend that is in the process right now, she is from Brazil, she has an education, white collar professional. Has payed 15k in fees.
[/quote]
If she’s from Brazil and has no relatives in America to sponsor her, she has only a few legal solutions.
1) Get a job with an employer that will sponsor her. The employer may require that she pays the legals fees for a Green Card application.
2) Get married to a citizen.
3) Remain as a foreign student and pay foreign tuition fees. But then she can’t work.
4) Political asylum is unlikely for someone from Brazil.
5) Go back home and wait in line for an immigrant visa.
If it’s not any of the above she’s likely wasting her money in legal fees.
all
April 29, 2010 @
2:19 PM
briansd1 wrote:ibjames [quote=briansd1][quote=ibjames]
I have a friend that is in the process right now, she is from Brazil, she has an education, white collar professional. Has payed 15k in fees.
[/quote]
If she’s from Brazil and has no relatives in America to sponsor her, she has only a few legal solutions.
1) Get a job with an employer that will sponsor her. The employer may require that she pays the legals fees for a Green Card application.
2) Get married to a citizen.
3) Remain as a foreign student and pay foreign tuition fees. But then she can’t work.
4) Political asylum is unlikely for someone from Brazil.
5) Go back home and wait in line for an immigrant visa.
If it’s not any of the above she’s likely wasting her money in legal fees.[/quote]
As white collar professional she is likely 1)
Employment based immigrants are generally more hostile towards illegals than citizens. Attempts to speed up the process for EB’s are silently sabotaged by the Hispanic caucus and the consequences for EB’s are very real and personal.
The immigration issue is complex and there is no good will to get it resolved. It is also very profitable for attorneys, politicos and Ag and other low-skill labor-intensive businesses. There can be no amnesty with ‘anchor babies’ and ‘chain migration’ in place.
And citing Mexican rules is silly since no one here really wants to be Mexico, but those who hail Canadian, German, Japanese or UK health system as more just to be equally amicable towards implementing their immigration rules and procedures.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
2:36 PM
captcha wrote:those who hail [quote=captcha]those who hail Canadian, German, Japanese or UK health system as more just to be equally amicable towards implementing their immigration rules and procedures.[/quote]
Can’t we pick and choose and implement the best?
BTW, immigration rules and procedures are different from constitutionally defined citizenship.
To stop chain migration, we’d have change the law to limit family reunification quotas and increase merit (income or profession) based immigration.
Stopping chain migration would mean that citizens would have to wait decades to sponsor their foreign parents or children (just like siblings now have to wait decades).
To stop anchor babies, we’d have to forcibly prevent foreigners from having babies on US soil. Or we’d have to change the constitution.
all
April 29, 2010 @
3:23 PM
briansd1 wrote:captcha [quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]those who hail Canadian, German, Japanese or UK health system as more just to be equally amicable towards implementing their immigration rules and procedures.[/quote]
Can’t we pick and choose and implement the best?
[/quote]
Sure. Pick any and implement it.
[quote=briansd1]BTW, immigration rules and procedures are different from constitutionally defined citizenship.
To stop chain migration, we’d have change the law to limit family reunification quotas and increase merit (income or profession) based immigration.
Stopping chain migration would mean that citizens would have to wait decades to sponsor their foreign parents or children (just like siblings now have to wait decades).
To stop anchor babies, we’d have to forcibly prevent foreigners from having babies on US soil. Or we’d have to change the constitution.[/quote]
Right. Which is why I say another amnesty cannot happen. You want to legalize 11MM unskilled illegals who will bring in their 11MM parents, 22MM children and put tens of millions more in family-based line? With 20% unemployment in Michigan and 12% unemployment in California? Who will feed and provide health care for all those people?
There is just no way that happens. It did not happen with Bush as a president and Democratic majority. It will never happen.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
4:10 PM
captcha wrote:
There is just [quote=captcha]
There is just no way that happens. It did not happen with Bush as a president and Democratic majority. It will never happen.[/quote]
Never say never.
I’ll take some political and economic stars to get aligned for amnesty to happen.
I think that it will happen.
Remember that the unauthorized immigrants who are here already are having citizen children, those children in a couple decades will have children of their own; so eventually, they will be legalized through family reunification. So why not legalize them now and make them part of the economy and society?
There is just no way that happens. It did not happen with Bush as a president and Democratic majority. It will never happen.[/quote]
Never say never.
I’ll take some political and economic stars to get aligned for amnesty to happen.
I think that it will happen.
Remember that the unauthorized immigrants who are here already are having citizen children, those children in a couple decades will have children of their own; so eventually, they will be legalized through family reunification. So why not legalize them now and make them part of the economy and society?
We many not like it, but that’s the way it is.[/quote]
DREAM act was too sensitive issue in 2007. That one is an easy one to swallow and the times were good. It will be easier to get states to secede than to get another amnesty.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
2:08 PM
ibjames wrote: they sit down [quote=ibjames] they sit down on the bed and say “guess what, I’m pregnant” with a smile on their face and the next sentence is “Can you go get me an application for Cash Aid”. [/quote]
haha, that’s pretty good. And 18 years from now, the then adults will be able to sponsor their parents.
But having babies in America is nothing new. Wealthy Chinese, Taiwanese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, Israelis, etc… fly here and have babies too.
Don’t we have the best health care in the world?
And if you want your children to go to an American university eventually, then why not make them Americans by birth?
I suppose that we want rich folks be American citizens, so that’s not a problem.
all
April 29, 2010 @
2:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:ibjames wrote: [quote=briansd1][quote=ibjames] they sit down on the bed and say “guess what, I’m pregnant” with a smile on their face and the next sentence is “Can you go get me an application for Cash Aid”. [/quote]
haha, that’s pretty good. And 18 years from now, the then adults will be able to sponsor their parents.
But having babies in America is nothing new. Wealthy Chinese, Taiwanese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, Israelis, etc… fly here and have babies too.
Don’t we have the best health care in the world?
And if you want your children to go to an American university eventually, then why not make them Americans by birth?
I suppose that we want rich folks be American citizens, so that’s not a problem.[/quote]
That’s not how it works.
There is no specific regulations prohibiting pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S., but the entry is allowed or denied at the discretion of the admitting CBP officer.
If the officer determines that you have insufficient funds to cover your possible medical expenses you will be denied entry (even with a valid visitor’s visa).
Coming to the U.S. for the purpose of child birth is not a valid reason for travel.
Edit: I don’t see a problem with trying to attract the best and brightest, as opposed to worst and dimmest. I’m noticing that it is getting harder, though.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
2:45 PM
captcha wrote:
That’s not how [quote=captcha]
That’s not how it works.
There is no specific regulations prohibiting pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S., but the entry is allowed or denied at the discretion of the admitting CBP officer.
If the officer determines that you have insufficient funds to cover your possible medical expenses you will be denied entry (even with a valid visitor’s visa).
Coming to the U.S. for the purpose of child birth is not a valid reason for travel.
Edit: I don’t see a problem with trying to attract the best and brightest, as opposed to worst and dimmest. I’m noticing that it is getting harder, though.[/quote]
I never said anything to the contrary. Who’s going to say that they’re coming to America to give birth?
A Mexican with a border crossing card could easily say that she’s coming for shopping which could be true. Then she has the baby at Father Joe’s in Barrio Logan.
An Israeli could be coming here for business. Then she has a baby at Cedars-Sinai while here.
all
April 29, 2010 @
3:11 PM
briansd1 wrote:captcha [quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]
That’s not how it works.
There is no specific regulations prohibiting pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S., but the entry is allowed or denied at the discretion of the admitting CBP officer.
If the officer determines that you have insufficient funds to cover your possible medical expenses you will be denied entry (even with a valid visitor’s visa).
Coming to the U.S. for the purpose of child birth is not a valid reason for travel.
Edit: I don’t see a problem with trying to attract the best and brightest, as opposed to worst and dimmest. I’m noticing that it is getting harder, though.[/quote]
I never said anything to the contrary. Who’s going to say that they’re coming to America to give birth?
A Mexican with a border crossing card could easily say that she’s coming for shopping which could be true. Then she has the baby at Father Joe’s in Barrio Logan.
An Israeli could be coming here for business. Then she has a baby at Cedars-Sinai while here.[/quote]
Did you read everything or just the last sentence? It is the Customs and Border Protection officer’s job to establish that the person entering the country has sufficient funds to cover possible medical expenses.
I seriously doubt that many are let in by CBP officers while in labor – having a baby is not as easy as doing #2. I suspect that they break the rules by overstaying or crossing illegally.
The imaginary Israeli, while possibility, is less frequent and less likely to happen – for starter, airlines won’t let you board beyond 35 weeks of pregnancy. Also, CBP at the airports are not known for being mellow. People with valid visa’s and from visa waiver countries frequently feel as being harassed at their port of entry, not welcomed. Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you can cover your medical expenses you won’t be let in.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
3:56 PM
captcha wrote:People with [quote=captcha]People with valid visa’s and from visa waiver countries frequently feel as being harassed at their port of entry, not welcomed. Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you can cover your medical expenses you won’t be let in.[/quote]
captcha, I travel all the time, and when you enter the USA, the CBP just pose a few questions. I’ve observed the tourists entering while waiting for luggage and while waiting in line (at LAX, past the immigration control are the carousels to wait for luggage. From there you can see the immigration booths and the people getting processed). Foreigners give a thumb print and get a picture taken and might be ask a couple questions. The process is about 3 minutes.
Most tourists get a 6 month stay.
At the Mexico border, everyday, people with border passes are just waved through. It would be easy to just come, stay few weeks and have a baby, then just walk back across the border.
I’m not saying that foreign women having babies in America is a rampant problem. It’s not. But if a woman wants to do it; it’s not hard, especially if she has money.
all
April 29, 2010 @
4:20 PM
briansd1 wrote:captcha [quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]People with valid visa’s and from visa waiver countries frequently feel as being harassed at their port of entry, not welcomed. Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you can cover your medical expenses you won’t be let in.[/quote]
captcha, I travel all the time, and when you enter the USA, the CBP just pose a few questions. I’ve observed the tourists entering while waiting for luggage and while waiting in line (at LAX, past the immigration control are the carousels to wait for luggage. From there you can see the immigration booths and the people getting processed). Foreigners give a thumb print and get a picture taken and might be ask a couple questions. The process is about 3 minutes.
Most tourists get a 6 month stay.
[/quote]
Brian,
you are mistaken on more than one count. There are many forums on the Internet where people share their experience with CBP and consular officers. Many in English. IF you wish you can learn more easily.
A number of travelers is held for additional questioning, where they wait for hours and are not allowed to communicate with the outside world. If anyone is waiting for them the person waiting is given no information. Not even the acknowledgment that the traveler has landed alive. No interpreter is provided and the officers speak English and some Spanish. While it might seem routine for you, it is very stressful for the traveler.
If you are from a country covered by the visa waiver program you can stay no longer than 90 days (without a visa). More than once a person from a VWP country (all rich allies) was denied entry. In few instances it happened to high-profile caucasian Europeans.
If you do need visa you have additional stress of getting one. Again, easy to find stories of people being denied. When you are denied visa you are given no meaningful explanation and there is no appeal. You can be denied visa in spite of history of numerous short stays in the U.S.
There were stories in the local media about the U.S. becoming less popular destination among tourists, which is counter-intuitive since weak dollar makes it more affordable destination.
And I am talking as a western-european. You should talk to an Indian.
[quote=briansd1]At the Mexico border, everyday, people with border passes are just waved through. It would be easy to just come, stay few weeks and have a baby, then just walk back across the border.
I’m not saying that foreign women having babies in America is a rampant problem. It’s not. But if a woman wants to do it; it’s not hard, especially if she has money.[/quote]
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
4:37 PM
captcha wrote:
A number of [quote=captcha]
A number of travelers is held for additional questioning, where they wait for hours and are not allowed to communicate with the outside world. If anyone is waiting for them the person waiting is given no information. Not even the acknowledgment that the traveler has landed alive. No interpreter is provided and the officers speak English and some Spanish. While it might seem routine for you, it is very stressful for the traveler. [/quote]
True. I know a woman from England who was detained and sent back because she had previously overstayed. Overstaying was never a problem before 9/11 but after 9/11 they would ban visitors for 10 years for overstaying.
She was detained in a room with hot dogs and soft drinks. Then she was put on a plane back. The flight attendant kept her passport until they landed in London.
But if a woman really wants her child to be born an American citizen, she may even feel that a 10-year ban for overstaying is a good trade-off.
Of the millions of passengers who arrive very few are detained. It’s the airlines jobs to stop them before they even are allowed to board the plane in the country of origin; otherwise the airlines are responsible for flying them back (and that’s costly).
There is no way of knowing if a woman is pregnant. Europeans and Asians look thinner than Americans even when pregnant.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
7:19 PM
briansd1 wrote:
There is no [quote=briansd1]
There is no way of knowing if a woman is pregnant. Europeans and Asians look thinner than Americans even when pregnant.[/quote]
True. Americans are typically the fattest in the room.
NotCranky
April 29, 2010 @
8:14 PM
I haven’t read the whole I haven’t read the whole thread. Did anyone bring up the idea of legal actions against landlords who rent to illegals? I am actually not anti-immigrant including “illegal”. Just makes me wonder why this doesn’t get brought up as a crucial “check point”.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
8:23 PM
Russell wrote: Did anyone [quote=Russell] Did anyone bring up the idea of legal actions against landlords who rent to illegals? I am actually not anti-immigrant including “illegal”.[/quote]
I think that there was an ordinance in San Diego County some years ago that was overturned.
But how would you enforce it?
If a tourist has a 6 month visa to USA, can you sign a 1 year lease? How would the landlord know?
How about a foreign student who comes here signs a 2 year lease but then drops out of school and overstays his student visa?
I believe outsourcing enforcement onto businesses and landlord is just non-workable.
Eugene
April 29, 2010 @
8:27 PM
Russell wrote:I haven’t read [quote=Russell]I haven’t read the whole thread. Did anyone bring up the idea of legal actions against landlords who rent to illegals? I am actually not anti-immigrant including “illegal”. Just makes me wonder why this doesn’t get brought up as a crucial “check point”.[/quote]
Escondido tried to implement exactly that in 2006, there was public outcry, the city immediately got sued by ACLU, spent $300,000 on lawyers, and ended up dropping the ordinance.
To this day, Escondido is considered “hostile” to illegals (which is ironic, considering that it’s probably home to one of the biggest concentrations of illegals in the county), mostly because of that failed attempt, another failed attempt to impose restrictions on curbside parking, and periodic random traffic checkpoints.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
8:29 PM
This article correctly This article correctly concludes that Arizona’s new law is Constitutional and balanced:
It corrects a lot of the wrong assumptions about the law made by the elitist media and ignorant, misinformed Pigglets.
CA renter
April 29, 2010 @
9:58 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I’m not [quote=briansd1]
I’m not saying that foreign women having babies in America is a rampant problem. It’s not. But if a woman wants to do it; it’s not hard, especially if she has money.[/quote]
Brian,
You might want to check with local hospitals to verify that it’s “not rampant.”
When we were having our first baby, one of the nurses said that we were the only insured family on the floor, and all the rooms were full. She said most of the other mothers were illegal immigrants. I don’t know how she determined it, but she was (a legal) Mexican, so she probably knew how to differentiate between legal and illegal residents.
She said it was a very big problem at that hospital, and said that illegal immigration was one of the primary reasons the hospital had financial problems.
andymajumder
April 29, 2010 @
4:04 PM
This is very difficult, 99% This is very difficult, 99% of time an immigration officer will not allow someone with a tourist visa who is visibly pregnant. Its not as easy as you suggest for someone from another country to come here legally and give birth to their child while on a tourist visa
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
4:23 PM
andymajumder wrote:This is [quote=andymajumder]This is very difficult, 99% of time an immigration officer will not allow someone with a tourist visa who is visibly pregnant. [/quote]
What is visibly pregnant? Does fat qualify?
Everyday, I see visibly pregnant women who are simply fat.
If you have 5 or 6 months, you can do it, easily.
Alternatively, a women could cross the border, not yet pregnant, have sex, overstay, have the baby, then walk back. Nobody would be the wiser.
I’m not condoning this in any way; I’m not even claiming that it’s a huge problem that we even need to address.
I don’t think that poor people are that smart and calculating. I believe that rich folks are much more so.
It’s just an observation on the possibilities.
looking
April 29, 2010 @
5:02 PM
andymajumder wrote:This is [quote=andymajumder]This is very difficult, 99% of time an immigration officer will not allow someone with a tourist visa who is visibly pregnant. Its not as easy as you suggest for someone from another country to come here legally and give birth to their child while on a tourist visa[/quote]
Although you may be correct, my OB/GYN was telling me how he had several couples who do no live here who were contacting him because he would be the one deliverying their babies here in the US. He said their rationale was that then the kids would be US citizens. I believe these parents were wealthy Europeans.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
1:59 PM
I wrote that BO would offer I wrote that BO would offer amnesty to save social security. I still believe he will. He will get the hispanic vote, he will get a large over the hill vote, and he already has the bleeding heart vote. thos independant and one issue voters will then go his way in 2012, that is why he is mad becuase this brings it to the forefront now and not in a year or two when he wanted to suggest it. He may be right, it maybe the only way to save Social security for the boomers. Who else will pay for it?
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
8:44 PM
PlnrBoy wrote:I wrote that BO [quote=PlnrBoy]I wrote that BO would offer amnesty to save social security. I still believe he will.
[/quote]
Bill Clinton said so.
Meanwhile, former President Bill Clinton waded into the debate on Wednesday with the bravado of someone never facing election again.
“I don’t think there’s any alternative but for us to increase immigration,” he said, both to help the economy grow and to fix the long-term finances of Medicare and Social Security.
“I just don’t see a way out of this unless that’s part of the strategy,” he added in his remarks at a meeting on fiscal policy in Washington.
He will get the hispanic vote, he will get a large over the hill vote, and he already has the bleeding heart vote. thos independant and one issue voters will then go his way in 2012, that is why he is mad becuase this brings it to the forefront now and not in a year or two when he wanted to suggest it. He may be right, it maybe the only way to save Social security for the boomers. Who else will pay for it?[/quote]
Why would BO get the senior vote? They already get social security. They’ll be dead before SS runs out of money.
Why would independents vote for BO over immigration reform? I think that independents are generally anti-immigration. They are pissed enough with H1B work visas already.
I actually believe that the general population is not for immigration reform, which in my mind includes amnesty.
The general population doesn’t understand the issues. They are only concerned with their jobs and families and they see new immigrants as deteriorating their way of life — only another annoying foreign radio station to wade through, except when they need yard work and house cleaning.
It will take real leadership to achieve real reform. Or eventually, the events will dictate change. In that respect, immigration is like debt, spending and financial reform.
CA renter
April 29, 2010 @
10:07 PM
briansd1 wrote:
The general [quote=briansd1]
The general population doesn’t understand the issues. They are only concerned with their jobs and families and they see new immigrants as deteriorating their way of life — only another annoying foreign radio station to wade through, except when they need yard work and house cleaning.
It will take real leadership to achieve real reform. Or eventually, the events will dictate change. In that respect, immigration is like debt, spending and financial reform.[/quote]
You’re making the assumption that YOU understand the issues better than “the general population.” What makes you so convinced your understanding is superior to those who oppose illegal immigration? Has it ever occurred to you that THEY might understand it better than you do?
I’ve lived here all my life, and while we’ve always had illegal immigrants in California, their population has grown tremendously over the past couple of decades. Ask anyone who’s been here awhile if they think it’s better now than it was then.
Like others have already mentioned, teenagers, less educated adults, seniors, etc. were all doing these jobs before, and they’re perfectly capable of doing them again. I’d much rather pay more for my groceries or domestic help if it meant that these workers (legal immigrants and U.S. citizens) could live a better life, and if we could avoid all the problems that come with illegal immigration.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to our country. If you have any such evidence, please share it.
CricketOnTheHearth
April 29, 2010 @
10:33 PM
When I left Michigan 15 years When I left Michigan 15 years ago, all the landscaping at the apartment complexes and office complexes was done by Caucasian, citizen Michiganders. These were usually males in their 20’s or so. Same with busboys in restaurants; one of my college classmates worked in the dishroom of a local restaurant (he was a Jewish kid from back east).
The people doing these jobs all seemed to be decently well-fed, working-class, and appeared to make enough to live in decent apartments (albeit, rent is much cheaper in Michigan!)
The argument is that “these illegals do work that Americans won’t do.” I think with the exception of backbreaking tomato-picking agricultural work, this is BS.
The truth is, Americans *will* do these jobs, *if* you pay them a wage for it they can live on. However if you pay them $2/hr like these employers do the poor Mexicans/Oaxacans/Guatemalans/etc that do it here in CA, the American citizens will say “no thanks”. Because they don’t want to live on a mattress in a room with 5 other people, in an apartment with 10 people in it.
Then there’s the factor, mentioned by others above, that these illegal immigrants are literally stealing bread out of the mouths of legal immigrants who went through the process and did everything they were supposed to. One of my most enlightening conversations was with a Hispanic guy about Prop 187; who fully supported it and expressed great anger at illegals.
NotCranky
April 29, 2010 @
11:02 PM
Nobody ever mentions the Nobody ever mentions the nation building component of illegal immigration. The offspring of illegal immigrants seems disproportionately represented in this line of work.
For nation building purposes, which understandably comes at some initial cost, Mexicans are cheap and very productive( especially for doing hazardous work and other heavy lifting) compared to other possibilities.Does anyone ever consider how much they would cost if we brought them here “legally”?
Sure the numbers get uncomfortable(especially during recessions) and the politicians incessantly tap dance about the topic for political reasons, but it is or has been, a deliberate immigration policy. Amnesty is the most correct thing to do and that it is not offered and we pretend these people are “illegal” is immoral.
NotCranky
April 29, 2010 @
11:32 PM
A little more ranting A little more ranting here:
The idea that because an illegal might compete for work during a 2 or 3 year phase of your(or my) spoiled kids life or take your cousin place, the one who is going to garner a much higher spot in society almost immediately, is not very circumspect.On the other hand why let your wife’s grandma come in easily considering value added by comparison to someone who will scrape toxic chemicals and barnacles from the bottom of ships and do other like dirty work? Furthermore, Government and business know every one’s place in this and it has been applied to the quota of permissible “illegals” and how long it will take grandma to get here. As always people mostly see thing from the perspective only of their own set of intersests and in this case end up scapegoating the Mexicans.
briansd1
April 30, 2010 @
9:49 AM
Russell wrote:Amnesty is the [quote=Russell]Amnesty is the most correct thing to do and that it is not offered and we pretend these people are “illegal” is immoral.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree.
The simple facts are that immigrants are here already, whatever caused them to come here in the first place.
We could fix NAFTA, the drug wars or whatever else, but it won’t change the fact that unauthorized immigrants have been here for years.
We can do nothing and let time deal with things (through family reunification with citizen children and grand-children, marriage, etc…); or we can welcome those immigrants as full members of our society. It’s our choice.
blahblahblah
April 30, 2010 @
10:00 AM
The choice is simple.
If you The choice is simple.
If you are for uncontrolled immigration, open the border immediately and give automatic right of residence to every person that steps across. Hundreds of people die each year crossing, countless families are torn apart because only one or two members can make the trip. Register everyone, enroll them in school, teach them to read and write English or Spanish (many are illiterate), and help them find work.
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
I think a lot of people like the current system because it provides a huge supply of desperate people willing to work in poor conditions for low pay. Many people on both sides of this debate have no issues with hiring undocumented maids or gardeners and paying them in cash.
Amnesty for those already here is probably a good short-term salve, but it is not a fix, it is not a solution.
looking
April 30, 2010 @
11:41 AM
I never understood why I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. Many people come here on an H1B visa and although their employers CAN sponsor them for permanent residence it is by no means a guarantee that the employeer will sponsor them OR that they will get the permanent residence. This doesn’t stop people from coming here on an H1B visa. If you are on a H1B and you are laid off you have a very short time (1 week?) to tranfer to a different company. Is this fair – not really but these are the conditions that people accept when coming here.
As loathe as I am to allowing people who broke the rules and law to jump ahead of those who did not, I can see the pragmatic approach that deporting 11 million people is not practical. There are existing visa categories (H-2) for agricultural workers. Utilizing those or creating new categories would allow the people who are here illegally to ‘come out of the shadows’ but it doesn’t put them in line for permanent residence or citizenship. This type of system obviously would only work in concert with better verification of status on the employer side.
briansd1
April 30, 2010 @
12:36 PM
looking wrote:I never [quote=looking]I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. [/quote]
You may not realize it, but if immigrants (legal or not) have sex, get married and/or have kids, they’re on a path to citizenship.
You’d be surprised at the social networks the undocumented have built. There are even comfort women for migrant workers.
cdesilva44
May 2, 2010 @
5:18 PM
briansd1 wrote:looking [quote=briansd1][quote=looking]I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. [/quote]
You may not realize it, but if immigrants (legal or not) have sex, get married and/or have kids, they’re on a path to citizenship.
You’d be surprised at the social networks the undocumented have built. There are even comfort women for migrant workers.[/quote]
By “comfort women” are you referring to the young girls who a trafficked to the migrant camps?
CA renter
May 2, 2010 @
10:59 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:briansd1 [quote=cdesilva44][quote=briansd1][quote=looking]I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. [/quote]
You may not realize it, but if immigrants (legal or not) have sex, get married and/or have kids, they’re on a path to citizenship.
You’d be surprised at the social networks the undocumented have built. There are even comfort women for migrant workers.[/quote]
By “comfort women” are you referring to the young girls who a trafficked to the migrant camps?[/quote]
Yep.
————
The articles here below describe one of the largest known child and youth sex trafficking cases in the United States to date. In one of several related cases, hundreds of Mexican girls between 7 and 18 were kidnapped or subjected to false romantic entrapment by organized criminal sex trafficking gangs. Victims were then brought to San Diego County, California. Over a 10 year period these girls were raped by hundreds of men per day in more than 2 dozen home based and agricultural camp based brothels.
looking wrote:As loathe as I [quote=looking]As loathe as I am to allowing people who broke the rules and law to jump ahead of those who did not, I can see the pragmatic approach that deporting 11 million people is not practical. There are existing visa categories (H-2) for agricultural workers. Utilizing those or creating new categories would allow the people who are here illegally to ‘come out of the shadows’ but it doesn’t put them in line for permanent residence or citizenship. This type of system obviously would only work in concert with better verification of status on the employer side.[/quote]
I’m not sure why people think we need to *deport* all the illegal immigrants. Just enforce laws WRT hiring: must provide proof of legal residency and use e-verify, and punish the employers rather severely (hefty fines and some jail time, with the possibility of forfeiting all personal/company assets) if they are caught more than twice?. After we’ve done that, we have to take away any public education, healthcare, food stamps, etc. for illegal immigrants, and they will “deport” themselves.
As far as “anchor babies” are concerned, we need to ammend that law, OR we need to explain to the parents that they are free to be united with their children, but they will have to be “united” in their country of origin. Nobody is forcing families to live apart. The parents make that choice when they decide to have babies here.
MadeInTaiwan
April 30, 2010 @
4:37 PM
CA renter wrote:looking [quote=CA renter][quote=looking]As loathe as I am to allowing people who broke the rules and law to jump ahead of those who did not, I can see the pragmatic approach that deporting 11 million people is not practical. There are existing visa categories (H-2) for agricultural workers. Utilizing those or creating new categories would allow the people who are here illegally to ‘come out of the shadows’ but it doesn’t put them in line for permanent residence or citizenship. This type of system obviously would only work in concert with better verification of status on the employer side.[/quote]
I’m not sure why people think we need to *deport* all the illegal immigrants. Just enforce laws WRT hiring: must provide proof of legal residency and use e-verify, and punish the employers rather severely (hefty fines and some jail time, with the possibility of forfeiting all personal/company assets) if they are caught more than twice?. After we’ve done that, we have to take away any public education, healthcare, food stamps, etc. for illegal immigrants, and they will “deport” themselves.
As far as “anchor babies” are concerned, we need to ammend that law, OR we need to explain to the parents that they are free to be united with their children, but they will have to be “united” in their country of origin. Nobody is forcing families to live apart. The parents make that choice when they decide to have babies here.[/quote]
The problem is that immigrant advocates agrue stric employer enforcement will lead to hiring discrimination against darker immigrants and I agree with that concern.
I don’t know much about the E-verify system but if it is like any other government verification like the no-fly list then I am very very wairy of mistakes and hacking around the system.
Think about how often goverment make mistakes, how long after a business gets fined incorrectly a few times before it decides to quitely profile job applicants (even if it is later exonerated)?
I don’t think it is such a hypothetical either. I have darken skin (after being in the Sun a few hours) but am originally from East Asia. I had a neighbor tell her husband “He is ok, he is not Mexican, he is …” a few years after we moved in. Bare in mind this is coastal Encinitas, one of the county’s liberal bubbles.
I have thoughts on anchor babies but that is for another thread.
Hobie
May 1, 2010 @
8:34 AM
CA renter wrote:
As far as [quote=CA renter]
As far as “anchor babies” are concerned, we need to ammend that law, OR we need to explain to the parents that they are free to be united with their children, but they will have to be “united” in their country of origin. Nobody is forcing families to live apart. The parents make that choice when they decide to have babies here.[/quote]
Right on the mark.
The anchor baby issue carries huge long term unintended consequences. Look at how it changes the character of cities. For the better?? Improve real estate values?
patientrenter
May 1, 2010 @
5:08 PM
CA renter wrote:
……I’m [quote=CA renter]
……I’m not sure why people think we need to *deport* all the illegal immigrants. Just enforce laws WRT hiring: must provide proof of legal residency and use e-verify, and punish the employers rather severely (hefty fines and some jail time, with the possibility of forfeiting all personal/company assets) if they are caught more than twice?. After we’ve done that, we have to take away any public education, healthcare, food stamps, etc. for illegal immigrants, and they will “deport” themselves…..[/quote]
Well said. But the coalition of interests in favor of more immigration, and who are OK with it being illegal, is very strong. It’s an odd combination – business owners who hire illegals, professional Democratic politicians who want future voting majorities, libertarians who oppose all immigration controls, people of Hispanic origin who want a more powerful role for their culture in the US, etc.
Workers who have to compete with immigrants, environmentalists who want a limited self-sustaining population, and those who want an Anglo culture to dominate, are all ranged on the other side. I think they are actually in the majority, but they have had much less political power, at least until now.
I think the recent swing against illegal immigration is due to the increased job competition during the recession. As soon as the recession is over, we will revert to unlimited illegal immigration.
Various high-profile crackdowns on small pockets of illegal immigration are being prepared now. These will be executed with maximum publicity. The idea is to give the public the impression that politicians are serious about enforcing immigration laws. When the public buys in enough, the next amnesty bill will be enacted, and the enforcement will die off again, so we can go back to unlimited illegal immigration.
It’s all pretty obvious, but it plays out as if no one knew what was really going on.
sd_matt
May 1, 2010 @
10:13 PM
King George would be laughing King George would be laughing his ass off right now were he alive.
Ya just don’t leave people to their own thing for a long time and then come back to try to enforce the law without any problems.
If those people were parading around with signs that said “So NOW you are going to enforce the law?” I might actually commend them.
But when they claim racism they can go f**k themselves.
Mexico would use us and then kick us out if they were rich. So…come to think of it…they can go f@@k themselves anyway.
kcal09
May 1, 2010 @
10:40 PM
In all other countries In all other countries illegal immigrants will be deported. I don’t understand why this is not being enforced here.
paramount
May 2, 2010 @
12:41 AM
kcal09 wrote:In all other [quote=kcal09]In all other countries illegal immigrants will be deported. I don’t understand why this is not being enforced here.[/quote]
We do deport illegal aliens…
Wiki:
About 40% of illegal immigrants enter legally and then overstay.[6] About 31,000 people who are not American citizens are held in immigration detention on any given day,[65] including children, in over 200 detention centers, jails, and prisons nationwide. The United States government held more than 300,000 people in immigration detention in 2007 while deciding whether to deport them.[66]
Deportation
An individual’s deportation is determined in removal proceedings, administrative proceedings under United States immigration law.[citation needed] Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) by an immigration judge.[citation needed] Deportations from the United States increased by more than 60 percent from 2003 to 2008, with Mexicans accounting for nearly two-thirds of those deported.[67]
Hobie
May 2, 2010 @
7:43 AM
If these folks at these If these folks at these rally’s and sympathizers would direct their efforts to fixing their own country, they would be handsomely rewarded.
Mexico has beautiful coastlines, abundant oil resources, labor, undeveloped land, etc. But until the rampant corruption and drug cartels are eliminated, Mexico will always be a third world.
Why isn’t this the issue Mr. Protester? Have you no huevos? Throw out your existing government. Organize yourselves. The United States would help but you have to take the first steps. We don’t want to be an occupier, you know. Be proud of your heritage and do something to fix it.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Mex got their act together and they had to build a wall to keep Americans from emigrating to their land.
afx114
May 2, 2010 @
10:40 AM
Hobie wrote:Wouldn’t it be [quote=Hobie]Wouldn’t it be ironic if Mex got their act together and they had to build a wall to keep Americans from emigrating to their land.[/quote]
Hobie wrote:If these folks at [quote=Hobie]If these folks at these rally’s and sympathizers would direct their efforts to fixing their own country, they would be handsomely rewarded.
Mexico has beautiful coastlines, abundant oil resources, labor, undeveloped land, etc. But until the rampant corruption and drug cartels are eliminated, Mexico will always be a third world.
Why isn’t this the issue Mr. Protester? Have you no huevos? Throw out your existing government. Organize yourselves. The United States would help but you have to take the first steps. We don’t want to be an occupier, you know. Be proud of your heritage and do something to fix it.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Mex got their act together and they had to build a wall to keep Americans from emigrating to their land.[/quote]
Agree 100%!
paramount
May 2, 2010 @
5:11 PM
SB1070 has already been SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.
cdesilva44
May 2, 2010 @
5:21 PM
paramount wrote:SB1070 has [quote=paramount]SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.[/quote]
Throwing out a statement like that completely discredits any valid argument you may have.
paramount
May 2, 2010 @
6:23 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:paramount [quote=cdesilva44][quote=paramount]SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.[/quote]
Throwing out a statement like that completely discredits any valid argument you may have.[/quote]
Only to those fascists who wouldn’t agree with me anyway….
cdesilva44
May 3, 2010 @
10:13 PM
paramount wrote:cdesilva44 [quote=paramount][quote=cdesilva44][quote=paramount]SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.[/quote]
Throwing out a statement like that completely discredits any valid argument you may have.[/quote]
Only to those fascists who wouldn’t agree with me anyway….[/quote]
Fascist? That’s hilarious.
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to the US and she despises illegal immigration even more than I do. He family waited patiently for 19 years in order to get their greencards and come to this country. Once here, they were required by law to carry their greencards at all times. They support the law in Arizona 100%.
Her family are now US citizens who speak English and positively contribute to society. They are appalled by the illegals who protest openly on our streets and wave the Mexican flag. They revere their home culture, but are so thankful for the US and would never fly their nation’s flag in protest of the country that has given them so much.
I support LEGAL immigration 100%, but have great disdain for people who subvert the legal process and take advantage of our great nation. If that makes me a fascist in your eyes, then so be it.
JACKQLYN
May 3, 2010 @
11:04 PM
Isn’t there a bigger Isn’t there a bigger picture?
Over-population is hurting us but seriously – how effective can this be when you have people willing to risk their lives to cross the boarder.
Mexico needs to clean up their act. Why can’t a hard-working family man of Mexico provide for his family & live in peace down there???
They will find a way to enter regardless of this AZ law. Jose may just die his hair blond.
briansd1
May 4, 2010 @
3:54 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:
My wife is [quote=cdesilva44]
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to the US and she despises illegal immigration even more than I do. He family waited patiently for 19 years in order to get their greencards and come to this country. [/quote]
Sounds like jealousy to me. Your wife’s family waited 19 years so they want people to pay the same dues? That’s not the way it works in life.
A PhD with extraordinary ability, a rock star, a famous entertainer, or a rich businessman, don’t have to wait at all.
Your wife is from the Philippines where there is a long wait. An immigrant from Luxembourg wouldn’t have to wait at all because nobody from there wants to come to America.
If it’s any consolation to your relatives, unauthorized immigrants who have been in this country since 1982 are still waiting in line. If there is an amnesty, it will be for people who have waited for years already.
An amnesty doesn’t mean that people who waited for immigrant visas overseas will have to wait longer.
Take it in stride and look at each issue independently. There’s no need to conflate issues which generate emotional reactions.
garysears
May 4, 2010 @
9:52 PM
This well written Wall Street This well written Wall Street Journal opinion by the Pima County Sheriff is worth a read. I found myself completely agreeing with his take.
garysears wrote:This well [quote=garysears]This well written Wall Street Journal opinion by the Pima County Sheriff is worth a read. I found myself completely agreeing with his take.
briansd1 wrote:
Sounds like [quote=briansd1]
Sounds like jealousy to me. Your wife’s family waited 19 years so they want people to pay the same dues? That’s not the way it works in life.
[/quote]
True. The frustration comes from the same place where ‘savvy’ renter’s frustration with bailout comes.
[quote=briansd1]
A PhD with extraordinary ability, a rock star, a famous entertainer, or a rich businessman, don’t have to wait at all.
Your wife is from the Philippines where there is a long wait. An immigrant from Luxembourg wouldn’t have to wait at all because nobody from there wants to come to America.
[/quote]
Based on this month’s numbers, a person from Luxemburg, 25 year old college-educated unmarried daughter of a U.S. citizen that applies for either employment (assuming there is a willing employer and her skills are in demand) or family-based immigrant’s visa will get that visa in six years.
[quote=briansd1]
If it’s any consolation to your relatives, unauthorized immigrants who have been in this country since 1982 are still waiting in line. If there is an amnesty, it will be for people who have waited for years already.
[/quote]
CIR2007 had the bar set much lower. As little as few months of illegal presence would qualify you.
[quote=briansd1]
An amnesty doesn’t mean that people who waited for immigrant visas overseas will have to wait longer.
[/quote]
The bureaucracy is unable to process the current applicants in timely manner, creating backlog after backlog where people otherwise eligible wait for months or even years on formal decision.
And 10+MM more people in the queue won’t affect the processing? Please….
[quote=briansd1]
Take it in stride and look at each issue independently. There’s no need to conflate issues which generate emotional reactions.[/quote]
There are few people on this board who project an image of knowledgeable person when they discuss things that I am not familiar with. But then the same people move on issues that I was forced to get acquainted with and I realize that the projected image does not always match the reality.
Zeitgeist
May 6, 2010 @
2:31 PM
NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) — NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) — Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can’t prove they’re in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona’s new immigration law indicated.
I knew that Mexico’s treatment of Central American immigrants was horrible, but I’d forgotten about its immigration laws (essentially identical to Arizona’s new law) in all the hubub surrounding Arizona’s new law.
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.
briansd1
June 1, 2010 @
12:39 PM
davelj wrote:
Regardless of [quote=davelj]
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.[/quote]
That’s true. But we are not Mexico.
Connie Mack, Republican of Florida put it well:
I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked “Where are your papers?” We are better than that.
You are not just a minority on Piggington-
Poll: More Americans want Arizona-style anti-illegal immigration law for their state
“The Arizona immigration law has emerged as a major divide in the country, but the numbers are on the side of those supporting it,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.”
briansd1 wrote:davelj [quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.[/quote]
That’s true. But we are not Mexico.
[/quote]
That’s true, but perhaps in this respect we should be more like Mexico.
[quote=briansd1]
Connie Mack, Republican of Florida put it well:
I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked “Where are your papers?” We are better than that.
“We are better than that.” Generic rhetorical flourishes like this drive me nuts. I don’t even know what this means. Define “better” in this context. Does “better” mean that we don’t require folks to carry proof of citizenship or does “better” mean that we don’t enforce our own immigration laws? One person’s “better” is another person’s “worse.” Whenever I see someone say something like, “We are better than that” my bullshit rhetoric detector immediately goes off.
briansd1
June 1, 2010 @
1:53 PM
davelj wrote:
That’s true, [quote=davelj]
That’s true, but perhaps in this respect we should be more like Mexico.[/quote]
*Gasp*, you just said we should be like Mexico!
We don’t need no stinkin’ lessons from furiners… We know how to do things better. 😉
[quote=davelj]
“We are better than that.” Generic rhetorical flourishes like this drive me nuts. [/quote]
By itself, “we are better than that” is meaningless.
Connie Mack did made a few good conservative points first before ending by “we are better than that.”
afx114
June 1, 2010 @
2:11 PM
I think Mexico probably I think Mexico probably learned their lesson on immigration back in the 1830s when those pesky American immigrants were pouring into what was then known as Tejas.
briansd1 wrote:davelj [quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
That’s true, but perhaps in this respect we should be more like Mexico.[/quote]
*Gasp*, you just said we should be like Mexico!
We don’t need no stinkin’ lessons from furiners… We know how to do things better. 😉
[quote=davelj]
“We are better than that.” Generic rhetorical flourishes like this drive me nuts. [/quote]
By itself, “we are better than that” is meaningless.
Connie Mack did made a few good conservative points first before ending by “we are better than that.”[/quote]
I read Mack’s pitch prior to my previous post and was unconvinced… the addition of “We are better than that” sealed his argument’s fate in my view.
Virtually everyone (I’m guessing over 95%) over the age of 16 in the US carries a driver’s license without much complaint. How difficult is it to have everyone in this group carry a US Passport Card? I carry a US Passport Card with me at all times. It’s right next to my driver’s license. And I’m happy to show it to any official that feels they should see it. I travel to Mexico a lot and I have an FM3 Visa which I keep with me at all times. I would EXPECT to be thrown in the clink if I were asked for my ID in Mexico and didn’t have both my US Passport Card and my FM3. It’s Mexico, after all. Not my country of citizenship. I should be expected to have such documents on my person at all times (unless I had a REALLY good excuse – like they were stolen) that prove I’m there legally. So I just don’t see what the big deal is.
briansd1
June 1, 2010 @
2:57 PM
BTW, who’s boycotting Absolut BTW, who’s boycotting Absolut Vodka and Miller Beer? There’s always InBev-Anheuser, which is now Belgian.
[quote=davelj]So I just don’t see what the big deal is.[/quote]
3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that.
2) I don’t believe the AZ will cause people to go back to their home countries. They will move to other states, if forced.
3) I personally support immigrants and a path to legalization. I would hate for people whose lives are hard now to be on the run and to suffer even more hardship. That won’t make me feel better. Yeah, call me a bleeding heart liberal.
davelj
June 1, 2010 @
3:15 PM
briansd1 wrote:
3 main [quote=briansd1]
3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that. [/quote]
Again, I have no problem with this. Perhaps we are a great country in SPITE of the fact that “we don’t do that.” There are two ways of looking at it.
[quote=briansd1]
2) I don’t believe the AZ will cause people to go back to their home countries. They will move to other states, if forced. [/quote]
Sounds like most Arizonans will view this as a victory. I doubt they’re concerned with these other states. So, from their standpoint…
[quote=briansd1]
3) I personally support immigrants and a path to legalization. I would hate for people whose lives are hard now to be on the run and to suffer even more hardship. That won’t make me feel better. Yeah, call me a bleeding heart liberal.[/quote]
I agree with your first sentence. In fact, I have helped two folks immigrate to the US – LEGALLY. And I’ll be working on number 3 later this year. Again, LEGALLY.
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.
briansd1
June 1, 2010 @
8:17 PM
davelj wrote:
Personally, I [quote=davelj]
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.[/quote]
So I take it you’re not supporting the AZ law now.
All else being equal, the AZ by itself doesn’t solve anything, except arguably for Arizona.
The immigrants will still be in USA and will move to other states. And new unauthorized immigrants will still continue to enter, but not settle in AZ.
This AZ law, by itself, doesn’t address the national immigration problem. But it does make life harder for people whose lives are miserable already.
This law will be costly to for AZ implement and only serves to make supporters feel good while millions of immigrants live in fear.
sd_matt
June 1, 2010 @
8:50 PM
Something that would help Something that would help Mexico solve some of her problems would be to legalize pot in all states. If we were were to grow and tax what we smoke it would deprive the cartels of much of their cash. This would help give Mexico somewhat more of a chance to fight it’s corruption.
The problem with many people is that they never think in terms of helping Mexico solve her own problems. Well…this in conjunction with stiffer border enforcement.
Of course thinking like that would deprive one party of cheap labor for its factories and the other of it’s future voting block.
We can’t let right and wrong get in the way of that now can we?
And the U.S. should take ownership of it’s own drug problem just as Mexico shouldn’t send it’s children to be educated here.
Jim Jones
June 1, 2010 @
8:57 PM
briansd1 wrote:davelj [quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.[/quote]
So I take it you’re not supporting the AZ law now.
All else being equal, the AZ by itself doesn’t solve anything, except arguably for Arizona.
[/quote]
Brian,
How can you argue with a states right to decide the method in which they are going to enforce the laws which effect their citizens when conducting business or personal matters in that state? That is in fact why there is a state government in the first place, to solve the states problems regardless of how other states operate, legislate or act.
“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.”
This immigration is nothing more than an “if by whiskey argument”. California asserts its state’s right to decriminalize and legalize medical pot. But Arizona criminalizes illegal presence in the country and everyone is up in arms.
davelj
June 2, 2010 @
9:51 AM
briansd1 wrote:davelj [quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.[/quote]
So I take it you’re not supporting the AZ law now.
All else being equal, the AZ by itself doesn’t solve anything, except arguably for Arizona.
The immigrants will still be in USA and will move to other states. And new unauthorized immigrants will still continue to enter, but not settle in AZ.
This AZ law, by itself, doesn’t address the national immigration problem. But it does make life harder for people whose lives are miserable already.
This law will be costly to for AZ implement and only serves to make supporters feel good while millions of immigrants live in fear.[/quote]
I don’t live in Arizona so what I think about this law doesn’t matter. If I DID live in AZ I might support it (I don’t know all of the details, frankly). Generally, we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country. And I don’t think the solution is to (1) ignore it, or (2) continue to have amnesty programs. Neither of these will solve the problem. I like the idea of dramatically expanding the capabilities of the INS to allow for more LEGAL immigrants (and raising the fees so that, effectively, those who want to immigrate are funding their own efforts). And I like the idea of requiring US citizens over the age of 16 to have a US Passport Card on their person. This doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t mean you go to jail if you don’t have one on you, but it means a few calls (or strokes of the computer keyboard) have to be made to verify that you’re a citizen.
KSMountain
June 3, 2010 @
2:38 PM
davelj wrote:I like the idea [quote=davelj]I like the idea of dramatically expanding the capabilities of the INS to allow for more LEGAL immigrants (and raising the fees so that, effectively, those who want to immigrate are funding their own efforts).[/quote]
Yes. Make it really easy and fast to do it legally. Perhaps unlimited immigration from any North/Central/South American country. But legal. With a number. We have to know who you are. Does that still make me racist? I just said UNLIMITED immigration from all of N/C/S America! I make this proposal on the basis of geography, not race. Just make it legal. I’ve had an SSN since I was like 6, why shouldn’t others have one too (a non-stolen one).
[quote=davelj]
And I like the idea of requiring US citizens over the age of 16 to have a US Passport Card on their person. This doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t mean you go to jail if you don’t have one on you, but it means a few calls (or strokes of the computer keyboard) have to be made to verify that you’re a citizen.[/quote]
I agree it will be stupidly easy to clear up any misunderstandings if you are in fact legit to be here but don’t have “papers” on you. Cops have radios and cop cars have computers. Let’s be honest.
But I dunno, sometimes I go to the beach or other walks without a wallet. Not all clothes even have a convenient pocket (e.g. running shorts). I don’t think I’d like for that to be even technically illegal.
I *think* the way the AZ law is written is that only non-citizens have to carry ID. That seems kind of reasonable. When you (as a U.S. citizen) are in Europe you damn skippy have your passport on you or somewhere nearby. Even if you’re white. And you don’t complain that that requirement is due to “racism”. It’s about being legal when you’re visiting someone else’s country.
I do support that employers must check the SSN or other ID number against some database. That is ridiculously simple. And don’t give me any poop about “the risk of false positives”. I personally think that is disingenuous B.S. But let’s say there is a 1 in 10000 error rate. Have money (perhaps from immmigration fees) set aside to pay for sufficient infrastructure that false positives are very easily and quickly resolvable (e.g. <24 hours) so that neither employers or employees are impacted.
poorgradstudent
June 3, 2010 @
5:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:3 main reasons [quote=briansd1]3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that.[/quote]
This is my main reason for opposing it. I’m frankly not convinced US citizens won’t be detained for various reasons. I have friends whose parents came here legally from India in the ’60s who half-joke about avoiding Arizona to avoid being pulled over for being brown. And as I’ve stated elsewhere, a lot of Puerto Ricans are not very happy about this kind of law.
Like a lot of Arizona sheriffs, I also worry about the strain it will put on local law enforcement resources. I’m curious how much people on this board would be willing to see their taxes go up in exchange for increased immigration enforcement.
I’m sympathetic to the overall goal of reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the US, especially those engaged in criminal behavior. Again, as I’ve said before, the housing bubble collapse proved that if you take away the jobs, you fix the problem. Thousands if not millions of illegals fled the US over the past couple of years as the housing market collapsed. Really, you could target 4-6 industries, go after the employers, and fix at least half the immigrant problem.
KSMountain
June 3, 2010 @
6:48 PM
poorgradstudent [quote=poorgradstudent][quote=briansd1]3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that.[/quote]
This is my main reason for opposing it. I’m frankly not convinced US citizens won’t be detained for various reasons. I have friends whose parents came here legally from India in the ’60s who half-joke about avoiding Arizona to avoid being pulled over for being brown.[/quote]
I’m a white male. Sorry. Some years back in Colorado I got my car stuck in the snow in below zero weather. This was probably quite correlated with the fact that I’m originally from San Diego… After about 15 minutes I was quite relieved to see a Sheriff’s cruiser pull up behind me. He offered to push or pull me out. I gladly accepted. But first, guess what?
“Can I see your drivers license please?”
Then he took it back to the cruiser and ran it through the computer!
He scrutinized me, a white male, thoroughly before even pushing me out of the snow in sub-zero weather. This was in 1988…
What I’m saying is what others have said above on this same blog page – being asked for ID is nothing new for anyone!
poorgradstudent: this is your “main reason for opposing it”? You think citizens are going to be “detained for various reasons”? What (specifically) do you mean by “detention”?
Can you lay out a plausible abuse scenario here? Keep in mind AZ is not going to be anxious to get themselves into false arrest, lawsuit or civil rights violation territory.
You must be talking about a citizen without a drivers license or any other form of ID, right? Your friends don’t have drivers licenses? Even if they didn’t have ID with them, the officer has to have reasonable suspicion the people are not in the country legally before going any further. I’m sure your friends would give off many cues that an officer would instinctly process to conclude that they were U.S. born. He could probably even make a good guess as to where they grew up. And if in some likely event he or she were still suspicious, don’t you think your friends could get the officer beyond “reasonable suspicion” in just a few seconds of conversation?
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?
briansd1
June 3, 2010 @
8:04 PM
KSMountain wrote:
Can you [quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
I was thinking of the same thing, cept with that local woman who was arrested for purse snaching/theft because she looked like the woman in the photo. Then, a few days later, they find out it isnt her. Does that mean we stop enforing laws about theft because they may arrest and detain someone who is innocent?
There is no such thing as perfection outside of the classrooms in higher academia. If that is our standard, then we are screwed and should stop enforcing any and all laws because someone may be negativly impacted by it and in reality be innocent of whatever charge.
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
I was thinking of the same thing, cept with that local woman who was arrested for purse snaching/theft because she looked like the woman in the photo. Then, a few days later, they find out it isnt her. Does that mean we stop enforing laws about theft because they may arrest and detain someone who is innocent?
There is no such thing as perfection outside of the classrooms in higher academia. If that is our standard, then we are screwed and should stop enforcing any and all laws because someone may be negativly impacted by it and in reality be innocent of whatever charge.[/quote]
DW: Excellent post and spot on. I like your mention of academia as well. Most of the nonsense we now confront as a society, whether its the intellectual fascism of Political Correctness, or the stupidity of Gender and Ethnic Politics, or the impassioned cries about the “unfairness” of America, spring from our institutions of “higher learning”.
briansd1
June 6, 2010 @
9:10 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Most of the nonsense we now confront as a society, whether its the intellectual fascism of Political Correctness, or the stupidity of Gender and Ethnic Politics, or the impassioned cries about the “unfairness” of America, spring from our institutions of “higher learning”.[/quote]
I hope you’re not clamoring for your kids to get into the top school, lest they be co-opted as well.
KIBU
June 6, 2010 @
10:21 PM
“Never speak disrespectfully “Never speak disrespectfully of Society. Only people who can’t get into it do that”.
Wilde, Oscar
cabal
June 9, 2010 @
12:00 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=DWCAP][quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
I was thinking of the same thing, cept with that local woman who was arrested for purse snaching/theft because she looked like the woman in the photo. Then, a few days later, they find out it isnt her. Does that mean we stop enforing laws about theft because they may arrest and detain someone who is innocent?
There is no such thing as perfection outside of the classrooms in higher academia. If that is our standard, then we are screwed and should stop enforcing any and all laws because someone may be negativly impacted by it and in reality be innocent of whatever charge.[/quote]
DW: Excellent post and spot on. I like your mention of academia as well. Most of the nonsense we now confront as a society, whether its the intellectual fascism of Political Correctness, or the stupidity of Gender and Ethnic Politics, or the impassioned cries about the “unfairness” of America, spring from our institutions of “higher learning”.[/quote]
Sorry guys, but I don’t see it the same way. In the case of murder or theft, a crime is established, allowing police latitude to appropriately question encountered suspects consistent with the “reasonable suspicion” threshold. SB 1070 verbiage of “lawful contact” or even the amended version of “lawful stop, detention or arrest” are unacceptably vague, subject to broad interpretation, and consequently amenable to abuse. Most American are against illegal immigration and amnesty including myself. However, the Libertarian notion against govt infringement upon the rights of US citizens (inc those with brown skin) is extremely seductive and a cornerstone of this great nation. Perhaps it is institutionalized political correctness resulting from higher learning, but my conservative side can draw parallels to the flaws of such laws as the Patriot act and warrantless wiretapping, which many oppose across the political spectrum.
This may be a stretch corollary, but consider the gross error in judgment of Al-Qaeda thinking flying planes into building can somehow damage this great country. The exact opposite happened, as the country united, with patriotism blossoming everywhere. The one weakness discovered through serendipity was that it is possible to indirectly attack this country from within by simply playing on the fears of the leadership (i.e warrantless wiretapping). This is our Achilles Heel.
I also oppose mandatory ID to show proof of citizenship. With all our flaws, we are distinguished from other countries for the very reason that we don’t have to carry IDs. The drivers license example is a poor analogy because driving is a privilege, a voluntary act requiring registration and training. The dmv classifies a car as a deadly weapon similar to a firearm. The same applies to showing ID to purchase liquor. These are self initiated voluntary actions, whereas lawful contact is initiated by the officer forcing the citizen to engage.
briansd1
June 9, 2010 @
10:15 AM
Cabal, that was very well Cabal, that was very well put. I admire and respect your very consistent conservative stance.
KSMountain
June 9, 2010 @
10:41 AM
I think I agree with Cabal I think I agree with Cabal that “lawful contact” would permit abuse. That is no longer the text of the law though.
Cabal, can we agree that it is ok to investigate citizenship in the case of “lawful arrest”? Because I believe that’s already the policy in CA, right?
Perhaps even “detention”, if it has a specific legal meaning, would be ok too, right?
I admit “lawful stop” sounds a bit vague. Does that only apply to motor vehicles? If so, check the ID and if no license, investigate further. What about passengers though?…
If “lawful stop” might apply to pedestrians or bystanders, then I now agree that may be too vague and abusable too.
Would making these adjustments alleviate KIBU’s concerns? Well, it seems to me yes and no. You might have the concern of police harrassment alleviated, but the concern about racism would of course not be addressed.
I think it’s important to keep in mind though that perpetrators of racism are not confined to a particular race, political party, or nationality.
For example, wasn’t the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda race-based?
all
June 9, 2010 @
10:55 AM
cabal wrote:
I also oppose [quote=cabal]
I also oppose mandatory ID to show proof of citizenship. With all our flaws, we are distinguished from other countries for the very reason that we don’t have to carry IDs.[/quote]
Not really. Plenty of countries where national ID either does not exist or it is non-compulsory.
[quote=cabal]The drivers license example is a poor analogy because driving is a privilege, a voluntary act requiring registration and training. The dmv classifies a car as a deadly weapon similar to a firearm. The same applies to showing ID to purchase liquor. These are self initiated voluntary actions, whereas lawful contact is initiated by the officer forcing the citizen to engage.[/quote]
It is hard to function with no ID. You can’t drive, you can’t fly, you can’t open a bank account, you can’t buy tobacco or liquor, you can’t get a job, you can’t cash a check, you can’t rent an apartment, you can’t buy a house. At one point or another people gave up some of the freedom, like the freedom to drive a vehicle without a proper license, to balance the consequences of the abuse.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 9, 2010 @
11:00 AM
cabal wrote: Perhaps it is [quote=cabal] Perhaps it is institutionalized political correctness resulting from higher learning, but my conservative side can draw parallels to the flaws of such laws as the Patriot act and warrantless wiretapping, which many oppose across the political spectrum.
[/quote]
Cabal: I’d use your quote above to draw a distinction between conservatism and libertarianism. Quite a few posters here use political terms that they’re wholly unfamiliar with, or that they’ve twisted the meaning of, including Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, etc.
I would blame extremists from both poles, Left and Right, for the incursions into, and gradual destruction of, our civil liberties. Whether its wireless wiretapping and Patriot I/II (the Right) or Political Correctness/Gender Politics/Politics of Ethnicity (the Left), both sides are equally culpable. And before someone responds that Political Correctness hasn’t done irreparable harm, look no further than the complete and total unwillingness to refer to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, as a terrorist, or President Obama’s avoidance of same when calling Islamic Jihadists “individual extremists”. We are now terrified to say or do anything that might potentially give offense, and all in the name of Political Correctness. Those who control the language, control the culture.
This might read as tangential to the issue at hand, but I think its actually central. Whether its the right of free speech or freedom of movement, we now find ourselves inhibited and, to a great extent, cowed. It should also be said, however, that, when it comes to freedoms and liberties, they do apply to citizens. Not excusing any bad behavior on the part of law enforcement regarding non-citizens, but all of this goes back to the fact that we have a completely unworkable immigration system and it needs to change.
briansd1
June 9, 2010 @
12:29 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Whether its wireless wiretapping and Patriot I/II (the Right) or Political Correctness/Gender Politics/Politics of Ethnicity (the Left), both sides are equally culpable. [/quote]
Equating “political correctness” to the Patriot Act is quite a stretch.
For one, the Patriot Act is federal law with teeth. The Patriot Act was a full legal assault on civil liberties by the right.
“Political correctness”, whatever that is, simply reflects the social standards of the day.
There has always been “political correctness”. Social mores change organically over time. At one point it was not “socially acceptable” for women to wear mini-skirts. Does that mean that women were cowed into subservience? Some people would say yes.
At one point, kids could make fun of other obese kids and of the “chinks” on the playground. Now, it’s no longer acceptable behavior. “Political correctness” changes over time, on its own.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] We are now terrified to say or do anything that might potentially give offense, and all in the name of Political Correctness. Those who control the language, control the culture.[/quote]
i know that my grandmother (may she rest in peace) would say that we are now much freer to say things that we couldn’t say before.
Zeitgeist
June 9, 2010 @
1:08 PM
If the right enacted the law If the right enacted the law why does the left continue to use it? I agree with Allan. This is the slow erosion of personal privacy under the guise of protection from terrorism. Terrorism can be defined any way you want to. Communists and Fascists, two sides of the same coin and both an anethema to personal liberty.
briansd1
June 9, 2010 @
2:39 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:
I agree with [quote=Zeitgeist]
I agree with Allan. This is the slow erosion of personal privacy under the guise of protection from terrorism. [/quote]
That we can all agree on.
Veritas
June 9, 2010 @
3:59 PM
Here is what is going on with Here is what is going on with the law in Arizona:
“A spokesman for Gov. Jan Brewer says he also heard reports of undocumented Hispanics leaving the state.
‘If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment,’ Paul Senseman said.”
Unfortunately they will probably arrive in California shortly.
briansd1
June 9, 2010 @
4:06 PM
Veritas wrote:Here is what is [quote=Veritas]Here is what is going on with the law in Arizona:
“A spokesman for Gov. Jan Brewer says he also heard reports of undocumented Hispanics leaving the state.
‘If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment,’ Paul Senseman said.”
Unfortunately they will probably arrive in California shortly.[/quote]
The undocumented Hispanics coming to California must why Californians on Piggington supported the AZ law. 😉
If I remember well, davelj had it right the most. From an Arizona perspective, the law might (just might) make sense. From a California perspective, the law is just plain wrong.
Veritas
June 9, 2010 @
4:14 PM
That will not help CA. That will not help CA. unemployment or the budget. FYI- Whitman came out against illegal immigrants. We will see what happens.
cabal
June 9, 2010 @
9:42 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would blame extremists from both poles, Left and Right, for the incursions into, and gradual destruction of, our civil liberties. Whether its wireless wiretapping and Patriot I/II (the Right) or Political Correctness/Gender Politics/Politics of Ethnicity (the Left), both sides are equally culpable. And before someone responds that Political Correctness hasn’t done irreparable harm, look no further than the complete and total unwillingness to refer to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, as a terrorist, or President Obama’s avoidance of same when calling Islamic Jihadists “individual extremists”. We are now terrified to say or do anything that might potentially give offense, and all in the name of Political Correctness. Those who control the language, control the culture.
This might read as tangential to the issue at hand, but I think its actually central. Whether its the right of free speech or freedom of movement, we now find ourselves inhibited and, to a great extent, cowed. It should also be said, however, that, when it comes to freedoms and liberties, they do apply to citizens. Not excusing any bad behavior on the part of law enforcement regarding non-citizens, but all of this goes back to the fact that we have a completely unworkable immigration system and it needs to change.[/quote]
Allan – I agree, but would note the following differences. Incursions from the right are usually motivated by fear or economic gain. Incursions from the left typically result from overcorrection of past inequities. Incursions from everywhere else develop from apathy. Debating which one is the lesser evil is pointless. What is relevant and disappointing, is the unwillingness of our elected leaders to address issues for fear of retaliation from special interests and their own one-dimensional constituency. All one has to do is to exhibit courage, be truthful, and understand that true leadership can transcend these factors, as well as the bonds of political correctness. The people are perceptive and hunger for inspiration and a sense of accountability.
The disparity in quality between our Founding Fathers and the politicians of today is beyond measure. You have to ask yourself wtf, is there something in the water, or are they all working in Wall Street writing complicated trading programs. And no, Bo, Bush I/II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter combined do not even come close. Thomas Jefferson has more talent in his a$$hole than these guys have in their entire body.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 9, 2010 @
10:01 PM
cabal wrote:
The disparity in [quote=cabal]
The disparity in quality between our Founding Fathers and the politicians of today is beyond measure. You have to ask yourself wtf, is there something in the water, or are they all working in Wall Street writing complicated trading programs. And no, Bo, Bush I/II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter combined do not even come close. Thomas Jefferson has more talent in his a$$hole than these guys have in their entire body.[/quote]
Cabal: And if our leaders are incompetent, venal and corrupt, well, what does that say about us?
“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Lord Acton. Truer now than ever.
Zeitgeist
June 21, 2010 @
5:41 PM
Continuing along the line of Continuing along the line of corruption:
President Obama is refusing to secure the border until Congress reaches a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said at a recent town hall meeting.
This did not work with Reagan’s amnesty and it will not work now. The Feds are refusing to protect the State from drug gangs, smugglers and illegal aliens.
davelj
June 21, 2010 @
5:55 PM
Zeitgeist wrote: The Feds are [quote=Zeitgeist] The Feds are refusing to protect the State from drug gangs, smugglers and illegal aliens.[/quote]
The only folks who can protect us against drug gangs are ourselves – by legalizing drugs. The Mexican drug cartels are just being good, hard-nosed capitalists in satisfying our insatiable demand for drugs, yes?
Zeitgeist
June 21, 2010 @
5:58 PM
So you are advocating putting So you are advocating putting cocaine back in coke?
davelj
June 21, 2010 @
6:21 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:So you are [quote=Zeitgeist]So you are advocating putting cocaine back in coke?[/quote]
If that’s what the people want… who am I to deny it to them? That’s the free market, right?
Zeitgeist
June 21, 2010 @
9:34 PM
The FDA would be testing it The FDA would be testing it for years, but there should be no trouble rounding up people for the trials. They need to go back to cane sugar though. I think it beats the high fructose stuff they sell today,
blahblahblah
June 22, 2010 @
9:20 AM
cabal wrote:Thomas Jefferson [quote=cabal]Thomas Jefferson has more talent in his a$$hole than these guys have in their entire body.[/quote]
While simultaneously composing doggerel in iambic pentameter.
DWCAP
June 22, 2010 @
10:14 AM
cabal wrote:
Sorry guys, but [quote=cabal]
Sorry guys, but I don’t see it the same way. In the case of murder or theft, a crime is established, allowing police latitude to appropriately question encountered suspects consistent with the “reasonable suspicion” threshold. SB 1070 verbiage of “lawful contact” or even the amended version of “lawful stop, detention or arrest” are unacceptably vague, subject to broad interpretation, and consequently amenable to abuse.[/quote]
Perhaps you can tell me alittle more about your views here. I view it along the same lines as if you get stopped for speeding, and they find out you are wanted for theft. They will arrest you, and while you are innocent until proven guilty, they will still detain you until you have your day in court. And as far as I know, it is a crime to be in this country illegally.
And I dont see much room in “lawful stop, detention or arrest”. If the defence can show that it was profiling and not in accorance with estabolished procedures, then the case will be tossed and the police open to lawsuits and centure.
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
Mead: What’s interesting to note, other than the tortured gyrations of illogic from Brian and his ilk, is the hypocrisy inherent to most of their posts.
On the one hand, incrementalism, as practiced by Obama, is perfectly acceptable and even if, say, healthcare isn’t perfect, well, we can fix it or improve it later. This law, on the other hand, is apparently not only immoral, but so wrong it should be killed out of hand.
Never mind that the US Government has completely dropped the ball and Arizona is exercising its rights as a state to address the problem, let’s also overlook the fact that a large majority of people in this country, not just Arizona, support the law.
poorgradstudent
June 3, 2010 @
8:16 PM
KSMountain wrote:Can you lay [quote=KSMountain]Can you lay out a plausible abuse scenario here? Keep in mind AZ is not going to be anxious to get themselves into false arrest, lawsuit or civil rights violation territory.
You must be talking about a citizen without a drivers license or any other form of ID, right? Your friends don’t have drivers licenses? Even if they didn’t have ID with them, the officer has to have reasonable suspicion the people are not in the country legally before going any further.[/quote]
Why yes, thanks for asking.
Well your friends would Well your friends would probably not be suspected of car theft. It’s quite a distance from your original concern of “my friends will be pulled over for being brown” to this example.
I admit the Puerto Rico ID situation sounds like a mess. It’s not something I was aware of. It further makes clear the need for tamper-resistant documents.
Note in this case it was the feds, ICE, that held Mr. Carabello. It was not IL state authorities.
I think you’ve indentfied a special case here that would not often occur. But I grant this particular kind of situaton is unacceptable.
I don’t think it was “abuse”, per se. It was an accident, due to a confluence of circumstances, that was corrected after 3 days.
It does suck though, no doubt. Not sure how to handle this case, but also not sure that it justifies throwing out (or mischaracterizing the likely consequences of) the AZ law.
Veritas
June 4, 2010 @
12:34 AM
The Boston Terriers refused The Boston Terriers refused to wear the baseball hats.
natty
June 4, 2010 @
12:28 PM
KSMountain-
Exactly. US KSMountain-
Exactly. US Citizens are required to carry DL. You can be detained for any reason law enforcement sees fit, driving or not.
While it is not illegal to not carry ID when not operating a motor vehicle, law enforcement can still detain individual at discretion. Like many, I can relay experiences known of.
The idea that people don’t want to live in a country where you can be stopped and asked for paper work is called Disneyland.
As for issue in Arizona, I have no opinion. Anyone that lives within major cities or bordering state cities knows the issues and what or how little has been done for decades. It’s a mess.
KIBU
June 5, 2010 @
12:32 AM
Didn’t want to contribute to Didn’t want to contribute to this long thread, but anyway, consider this scenario.
A bunch of brown and suspect like persons walking along the Phoenix street in front of Mr. A’s home heading east (or west/north/south for that matter). They do look like illegals to Mr. A. So Mr. A calls 911 to talk to the police and tell them to come to get these illegals. Upon questioning, the police are told what Mr. A believes are attributes of these illegal suspects that match and request the police to come and get these suspects to protect the neighborhood.
My point is that if you are brown and you happen to walk with your friends on any streets in Arizona, with millions of legal binding patriotic Arizonians, you have a good chance to get such a 911 call and a possible police response.
Do you feel safe or welcome? Hell no. Do you enjoy being marginalized, well maybe it wasn’t meant to target you, but the result is the same. You feel like shit and yes, you feel like you are not part of america.
Anyway, I am not hispanic, chicano or mexican. I am just brown skin and just being honest how I feel and not asking anyone to give a shit about it. But perhaps, the image of what is America or American is not as ideal as we all want to believe.
no_such_reality
June 5, 2010 @
8:24 AM
(No subject)
KSMountain
June 3, 2010 @
6:55 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:I’m [quote=poorgradstudent]I’m curious how much people on this board would be willing to see their taxes go up in exchange for increased immigration enforcement.[/quote]
Might the expenses to the system (and supposedly then the taxes) actually go down if there were fewer illegal immigrants here (both criminal and law-abiding)?
I realize that’s a complex question that’s been the subject of many studies, and that the answer is not settled.
It seems to me though that it is at a minimum at least *possible* that expenses (even just law enforcement expenses) would go down.
Consider just anti-gang costs, as one example.
DWCAP
June 2, 2010 @
3:09 PM
briansd1 wrote:davelj [quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.[/quote]
That’s true. But we are not Mexico.
Connie Mack, Republican of Florida put it well:
I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked “Where are your papers?” We are better than that.
1) No one is arguing FOR a program where cops can walk up to random people on the street and ask ‘where are your papers’. I know alot of people keep arguing AGAINST programs like that, and seem to confuse this with that, but I dont see that anywhere. I am pretty sure most Americans would be against laws like that, so it isnt really an issue.
2) We get asked to see our papers all the time! You wanna board a flight, lets see your papers. Wanna buy alchol, lets see your papers. Wanna buy cigerattes, we need to see papers. Make a CC purchase? Get a ticket speeding? Get a (legal)job? Rent a car? All of them need ‘your papers’.
Just getting ‘your papers’ requires ‘your papers’. You have to give your social security #, to be verified, along with your birthdate and legal name and a THUMB print to get your drivers license.
Hell, you wanna buy a gun, which is your constitutionally protected right? Gotta show your ID, twice. One a drivers license, the other some other state issued ID like a car regestration. Yep, you wanna exercise your constitutional rights, you gotta show your ‘papers’.
I dont understand this aversion to proving government issued documentation of who we are when we do it almost daily. If you are this strongly against ‘show me your papers’, then why are you not already up in arms about the daily invasions of our privacy we already have? If you look to be under 30 you will be carded buying alchol or Tobacco. Isnt that ageism? Is ageism somehow less agreegious than raceism? Is profiling one group and not another ok just becuase the majority of Americans dont fall into that group and wont be inconvienced by it?
Apparently we are not ‘better than that’.
What we need is a standardized ID card issued by the Federal Government to citizens through the state DMV after passing your driving tests. A different card can be issued to minors. The ID system (DaveLj mentioned) already in place is great place to start.
Anonymous
June 1, 2010 @
2:44 PM
briansd1 wrote:cdesilva44 [quote=briansd1][quote=cdesilva44]
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to the US and she despises illegal immigration even more than I do. He family waited patiently for 19 years in order to get their greencards and come to this country. [/quote]
Sounds like jealousy to me. Your wife’s family waited 19 years so they want people to pay the same dues? That’s not the way it works in life.
A PhD with extraordinary ability, a rock star, a famous entertainer, or a rich businessman, don’t have to wait at all.
Your wife is from the Philippines where there is a long wait. An immigrant from Luxembourg wouldn’t have to wait at all because nobody from there wants to come to America.
If it’s any consolation to your relatives, unauthorized immigrants who have been in this country since 1982 are still waiting in line. If there is an amnesty, it will be for people who have waited for years already.
An amnesty doesn’t mean that people who waited for immigrant visas overseas will have to wait longer.
Take it in stride and look at each issue independently. There’s no need to conflate issues which generate emotional reactions.[/quote]
wow dude, jealousy?
maybe its more like anger at the blatant unfairness of cutting in line.
one line, for everybody. period. anything else shows your own favoritism/racism.
also, there is a huge difference between waiting for legalization inside the country and waiting outside the country. how can you be “waiting in line” to be in america if you are already in america?
briansd1
June 1, 2010 @
2:57 PM
jason330i wrote:
one line, [quote=jason330i]
one line, for everybody. period. anything else shows your own favoritism/racism.
[/quote]
There is currently not just one line. There are many lines, each on of which move faster or slower.
Husband and wives and fiancees have priority.
Parents and minor children have priority.
Different countries of origin have priority, etc…
davelj
April 30, 2010 @
11:49 AM
I don’t know how I feel about I don’t know how I feel about Arizona’s law, but… I carry around a US passport card all the time (it’s the size of a driver’s license). You have to have a driver’s license to drive, so almost everyone in this country over the age of 16 carries around a driver’s license without much complaint or trouble as it is. If I were living in Mexico, it wouldn’t bother me at all if I were occasionally asked by the police (or whomever) to provide a visa as proof of legal residence. And I would assume that it would happen to me more than others because I look like a gringo. Wouldn’t bother me at all. “Profile away!” in my case for all I care. I just wouldn’t care. But that’s just me. It sure seems like people in our modern society have very fragile sensibilities.
afx114
April 30, 2010 @
11:58 AM
Provocative new video from Provocative new video from MIA:
davelj wrote:I don’t know how [quote=davelj]I don’t know how I feel about Arizona’s law, but… I carry around a US passport card all the time (it’s the size of a driver’s license). You have to have a driver’s license to drive, so almost everyone in this country over the age of 16 carries around a driver’s license without much complaint or trouble as it is. If I were living in Mexico, it wouldn’t bother me at all if I were occasionally asked by the police (or whomever) to provide a visa as proof of legal residence. And I would assume that it would happen to me more than others because I look like a gringo. Wouldn’t bother me at all. “Profile away!” in my case for all I care. I just wouldn’t care. But that’s just me. It sure seems like people in our modern society have very fragile sensibilities.[/quote]
Everytime I go to TJ they try to take a picture of me with a painted donkey on Revolution and then scurry me to the Coahuila . I guess it does depend on your sensibilities, but I hate racial profiling.
paramount
April 30, 2010 @
12:54 PM
CONCHO wrote:The choice is [quote=CONCHO]The choice is simple.
If you are for uncontrolled immigration, open the border immediately and give automatic right of residence to every person that steps across. Hundreds of people die each year crossing, countless families are torn apart because only one or two members can make the trip. Register everyone, enroll them in school, teach them to read and write English or Spanish (many are illiterate), and help them find work.
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
I think a lot of people like the current system because it provides a huge supply of desperate people willing to work in poor conditions for low pay. Many people on both sides of this debate have no issues with hiring undocumented maids or gardeners and paying them in cash.
Amnesty for those already here is probably a good short-term salve, but it is not a fix, it is not a solution.[/quote]
BS
What you do is stop the problem at the border. Build a fence and place adequate numbers of BP to stop the problem in it’s tracks.
Then just go after people and companies who employ illegal workers (a fairly small # I suspect).
Turning Arizona into more of a Police State than it already is not the answer.
And let’s be honest, racism DOES play a part in SB1070.
blahblahblah
April 30, 2010 @
1:22 PM
paramount, sorry you missed paramount, sorry you missed this part of my post:
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
Again, I was simply saying that there are two choices:
1) Get rid of the border and let everyone across regardless of status
2) Beef up the border so that people can’t get across without proper paperwork, and if they somehow manage to then send them back home.
That’s it, end of story.
MadeInTaiwan
April 30, 2010 @
5:21 PM
CONCHO wrote:paramount, sorry [quote=CONCHO]paramount, sorry you missed this part of my post:
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
Again, I was simply saying that there are two choices:
1) Get rid of the border and let everyone across regardless of status
2) Beef up the border so that people can’t get across without proper paperwork, and if they somehow manage to then send them back home.
That’s it, end of story.[/quote]
How about a third option.
Some border control (but not so much that we force people into the deserts, the cayotes accept some arrests but make their profit)
Some internal enforcement (but not so much that employers start profiling job applicants), We will deport a few “examples” Kind of like Chinese authorities confiscating and burning a few 100K CD/DVD to demonstrate how serious they are about media piracy.
Things are lax enough that people crossing the border will actually risk going home for holidays and less of them try to bring family over (I personaly know illegal immigrants who brought family over permanantly becuase it was so hard for them to go back and forth. I fact they never return to Mexico because returning is so hard)
I do suspect that once Pete Wilson let the ginie out of the bottle back in the mid 80s there is no returning “to the good old days”. Like no getting rid of organized crime after legalizing alchohol. I think that NAFTA and farm subsidies in this country decimating Mexican, Central American small farmers alos has permanantly changed things.
MadeInTaiwan
poorgradstudent
May 4, 2010 @
10:24 PM
MadeInTaiwan wrote:I do [quote=MadeInTaiwan]I do suspect that once Pete Wilson let the ginie out of the bottle back in the mid 80s there is no returning “to the good old days”. Like no getting rid of organized crime after legalizing alchohol. I think that NAFTA and farm subsidies in this country decimating Mexican, Central American small farmers alos has permanantly changed things.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but your analogy is strange. It was actually banning alcohol that created organized crime, the same way marijuana’s quasi-legal status funds drug cartels. Organized crime has been crashing and burning in the past couple decades, partially because no one is willing to go to jail for several decades for the family any more. You get pinched? Just rat out the guys above you on the chain and you’ll get a slap on the wrist.
I’m anti-corn subsidies for totally different reasons, mostly that the laws are written to try to benefit family farms but end up going to corporations and do little to increase public health.
edna_mode
April 29, 2010 @
8:43 PM
More political emotional More political emotional Kabuki. Remember that Elian Gonzalez was an illegal immigrant, oh sorry, *refugee from our enemy Castro*. Wonder if all those people who applaud the AZ law would want to keep him this time? Or his mom?
blahblahblah
April 29, 2010 @
8:57 PM
I am a legal imigrant, have I am a legal imigrant, have green card and am brown. New law tells me, do not bother crossing into Arizona state Border or expect harrasment. I will stay out of Arizona and hope I will be able to manage with the rest of the 47 + states.
So ridiculous, half or more of the cops in Arizona are of Hispanic or Native American origin. They are not going to hassle you because of your skin color because of this law. This law just says that if you are driving a beat up truck with 10 guys in the back that have no papers and can’t speak any English, you’re gonna have some explaining to do.
Try hanging out in any foreign country in the world without producing papers on demand from the authorities and see how well you do. I’ve worked in Mexico and I had to have papers to do so.
urbanrealtor
April 29, 2010 @
9:16 PM
CONCHO wrote:I am a legal [quote=CONCHO]I am a legal imigrant, have green card and am brown. New law tells me, do not bother crossing into Arizona state Border or expect harrasment. I will stay out of Arizona and hope I will be able to manage with the rest of the 47 + states.
So ridiculous, half or more of the cops in Arizona are of Hispanic or Native American origin. They are not going to hassle you because of your skin color because of this law. This law just says that if you are driving a beat up truck with 10 guys in the back that have no papers and can’t speak any English, you’re gonna have some explaining to do.
Try hanging out in any foreign country in the world without producing papers on demand from the authorities and see how well you do. I’ve worked in Mexico and I had to have papers to do so.[/quote]
Yeah but nobody in an illegal immigrant community will ever call the cops again.
People come here because they don’t want to have to show papers everywhere they go.
I have traveled to over 40 countries in my life and the reason I still live here is the freedom to not be fucked with.
Our social services are shit compared to most of the western world.
However, our chances to grow and succeed are greater and I think Arizona just took a step away from that.
On the other side, it’s just AZ. Ergo nobody really gives that much of a shit (nor should they).
I have filled out I9’s many times while translating and looking at docs that I am certain were fakes. All those dudes were paying taxes on every dollar they made and not one filed for a refund (for any of the four jobs they had). I think that is part of the reason that the feds don’t consider this a big issue.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
9:57 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
However, [quote=urbanrealtor]
However, our chances to grow and succeed are greater and I think Arizona just took a step away from that.
On the other side, it’s just AZ. Ergo nobody really gives that much of a shit (nor should they).
[/quote]
Your thinking is ass backwards. Unemployment amongst the poor is around 30%. As a result of the new law, illegal immigrants are already leaving Arizona (probably for California) because no one will take the risk of hiring them. This means there will be more jobs in Arizona for legal residents of Arizona who are currently unemployed. In turn, there will be less people in Arizona on welfare or unemployment.
I think Arizona just took a big step forward in helping it’s citizens.
urbanrealtor
April 29, 2010 @
10:49 PM
IForget wrote:urbanrealtor [quote=IForget][quote=urbanrealtor]
However, our chances to grow and succeed are greater and I think Arizona just took a step away from that.
On the other side, it’s just AZ. Ergo nobody really gives that much of a shit (nor should they).
[/quote]
Your thinking is ass backwards. Unemployment amongst the poor is around 30%. As a result of the new law, illegal immigrants are already leaving Arizona (probably for California) because no one will take the risk of hiring them. This means there will be more jobs in Arizona for legal residents of Arizona who are currently unemployed. In turn, there will be less people in Arizona on welfare or unemployment.
I think Arizona just took a big step forward in helping it’s citizens.[/quote]
And you base those assertions of emigration from AZ to CA on what?
Most illegals I have known are relatively resilient in the face of such downturns. They usually have multiple jobs.
If what you were saying were true, then we would see illegals heading south in large numbers.
We are currently not seeing that.
CA renter
April 29, 2010 @
10:56 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
And you [quote=urbanrealtor]
And you base those assertions of emigration from AZ to CA on what?
Most illegals I have known are relatively resilient in the face of such downturns. They usually have multiple jobs.
If what you were saying were true, then we would see illegals heading south in large numbers.
We are currently not seeing that.[/quote]
After a historic immigration wave, many Mexicans and other Latin Americans are preparing to return to their homelands amid the deepening recession here. Mexicans who reside in the U.S. sought Mexican citizenship for their U.S.-born children in record numbers last year.
Unemployment Hits Hispanics
The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008 compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier, according to the report by the Pew Hispanic Center. Read the report.
The recession is hitting Hispanic immigrants especially hard, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization. The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier. During the same period, the unemployment rate for all U.S. workers climbed to 6.5% from 4.6%.
“There is strong evidence that inflows to the U.S. from Mexico have diminished, and the economic distress is likely giving immigrants already here greater incentive to return home,” says Rakesh Kochhar, the Pew economist who prepared the report.
The number of people caught trying to sneak into the U.S. along the border with Mexico is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. While some of the drop-off is the result of stricter border enforcement, the weaker U.S. economy is likely the main deterrent. Border Patrol agents apprehended 705,000 people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in the 12 months that ended Sept. 30. That is down from 858,638 a year before and from 1.1 million two years earlier.
CA renter wrote:urbanrealtor [quote=CA renter][quote=urbanrealtor]
And you base those assertions of emigration from AZ to CA on what?
Most illegals I have known are relatively resilient in the face of such downturns. They usually have multiple jobs.
If what you were saying were true, then we would see illegals heading south in large numbers.
We are currently not seeing that.[/quote]
After a historic immigration wave, many Mexicans and other Latin Americans are preparing to return to their homelands amid the deepening recession here. Mexicans who reside in the U.S. sought Mexican citizenship for their U.S.-born children in record numbers last year.
Unemployment Hits Hispanics
The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008 compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier, according to the report by the Pew Hispanic Center. Read the report.
The recession is hitting Hispanic immigrants especially hard, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization. The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier. During the same period, the unemployment rate for all U.S. workers climbed to 6.5% from 4.6%.
“There is strong evidence that inflows to the U.S. from Mexico have diminished, and the economic distress is likely giving immigrants already here greater incentive to return home,” says Rakesh Kochhar, the Pew economist who prepared the report.
The number of people caught trying to sneak into the U.S. along the border with Mexico is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. While some of the drop-off is the result of stricter border enforcement, the weaker U.S. economy is likely the main deterrent. Border Patrol agents apprehended 705,000 people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in the 12 months that ended Sept. 30. That is down from 858,638 a year before and from 1.1 million two years earlier.
But that article seems to address the decreased demand for initial crossing and the increased willingness for legal immigrants to go home.
The former is not surprising (for obvious reasons) and the latter is not surprising considering most legal immigrants do not risk much by leaving the US temporarily.
However, it does not appear to suggest that illegals are heading south (which was my point).
In fact, it states that there are assertions to the
contrary.
But, in all fairness metrics on this are hard to obtain and analyze. Most of my info is anecdotal.
But it is pervasive.
blahblahblah
April 29, 2010 @
11:13 PM
People come here because they People come here because they don’t want to have to show papers everywhere they go.
Actually 90% of our immigrants from south of the border are coming here because we destroyed their country with NAFTA. Also, our appetite for illegal drugs has also f***ed their country up something awful and is contributing to this as well. Why does no one stop and think about why this is happening now? We have had a huge unprotected border with Mexico forever, but for some reason starting in the 1990s, people are having to leave their families and risk life and limb to come here. Oh yeah, NAFTA forced Mexico to accept our El Cheapo US-government subsidized agricultural products, thus wiping out their agriculture sector so that it could be taken over by ConAgra and a couple of other giant transnational concerns.
Whoops, sorry, I forgot this is a black and white issue. Either you’re a racist and for controlling the border or you’re a good person who’s against it. Since I’m a good person I guess I’ll be against it then. I fully support the elimination of all borders and the free movement of people everywhere.
urbanrealtor
April 29, 2010 @
11:21 PM
CONCHO wrote:People come here [quote=CONCHO]People come here because they don’t want to have to show papers everywhere they go.
Actually 90% of our immigrants from south of the border are coming here because we destroyed their country with NAFTA. Also, our appetite for illegal drugs has also f***ed their country up something awful and is contributing to this as well. Why does no one stop and think about why this is happening now? We have had a huge unprotected border with Mexico forever, but for some reason starting in the 1990s, people are having to leave their families and risk life and limb to come here. Oh yeah, NAFTA forced Mexico to accept our El Cheapo US-government subsidized agricultural products, thus wiping out their agriculture sector so that it could be taken over by ConAgra and a couple of other giant transnational concerns.
Whoops, sorry, I forgot this is a black and white issue. Either you’re a racist and for controlling the border or you’re a good person who’s against it. Since I’m a good person I guess I’ll be against it then. I fully support the elimination of all borders and the free movement of people everywhere.[/quote]
Since the thread was framed as a binary, yeah it is kind of black and white. (brown and white?)_
Eugene
April 29, 2010 @
11:25 PM
Are you saying that Are you saying that US-government subsidized agricultural products are so cheap that it’s cheaper to grow stuff in the U.S. with our $8/hour minimum wage, than to do same south of the border where $1/hour is good money?
blahblahblah
April 29, 2010 @
11:38 PM
Hi Eugene, American Hi Eugene, American agriculture is petroleum and machine-intensive. Very few people are involved, it is mostly machines and chemicals. Mexican agriculture, pre-NAFTA was labor-intensive, with lots of people doing the work. What NAFTA did in Mexico was similar to the change that happened here in the US in the 1930s. In your history books you’re taught that the Dust Bowl caused the great Western migration from the center of the USA, but in fact it was the Dust Bowl and the introduction of mechanized agriculture and petroleum-based fertilizer. Mexican agriculture is now much the same as American. Mexico agreed to NAFTA because we told them that their displaced farm workers would have jobs in the new maquiladoras. What we didn’t tell them was that those jobs would go away as soon as we could find somewhere cheaper to make those goods, now most of those jobs have gone to China.
To make a long story short, NAFTA forced the Mexican farmworkers off the land and made them unemployed. The smartest and most capable were able to find work for a few years in maquiladoras, and now most of those are closing down and moving operations to China. So they have no place to go but north. It is a tremendous human tragedy with no end in sight.
We are all going to end up as slaves if this continues.
Aecetia
April 29, 2010 @
11:36 PM
I have to agree with Concho’s I have to agree with Concho’s Nafta statements. If you read about Haiti, we did some destroying of their economy, too, to support our rice farmers and pig farmers. I am not my country right or wrong and I admit when we are wrong. In so many ways we embody the best and the worst of all cultures. IMO Arizona will not do much with this law, but they are getting a lot of press and it will force the hand of the Federal government which might have been their intention all along. Unfortunately ever since we broke up the Arellano Felix cartel we opened the floodgates for an all out gang war that the country seems unable to control. I wish Congress had been as interested in immigration and streamlining the system as they were in health care. Immigration is a much more pressing problem.
Aecetia
April 29, 2010 @
11:39 PM
U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to Damage Mexico
The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.
Prepared in advance of critical trade talks next month, the report by Oxfam International argues that the subsidies given American corn farmers allow them to sell their grain at prices far below what it costs to produce. That has led to cheap American corn flooding the Mexican market and pushing the poorest Mexican farmers out of business, the report said.
”There is a direct link between government agricultural policies in the U.S. and rural misery in Mexico,” according to the report entitled, ”Dumping Without Borders: How U.S. agricultural policies are destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers.”
That sounds like just the That sounds like just the kind of problem that would’ve been fixed by an exchange rate adjustment if it were real.
If the American agricultural output is too cheap, and that keeps poor Mexican farmers out of work … why, that’s easily fixed by natural free-market mechanisms: simply let the peso devalue and you’re done.
If the peso is devalued all the way to the point where there’s no current account deficit, and poor Mexican farmers are still out of work … that means that former farmers must find new jobs, because their former occupations no longer make sense in the global economy.
Mexico has too many people in agriculture, by modern standards: 14% (source: CIA factbook), as opposed to such post-industrial agri-countries like New Zealand (7%) or Netherlands (2%).
afx114
April 29, 2010 @
11:25 PM
Oaxaca seceded from Mexico? Oaxaca seceded from Mexico? Texas would be proud!
urbanrealtor
April 30, 2010 @
6:58 AM
afx114 wrote:Oaxaca seceded [quote=afx114]Oaxaca seceded from Mexico? Texas would be proud![/quote]
Yeah but have you ever heard a Oaxacan accent?
Its weirder than a Scotsman speaking Spanish.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010 @
7:52 AM
Do any of you pro-amnesty, Do any of you pro-amnesty, anti-American zealots support illegal immigrants with your own money? Or do you just want to force me to do it with my tax dollars?
NotCranky
April 30, 2010 @
9:20 AM
IForget wrote:Do any of you [quote=IForget]Do any of you pro-amnesty, anti-American zealots support illegal immigrants with your own money? Or do you just want to force me to do it with my tax dollars?[/quote]
Name names, please. Are you sure pro-amnesty is anti-American? Or is it all about what you perceive happening to your pocket book?… I thought so. To me it is American to be honest. What do you think it means?
urbanrealtor
April 30, 2010 @
9:39 AM
IForget wrote:Do any of you [quote=IForget]Do any of you pro-amnesty, anti-American zealots support illegal immigrants with your own money? Or do you just want to force me to do it with my tax dollars?[/quote]
I am a proud American (who pays a lot in taxes) and considering that most illegals I have met (which are many) pay taxes, I don’t think your whiny complaints really make any sense.
Also, I don’t don’t really understand the label of zealot. It seems like you just say that to anyone who disagrees with you.
bubble_contagion
April 29, 2010 @
9:21 PM
Nobody from Mexico should be Nobody from Mexico should be complaining about this law. Mexicans may be the worst abusers of migrants in the world. They also have very tough laws that make getting visas equivalent to H1B or citizenship after marriage very difficult.
From the AI report issued yesterday about Mexico:
Kidnappings of migrants, mainly for ransom, reached new heights in 2009, with the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) reporting that nearly 10,000 were abducted over six months and almost half of interviewed victims saying that public officials were involved in their kidnapping.
An estimated six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence, allegedly prompting some people smugglers to demand that women receive contraceptive injections ahead of the journey, to avoid them falling pregnant as a result of rape.
bubble: I don’t really care bubble: I don’t really care what Mexican laws are, this is the United States of America not Mexico.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
9:52 PM
paramount wrote:bubble: I [quote=paramount]bubble: I don’t really care what Mexican laws are, this is the United States of America not Mexico.[/quote]
Exactly. And we have laws against illegal immigrants. If you don’t like those laws, go live in Mexico.
paramount
April 29, 2010 @
10:00 PM
IForget wrote:paramount [quote=IForget][quote=paramount]bubble: I don’t really care what Mexican laws are, this is the United States of America not Mexico.[/quote]
Exactly. And we have laws against illegal immigrants. If you don’t like those laws, go live in Mexico.[/quote]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
BTW we also have a Constitution you dick head.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
10:01 PM
paramount wrote:
IForget: [quote=paramount]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
We also have a Constitution you dick head.[/quote]
We sure do. And the Arizona law was carefully designed to not run afoul of that Constitution.
If you don’t like the new Arizona law, you should try convincing people that it is bad through logical arguments as opposed to juvenile Internet gangsterism.
paramount
April 29, 2010 @
10:26 PM
IForget wrote:paramount [quote=IForget][quote=paramount]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
We also have a Constitution you dick head.[/quote]
We sure do. And the Arizona law was carefully designed to not run afoul of that Constitution.
If you don’t like the new Arizona law, you should try convincing people that it is bad through logical arguments as opposed to juvenile Internet gangsterism.[/quote]
You are the moron resorting to internet antagonism you stupid troll – telling me if I don’t like something to move to Mexico. Screw you jerk.
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else. The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.
Arizona is a state of right wing extremists. Arizona is as red as the red in the Nazi Swastika flag.
SB1070 is nothing more than a form of Apartheid, plain and simple.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
10:44 PM
paramount wrote:
You are the [quote=paramount]
You are the moron resorting to internet antagonism you stupid troll – telling me if I don’t like something to move to Mexico. Screw you jerk.
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else.
[/quote]
My goodness. You truly are clueless about civics. SB1070 has already been passed and is in fact a law on the books in Arizona. It will surely be challenged in the courts, but, unlike most every other immigration bill, it was actually drafted to withstand a Constitutional challenge. Most other immigration bills will intentionally include language that the drafters know will cause the bill to be declared unconstitutional (example: prohibiting illegal immigrants from renting apartments)
[quote=paramount]
The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.
Arizona is a state of right wing extremists. Arizona is as red as the red in the Nazi Swastika flag.
SB1070 is nothing more than a form of Apartheid, plain and simple.[/quote]
The rest of what you say is just ridiculous hyperbole. The bill merely gives Arizona police officers the right to do what the federales can already do.
You should be rejoicing though. Arizona’s loss of illegal immigrants will likely be California’s gain. Soon life in California will be indistinguishable from life in Mexico. We are all looking forward with anticipation to that day.
Eugene
April 29, 2010 @
10:48 PM
paramount wrote:
SB1070 will [quote=paramount]
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else. The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.[/quote]
Would you be more comfortable if that law required peace officers to enquire ALL people about their immigration status, as opposed just those “where reasonable suspicion exists”? Would that be less Nazi?
urbanrealtor
April 29, 2010 @
10:51 PM
paramount wrote:IForget [quote=paramount][quote=IForget][quote=paramount]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
We also have a Constitution you dick head.[/quote]
We sure do. And the Arizona law was carefully designed to not run afoul of that Constitution.
If you don’t like the new Arizona law, you should try convincing people that it is bad through logical arguments as opposed to juvenile Internet gangsterism.[/quote]
You are the moron resorting to internet antagonism you stupid troll – telling me if I don’t like something to move to Mexico. Screw you jerk.
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else. The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.
Arizona is a state of right wing extremists. Arizona is as red as the red in the Nazi Swastika flag.
SB1070 is nothing more than a form of Apartheid, plain and simple.[/quote]
You two are adorable.
svelte
April 30, 2010 @
6:10 PM
Well I’ve boycotted All Well I’ve boycotted All Things Arizona for at least two years now. This just adds to the reasons why.
bsrsharma
May 1, 2010 @
9:46 AM
For any U.S. Citizen who For any U.S. Citizen who feels like he needs to carry a proof of U.S. Citizenship but does not want to lug around birth certificate or a passport book, there is a driver license like card issued by U.S. State department.
—————————————————-
Purpose
The new wallet-size U.S. Passport Card is a travel document that can be used to enter the United States from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda at land border crossings or sea ports-of-entry. Note that it cannot be used for international air travel. The passport card is more convenient and less expensive than a passport book.
Validity and Cost
The U.S. Passport Card has the same period of validity as the U.S. Passport Book: 10 years for an adult and 5 years for minors under age 16. The card costs $45 for a first-time adult passport applicant and $35 for all minor applicants under age 16, regardless of whether they are previous passport book or card holders. Adults who already have a fully valid passport book may apply for the card as a passport renewal by mail for a cost of only $20.
How to Apply
U.S. citizens, whether or not they have a passport book, may apply for a passport card. Note that passport cards cannot be shipped using overnight delivery. All passport cards will be returned using First Class Mail.
If you currently have or previously had a U.S. passport book, you might be able to apply for a passport card by mail. Note that in this scenario you will use a passport renewal form (DS-82) even if you’re applying for your first passport card.
If you have never had a passport book, or you do not meet the requirements to apply by mail using Form DS-82, you may apply for a passport card in person using Form DS-11.
Security
To increase speed, efficiency, and security at U.S. land and sea border crossings, the passport card contains a vicinity-read radio frequency identification (RFID) chip. This chip points to a stored record in secure government databases. There is no personal information written to the RFID chip itself.
With RFID technology, Customs and Border Protection inspectors will be able to access photographs and other biographical information stored in secure government databases as the traveler approaches an inspection station.
The passport card uses state-of-the-art security features to prevent against the possibility of counterfeiting and forgery. In addition, a protective, RFID-blocking sleeve is provided with each passport card to protect against unauthorized reading or tracking of the card when it is not in use.
History
We began production of the U.S. Passport Card on July 14, 2008, and to date have issued over 1 million cards. Processing times are similar to those of a passport book.
What about babies where one What about babies where one parent is American and one is from another country? What citizenship should that child have?
And, if the law were to become that children born in the US to non-US citizens are not US citizens, can you imagine the resulting smorgasboard of free slap-n-tickle to American males (from foreign-born females)?
Bet that would cause the failure of many an American marriage…
Arraya
May 1, 2010 @
2:26 PM
Borders are so passe Borders are so passe
CA renter
May 1, 2010 @
2:50 PM
svelte wrote:What about [quote=svelte]What about babies where one parent is American and one is from another country? What citizenship should that child have?
And, if the law were to become that children born in the US to non-US citizens are not US citizens, can you imagine the resulting smorgasboard of free slap-n-tickle to American males (from foreign-born females)?
Bet that would cause the failure of many an American marriage…[/quote]
IMHO, if a child is born to an American citizen (even if the other parent is not a citizen), then the child should be a U.S. citizen. A DNA test should be required.
We already have plenty of peole who marry a U.S. citizen to gain citizenship. From the stories I hear, it’s still a difficult process because they try to thoroughly verify that the couple is “legitimately” married.
looking
May 2, 2010 @
9:35 AM
CA renter wrote:IMHO, if a [quote=CA renter]IMHO, if a child is born to an American citizen (even if the other parent is not a citizen), then the child should be a U.S. citizen. A DNA test should be required.[/quote]
A DNA test? The presumption in all cases that I know of is that the husband of a married couple is the father of the child. Besides, in this day and age, due to in vitro fertilization and other techniques, the parents may or may not be biologically related to the child but it doesn’t make them any less their child.
I also personally don’t know of any country that denies citizenship to children of citizens even if one parent is not a citizen.
patientrenter
May 2, 2010 @
10:04 AM
looking wrote: ….in this [quote=looking] ….in this day and age, due to in vitro fertilization and other techniques, the parents may or may not be biologically related to the child but it doesn’t make them any less their child….[/quote]
Exception… rule… What CA Renter suggested works for 99% of cases.
GH
May 1, 2010 @
4:38 PM
The simple fact, is that we The simple fact, is that we do not have enough money to solve the third worlds problems. Those here illegally should be deported. That includes white Europeans and Canadians before you start with the racist BS. And yes, if it takes ID’s and I have to be stopped and asked to show ID from time to time to prove I belong here, then that is the price we have to pay to secure our borders.
An immigrant is a person who has gone through the immigration process and immigrated. We are talking about people who have illegally entered our country and are breaking our laws. Until recently these people were referred to as illegal aliens …
The real shame is that I love the Mexican and South American people and hate to be put in the position of pay up or you are a racist. I am also horrified when I hear the press bantering about how they are willing to do the jobs that White, Asian or Black Americans will not, as though they are second class people. That kind of statement is truly racist.
What we need to be doing is helping their economies grow and prosper, not killing ours.
zach347
May 4, 2010 @
6:11 AM
I don’t understand the I don’t understand the confusion on this new law. Great care has been taken to ensure that people are NOT randomly stopped or checked for I.D. Only in the course of normal police work would it be discovered if someone is here illegaly.
If you think about it, it’s a brilliant crime deturent. Realize that many illegals cross the border with the intent to commit a crime because they know that they will get exceptional health care in prison. I for one am tired of seeing my tax dollars squandered on inmate health care.
Wake up people
Arraya
June 1, 2010 @
2:19 PM
‘We didn’t cross the border, ‘We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us’
Anonymous
June 1, 2010 @
3:10 PM
here is my comprehensive here is my comprehensive immigration reform plan, get your stones ready:
1. do whatever it takes to stop the flow of illegal immigration at all borders and ports. by all means, militarize our borders.
2. enlist an independent group to measure the number of illegal crossings.
3. demonstrate for a minimum of 3 consecutive years that illegal crossing have been reduced by 95%.
4. during this min 3yr period, illegals are still illegal. deportations, employer verifications, etc. will continue.
5. for every year the number of illegal crossings have not been reduced 95%, another year will be added to the demonstration period.
6. once the 3 consecutive years have been demonstrated, the remaining illegals will pay fines, back of the line, etc. and get a permanent visa.
7. there has to be a consequence for sneaking in the country, no citizenship.
8. directly correlate the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country with the number of illegal immigrants entering. so if 100 illegals enter from china, then that’s 100 less legal immigrants from china allowed.
so eventually everyone gets what they want.
stupid idea?
no_such_reality
June 1, 2010 @
7:47 PM
jason330i wrote:here is my [quote=jason330i]here is my comprehensive immigration reform plan, get your stones ready:
6. once the 3 consecutive years have been demonstrated, the remaining illegals will pay fines, back of the line, etc. and get a permanent visa. [/quote]
Here’s my problem with the back of line concept.
If back of the line is the solution, does everybody that wants to come in, get to come in and go to the back of the line?
Think about it. There are people waiting, outside of our country, for years. If you say those that have come here illegally get to stay while they wait for the back of the line, then the fair thing is for anybody that wants in to be allowed in while they wait. That’s just no good, IMHO.
Bust the employers, deport the illegals and increase legal immigration.
In fact, let the illegals know they get ‘amnesty’ of three months to get out, then if they’re caught after that, they can’t even apply for 10 years.
Anonymous
June 2, 2010 @
6:57 AM
no_such_reality [quote=no_such_reality][quote=jason330i]here is my comprehensive immigration reform plan, get your stones ready:
6. once the 3 consecutive years have been demonstrated, the remaining illegals will pay fines, back of the line, etc. and get a permanent visa. [/quote]
Here’s my problem with the back of line concept.
If back of the line is the solution, does everybody that wants to come in, get to come in and go to the back of the line?
Think about it. There are people waiting, outside of our country, for years. If you say those that have come here illegally get to stay while they wait for the back of the line, then the fair thing is for anybody that wants in to be allowed in while they wait. That’s just no good, IMHO.
[/quote]
understood and you are right. i tried to make the same point earlier.
but this is part of my compromise. something that needs to get done to get the pro-amnesty crowd to buy in.
also wanted to add this:
9. as part of my immigration plan, since we are giving millions of permanent visas, we must have zero tolerance for illegal immigration from now on. this includes changing the 14th amendment so that in order to be a citizen, you must be born in the usa (or territory) and must be born to at least one us citizen parent.
afx114
June 2, 2010 @
8:11 AM
Does “zero tolerance for Does “zero tolerance for illegal immigration” also mean deportation of employers who hire illegals? Just curious.
Anonymous
June 2, 2010 @
9:23 AM
afx114 wrote:Does “zero [quote=afx114]Does “zero tolerance for illegal immigration” also mean deportation of employers who hire illegals? Just curious.[/quote]
no, just take their money and jail time.
don’t like my plan?
Arraya
June 2, 2010 @
9:51 AM
Cheap Labor
Supply Cheap Labor
Supply
Demand
Money does not recognize borders and you will never be able to legislate it away or put a wall up to stop it.
The ongoing collapse of global imbalances will take care of the problem, eventually, and bring a whole bunch of new ones. Between now and then this issue will bring out the worst in people as we try to fix symptoms
briansd1
June 2, 2010 @
1:02 PM
Arraya wrote:Cheap [quote=Arraya]Cheap Labor
Supply
Demand
Money does not recognize borders and you will never be able to legislate it away or put a wall up to stop it.
The ongoing collapse of global imbalances will take care of the problem, eventually, and bring a whole bunch of new ones. Between now and then this issue will bring out the worst in people as we try to fix symptoms[/quote]
I think you summed it up pretty well.
We now live in a globalized economy and we need easy legal movement of labor. And as Arraya pointed out, if legal means are not available, money doesn’t care about borders.
I was just talking to an Italian guy who works for Procter and Gamble in Cincinnati. He’s worked all over the world on branding for them. P&G is not a high-tech company, but they employ talent from around the world.
The multinationals are not just American companies, they are global companies.
Aecetia
June 2, 2010 @
1:59 PM
Securing the border [img_assist|nid=13392|title=Securing the border|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=300]
NotCranky
June 2, 2010 @
2:10 PM
Aecetia wrote:Securing the [quote=Aecetia][img_assist|nid=13392|title=Securing the border|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=300][/quote]
That’s a lot of Chupacabras !
svelte
June 3, 2010 @
6:32 PM
Russell wrote:Aecetia [quote=Russell][quote=Aecetia][img_assist|nid=13392|title=Securing the border|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=300][/quote]
That’s a lot of Chupacabras ![/quote]
Ha! Love it!
Unfortunately, Beagles are British. 🙂
Jim Jones
June 1, 2010 @
8:16 PM
jason330i wrote:
8. directly [quote=jason330i]
8. directly correlate the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country with the number of illegal immigrants entering. so if 100 illegals enter from china, then that’s 100 less legal immigrants from china allowed.
so eventually everyone gets what they want.
stupid idea?[/quote]
This idea is pure in logic as well as well as intent which is why the government will never even consider it.
briansd1
June 2, 2010 @
9:26 AM
Jim Jones wrote:jason330i [quote=Jim Jones][quote=jason330i]
8. directly correlate the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country with the number of illegal immigrants entering. so if 100 illegals enter from china, then that’s 100 less legal immigrants from china allowed.
so eventually everyone gets what they want.
stupid idea?[/quote]
This idea is pure in logic as well as well as intent which is why the government will never even consider it.[/quote]
That’s an interesting concept but that would mean basing laws and policy on statistics, not actual census count.
nocommonsense
June 3, 2010 @
10:12 AM
Jason330:
You’re a genius and Jason330:
You’re a genius and I mean it! Too bad we all know the politicians will NEVER do anything similar to what you proposed, which actually makes sense.
Aecetia
June 3, 2010 @
1:31 PM
I agree, brilliant idea flu. I agree, brilliant idea flu.
bubba99
June 2, 2010 @
6:28 PM
Current Federal requires that Current Federal requires that all green card holders, and visitors with a visa, have the card or visa in their posession at all times.
The “papers” requirement for legal immigrants is not new. The problem is that we have 12 to 20 million illegals without any sort of “papers”. Our ignoring the problem until it becomes untenable in the border states it whats at issue. No one trusts the government to come up with a non-political solution – hispanics vote 3 to 1 democratic.
Coronita
June 3, 2010 @
9:26 AM
Actually, I think the Actually, I think the approach to solving illegal immigration is all wrong and won’t be effective in it’s current state, because the risk to reward of being here illegally is still skewed to reward.
If the a state really wants to solve the illegal immigration issue, they need a tactic that specifically de-incentivize (no such word, I know) coming here…It it all boils down to economics and money.
Here’s an idea of what a state could do…On all goods/services purchased in the state, add a 15% sales tax surcharge to everything.
At the end of the year, when you file your state taxes, you can apply for a rebate on that 15% sales tax surcharge. Folks that would be eligible for this rebate would be
1)Anyone with a SSN or with a valid visa# for the dates of the receipt.
2)Anyone with a valid traveling visa and copy of passport showing entry/exit date. Only receipts dated for those travel dates would be eligible.
As side benefits,
1)The state would be getting a deferred loan from people
2)The state could pay an low interest rate on the rebate (lower rate than bonds)…At least it might force consuming americans to save a bit (they get a nice check at the end of the year)
3)It would create an economic hardship on anyone who wasn’t authorized to be here. And if someone did manage to use someone else’s SSN, at least they would have to be paying taxes, since the only way to get it back is to file a state tax return..
4)It would create more government jobs, because this system would be very involved to create (technology) and administer(people fufilling the rebates).
5)The state would still come out ahead, because I’m sure several people would forget to keep the receipts to everything they purchase. (How many people forget to turn in their rebate claim form on time)?
No need for more border patrols, building walls,etc.
briansd1
June 3, 2010 @
8:13 PM
flu wrote:Actually, I think [quote=flu]Actually, I think the approach to solving illegal immigration is all wrong and won’t be effective in it’s current state, because the risk to reward of being here illegally is still skewed to reward.
If the a state really wants to solve the illegal immigration issue, they need a tactic that specifically de-incentivize (no such word, I know) coming here…It it all boils down to economics and money.
Here’s an idea of what a state could do…On all goods/services purchased in the state, add a 15% sales tax surcharge to everything.
At the end of the year, when you file your state taxes, you can apply for a rebate on that 15% sales tax surcharge. Folks that would be eligible for this rebate would be
1)Anyone with a SSN or with a valid visa# for the dates of the receipt.
2)Anyone with a valid traveling visa and copy of passport showing entry/exit date. Only receipts dated for those travel dates would be eligible.
As side benefits,
1)The state would be getting a deferred loan from people
2)The state could pay an low interest rate on the rebate (lower rate than bonds)…At least it might force consuming americans to save a bit (they get a nice check at the end of the year)
3)It would create an economic hardship on anyone who wasn’t authorized to be here. And if someone did manage to use someone else’s SSN, at least they would have to be paying taxes, since the only way to get it back is to file a state tax return..
4)It would create more government jobs, because this system would be very involved to create (technology) and administer(people fufilling the rebates).
5)The state would still come out ahead, because I’m sure several people would forget to keep the receipts to everything they purchase. (How many people forget to turn in their rebate claim form on time)?
No need for more border patrols, building walls,etc.[/quote]
Brilliant ideal, indeed, flu. 😉
I wonder what the retailers and small business people would think of such a law. Sales would drop like a rock.
What would you do about about unauthorized immigrants already here? Make them pay the surcharge forever? I’m sure they won’t mind; and in a cash economy there are plenty of ways around it.
How about shopping on Amazon?
Jim Jones
June 6, 2010 @
6:27 PM
I thought I would post this I thought I would post this article for comparison to our current immigration situation. When the UN and other world bodies criticize this country, I wonder how ethically and logically they can remain silent on situation as the one written below.
In Arizona they are just attempting to verify that individuals are legally in the country. In Egypt they are using RACE specifically discriminate against a visible minority in the country who have already attained legal citizenship.
Egypt to strip men married to Israelis of citizenship
CAIRO (AFP) – A Cairo court on Saturday upheld a ruling to strip Egyptian men married to Israeli women of their citizenship in a case that has highlighted national sentiment towards Israel.
Judge Mohammed al-Husseini, sitting on the Supreme Administrative Court, said the interior ministry must ask the cabinet to take the necessary steps to strip Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.
The court said that each case should be considered separately, in a ruling that cannot be appealed.
The ruling reflects Egyptian sentiment towards Israel, more than 30 years after Egypt signed an unpopular peace deal with the Jewish state.
Before reading the verdict, Husseini said the case would not apply to Egyptian men married to Arab Israeli women.
“The case for (Egyptian) men married to Israeli Arab women is different to those married to Israeli women of Jewish origin because (Israeli Arabs) have lived under Israeli occupation,” Husseini told the court.
“The court’s decision is taking into account Egypt’s national security,” the judge said.
Lawyer Nabil al-Wahsh said he originally brought the case to court in order to prevent the creation of a generation “disloyal to Egypt and the Arab world.”
Children of such marriages “should not be allowed to perform their military service,” he said.
The number of Egyptian men married to Israeli women is thought to be around 30,000, according to Wahsh. Only 10 percent of them are married to Arab Israelis.
“This ruling is for the benefit of Egypt, a nation of leadership, history and civilisation,” Wahsh said. “It is for the protection of Egypt and Egypt’s youth and its national security.”
“The decision comes as Israel continues its assault on those who love peace. The latest example is the aggression against the aid boat which was heading towards the blockaded Gaza Strip,” he added.
On Monday, Israeli naval commandos raided a humanitarian flotilla carrying aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip, in a bungled operation that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead and scores injured.
A lower court ruled last year that the interior minister must look into the cases of Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, in order to “take the necessary steps to strip them of their nationality.”
The interior and foreign ministries had appealed the case, saying it was for parliament to decide on such matters.
Thousands of Egyptians, particularly a large number who lived in Iraq and returned after the 1990 Gulf War over Kuwait, moved to Israel in search of work and married Israeli women.
In 1979, Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with Israel.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 6, 2010 @
7:01 PM
Jim Jones wrote:I thought I [quote=Jim Jones]I thought I would post this article for comparison to our current immigration situation. When the UN and other world bodies criticize this country, I wonder how ethically and logically they can remain silent on situation as the one written below.
In Arizona they are just attempting to verify that individuals are legally in the country. In Egypt they are using RACE specifically discriminate against a visible minority in the country who have already attained legal citizenship.
[/quote]
Jim: The UN is utterly bereft of any moral standing whatsoever. Granted, its not nearly as bad as it was during the 1960s and 1970s, when it was nearly fully co-opted by the USSR and its satellites and cronies, but it is still pretty bad.
While its various transgressions are too numerous to list here, one can simply point to its conduct during Rwanda, or the Balkans (specifically, Srebenica, when a 400 member UNPROFOR contingent sat and watched as 8,000 Bosniaks were slaughtered), or Somalia to get a sense of what the UN is all about.
No, the hypocrisy is on full display daily, as all of those European and Middle Eastern nations that so cheered Obama’s election have turned around and gone back to business as usual. For them, and for several posters on this board, the US and her allies are responsible for nearly all of the ills in the world.
Arraya
June 6, 2010 @
7:34 PM
Hypocrisy and selective Hypocrisy and selective outrage make the world go round. And self-deception is an evolutionary developed trait. We’re some fucked up monkeys. What are ya gonna do
Anonymous
June 6, 2010 @
7:41 PM
Another thought-provoking Another thought-provoking thread instigated by SuperBri. It doesn’t surprise me that some want him banned. Lesser intellects attempted to censure Einstein in his day, too.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 6, 2010 @
8:34 PM
Arraya wrote:Hypocrisy and [quote=Arraya]Hypocrisy and selective outrage make the world go round. And self-deception is an evolutionary developed trait. We’re some fucked up monkeys. What are ya gonna do[/quote]
Arraya: Break out the Emma Goldman and try again? Speaking of anarchists, flu epidemics and Wilsonian ideals, add Dennis Lehane’s “The Given Day” to your reading list. Lehane is the author of “Shutter Island” and “Mystic River”, and “Day” is set during 1918 in Boston. Very interesting read, especially given what was going in on the world at the end of WWI. Reading the parts about Bolsheviki, anarchists and Emma Goldman, I thought of you and had to chuckle.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, right?
Jim Jones
June 6, 2010 @
10:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jim Jones]I thought I would post this article for comparison to our current immigration situation. When the UN and other world bodies criticize this country, I wonder how ethically and logically they can remain silent on situation as the one written below.
In Arizona they are just attempting to verify that individuals are legally in the country. In Egypt they are using RACE specifically discriminate against a visible minority in the country who have already attained legal citizenship.
[/quote]
Jim: The UN is utterly bereft of any moral standing whatsoever. Granted, its not nearly as bad as it was during the 1960s and 1970s, when it was nearly fully co-opted by the USSR and its satellites and cronies, but it is still pretty bad.
While its various transgressions are too numerous to list here, one can simply point to its conduct during Rwanda, or the Balkans (specifically, Srebenica, when a 400 member UNPROFOR contingent sat and watched as 8,000 Bosniaks were slaughtered), or Somalia to get a sense of what the UN is all about.[/quote]
Funny thing about those deaths in the Srebrenica Massacre and the fact that the Dutch stood by and watched it happen. I worked with a bunch of European NGO’s during the Bush era who used to beat me over the head with his administrations foreign policy choices. When I brought this topic up to a Dutch NGO they would always reply “but the Dutch military was on a “limited mandate” and could not respond without approval from the security council”. They often would not socialize with me after my remarks nor would they ever again bring up US foreign policy. Gotta love those who are willing to write academic papers and diplomatic communiques from their safe tenured cloistered offices, but refuse to stand beside their fellow man and fight in their darkest hour especially those who would wear their nations military uniform.
This post is not a defense of Bush’s foreign policy so please do not ask me to justify his choices.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 6, 2010 @
11:04 PM
Jim: Working in the Force Jim: Working in the Force Protection business, I have plenty of interesting conversations on security outside of the U.S. One of the most interesting conversations I recently had was with a French engineer, who had been a major in the French Army prior to his retirement.
We were discussing policy versus reality and he made a rather astute observation on the European view of America and that is this: While the Europeans openly deride the U.S. for our lack of culture, vulgarity and immaturity, we’re the first people they turn to in times of crisis. He said for the French especially, it was grating to have fallen so far in terms of relative importance, and that they enjoyed tweaking our noses as a result.
One of the other things I routinely hear is, “But America…”, meaning that, if/when the shit hits the fan, America will be there. There are several huge differences between academics/policy makers and policy executioners. Just ask any soldier.
briansd1
June 7, 2010 @
11:27 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote: [quote=Allan from Fallbrook] There are several huge differences between academics/policy makers and policy executioners. Just ask any soldier.[/quote]
This sounds like pure and simple pragmatism.
I’m not seeing high morals or principles on the part of conservatives when it comes to immigration policy, much less execution.
Talking about high morals and immigration, look to the Catholic Church for guidance. The compassionate thing to do is to reject the AZ immigration law and legalize the immigrants who have been living here, in limbo, for years.
sd_matt
June 7, 2010 @
11:47 AM
briansd1 wrote:Allan from [quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] There are several huge differences between academics/policy makers and policy executioners. Just ask any soldier.[/quote]
This sounds like pure and simple pragmatism.
I’m not seeing high morals or principles on the part of conservatives when it comes to immigration policy, much less execution.
Talking about high morals and immigration, look to the Catholic Church for guidance. The compassionate thing to do is to reject the AZ immigration law and legalize the immigrants who have been living here, in limbo, for years.[/quote]
If you are being sarcastic on the part of the Church then you are correct.
sd_matt
June 7, 2010 @
11:51 AM
Just in case you aren’t being Just in case you aren’t being sarcastic….the Church just wants more churchgoers.
Institutions rarely act out of pure morality….at least not after they have achieved influence.
all
June 7, 2010 @
9:13 AM
Jim Jones wrote:
Funny thing [quote=Jim Jones]
Funny thing about those deaths in the Srebrenica Massacre and the fact that the Dutch stood by and watched it happen. I worked with a bunch of European NGO’s during the Bush era who used to beat me over the head with his administrations foreign policy choices. When I brought this topic up to a Dutch NGO they would always reply “but the Dutch military was on a “limited mandate” and could not respond without approval from the security council”. They often would not socialize with me after my remarks nor would they ever again bring up US foreign policy. Gotta love those who are willing to write academic papers and diplomatic communiques from their safe tenured cloistered offices, but refuse to stand beside their fellow man and fight in their darkest hour especially those who would wear their nations military uniform.
This post is not a defense of Bush’s foreign policy so please do not ask me to justify his choices.[/quote]
Funny thing about the Srebrenica business is that the Dutch government resigned over it and it is still a hot political issue in the Netherlands. The Dutch are blocking Serbia’s advancement to EU over it while resisting pressure from the rest of EU and the U.S. And all that for 400 lightly armed people assigned to observe not being able to stop the revenge of thousands of heavily armed Serbs.
Compare that to the local reaction to hundreds of thousands of ethnic killings in Irak since 2003 invasion. “We did something and half a million people got killed” was not really the focal point of any election campaign.
The 400 people strong Dutch contingent was lightly armed and confined to the base in the valley. It had a mandate not to enforce, but to observe a treaty and was appropriately equipped. You don’t understand why they did nothing (what?) after 10K+ Muslim fighters fled or surrendered. But you do understand how it’s OK to invade a country and watch hundreds of thousands of people getting killed as a direct result of your actions?
Allan from Fallbrook
June 7, 2010 @
9:31 AM
captcha wrote:Jim Jones [quote=captcha][quote=Jim Jones]
Funny thing about those deaths in the Srebrenica Massacre and the fact that the Dutch stood by and watched it happen. I worked with a bunch of European NGO’s during the Bush era who used to beat me over the head with his administrations foreign policy choices. When I brought this topic up to a Dutch NGO they would always reply “but the Dutch military was on a “limited mandate” and could not respond without approval from the security council”. They often would not socialize with me after my remarks nor would they ever again bring up US foreign policy. Gotta love those who are willing to write academic papers and diplomatic communiques from their safe tenured cloistered offices, but refuse to stand beside their fellow man and fight in their darkest hour especially those who would wear their nations military uniform.
This post is not a defense of Bush’s foreign policy so please do not ask me to justify his choices.[/quote]
Funny thing about the Srebrenica business is that the Dutch government resigned over it and it is still a hot political issue in the Netherlands. The Dutch are blocking Serbia’s advancement to EU over it while resisting pressure from the rest of EU and the U.S. And all that for 400 lightly armed people assigned to observe not being able to stop the revenge of thousands of heavily armed Serbs.
Compare that to the local reaction to hundreds of thousands of ethnic killings in Irak since 2003 invasion. “We did something and half a million people got killed” was not really the focal point of any election campaign.
The 400 people strong Dutch contingent was lightly armed and confined to the base in the valley. It had a mandate not to enforce, but to observe a treaty and was appropriately equipped. You don’t understand why they did nothing (what?) after 10K+ Muslim fighters fled or surrendered. But you do understand how it’s OK to invade a country and watch hundreds of thousands of people getting killed as a direct result of your actions?[/quote]
Captcha: Jim makes perfectly clear in his post that he was not in any way defending Bush’s actions or policies, but you throw the strawman out anyway. Where does he say that the Dutch were wrong and the Irak (sic) invasion was right? Answer: He doesn’t.
As to the Dutch contingent being “lightly armed”: What does this mean? That the Serbs who came in and butchered the Bosniaks were “heavily armed”? Most of the killing was done with infantry small arms, mainly AK-47s and light machine guns, with coup de grace shots coming from pistols. The weapons the Serbs had were no different than those carried by the Dutch and many Serb units were irregular or militia-type, meaning no organic heavy weapons at all. There are several excellent and well-researched articles on Srebrenica, you should read them. Even a token effort to intervene by the Dutch would have had some effect, and this is buttressed by numerous after-action reports and interviews from all involved.
Again, what any of Srebrenica has to do with Iraq is beyond me.
all
June 7, 2010 @
11:09 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: Jim makes perfectly clear in his post that he was not in any way defending Bush’s actions or policies, but you throw the strawman out anyway. Where does he say that the Dutch were wrong and the Irak (sic) invasion was right? Answer: He doesn’t.
As to the Dutch contingent being “lightly armed”: What does this mean? That the Serbs who came in and butchered the Bosniaks were “heavily armed”? Most of the killing was done with infantry small arms, mainly AK-47s and light machine guns, with coup de grace shots coming from pistols. The weapons the Serbs had were no different than those carried by the Dutch and many Serb units were irregular or militia-type, meaning no organic heavy weapons at all. There are several excellent and well-researched articles on Srebrenica, you should read them. Even a token effort to intervene by the Dutch would have had some effect, and this is buttressed by numerous after-action reports and interviews from all involved.
Again, what any of Srebrenica has to do with Iraq is beyond me.[/quote]
Jim made the connection. Jim used the Srebrenica incident to quiet down the pesky Dutch NGO workers when they commented on the U.S. foreign policy and its implementation. I felt free to assume that the Dutch talked about Irak. So, I helped Jim put Srebrenica and Irak in perspective. If I were one of the Dutch workers I would take Jim’s comment as a sign of terminal ideological blindness and stop talking to him as well. He would then interpret that as a some kind of victory. I wish to help Jim understand the issue, that will help him in the future, if he decides to explain his and his country’s position, as opposed to shut someone’s mouth.
Re Srebrenica itself – while small arms were used to execute captured Muslim men the Bosnian Serbs had armored vehicles and heavy artillery at their disposal and they used it to break the resistance. The army of Bosnian Serbs was not irregular army. They had the equipment left by the Yugoslav Army, together with the Yugoslav Army officers born in Bosnia. Yugoslavia had mandatory draft and every male had at least 12 months of training, so we are not talking about a band of thugs as depicted by Hollywood movies (which actually makes their crime greater).
The army of Bosnian Serbs had 200+ tanks, 200+ armoured vehicles, tons of artillery pieces of various calibers, etc. Most of it in the Eastern Bosnia, towards Serbia, where Srebrenica is.
It took three years of arming and training the Muslim forces and involvement of NATO-supported Croatia to achieve balance in Bosnia.
There were few high-profile ‘irregular’ units in Bosnia on all three (or four, if you count anti-central government Muslims as a separate party) sides. But neither group participated in Srebrenica and all were better trained and equipped than their regular comrades and formally attached to regular structure. Bosnian Muslims had Arab fighters (Abu Hamza et al) and Bosnian Serbs had special forces from Serbia.
As with Brian’s perception of legal immigration, personal experience trumps few self-reinforcing articles.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 7, 2010 @
11:26 AM
captcha wrote:Allan from [quote=captcha][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: Jim makes perfectly clear in his post that he was not in any way defending Bush’s actions or policies, but you throw the strawman out anyway. Where does he say that the Dutch were wrong and the Irak (sic) invasion was right? Answer: He doesn’t.
As to the Dutch contingent being “lightly armed”: What does this mean? That the Serbs who came in and butchered the Bosniaks were “heavily armed”? Most of the killing was done with infantry small arms, mainly AK-47s and light machine guns, with coup de grace shots coming from pistols. The weapons the Serbs had were no different than those carried by the Dutch and many Serb units were irregular or militia-type, meaning no organic heavy weapons at all. There are several excellent and well-researched articles on Srebrenica, you should read them. Even a token effort to intervene by the Dutch would have had some effect, and this is buttressed by numerous after-action reports and interviews from all involved.
Again, what any of Srebrenica has to do with Iraq is beyond me.[/quote]
Jim made the connection. Jim used the Srebrenica incident to quiet down the pesky Dutch NGO workers when they commented on the U.S. foreign policy and its implementation. I felt free to assume that the Dutch talked about Irak. So, I helped Jim put Srebrenica and Irak in perspective. If I were one of the Dutch workers I would take Jim’s comment as a sign of terminal ideological blindness and stop talking to him as well. He would then interpret that as a some kind of victory. I wish to help Jim understand the issue, that will help him in the future, if he decides to explain his and his country’s position, as opposed to shut someone’s mouth.
Re Srebrenica itself – while small arms were used to execute captured Muslim men the Bosnian Serbs had armored vehicles and heavy artillery at their disposal and they used it to break the resistance. The army of Bosnian Serbs was not irregular army. They had the equipment left by the Yugoslav Army, together with the Yugoslav Army officers born in Bosnia. Yugoslavia had mandatory draft and every male had at least 12 months of training, so we are not talking about a band of thugs as depicted by Hollywood movies (which actually makes their crime greater).
The army of Bosnian Serbs had 200+ tanks, 200+ armoured vehicles, tons of artillery pieces of various calibers, etc. Most of it in the Eastern Bosnia, towards Serbia, where Srebrenica is.
It took three years of arming and training the Muslim forces and involvement of NATO-supported Croatia to achieve balance in Bosnia.
There were few high-profile ‘irregular’ units in Bosnia on all three (or four, if you count anti-central government Muslims as a separate party) sides. But neither group participated in Srebrenica and all were better trained and equipped than their regular comrades and formally attached to regular structure. Bosnian Muslims had Arab fighters (Abu Hamza et al) and Bosnian Serbs had special forces from Serbia.
As with Brian’s perception of legal immigration, personal experience trumps few self-reinforcing articles.[/quote]
Captcha: Again, and you need to refer to articles other than the clearly biased UN UNPROFOR after-action reports, that clearly discuss the fact that the Dutch stood by while the massacre took place. That is without dispute, as is the fact that the Serbs themselves pointed out that even a token effort by the Dutch to stop them would have had an effect.
All of this is obscured by your mention of the numbers of tanks and tubes at the disposal of the Serbians. Those numbers are the TOTAL TO&E available to the Serbians and not the disposition of forces during the Srebrenica Massacre. According to US Army reporting, the disposition of forces DIRECTLY involved in Srebrenica was largely made up of soft vehicles (i.e. heavy trucks) and APCs (armored personnel carriers). You’re using the TOTAl number of Serbian tanks and tubes to somehow make the point that they were present at Srebrenica when, in fact, they were not. My information also comes from a friend of mine, who was with STABFOR and privy to NATO, UN, UK and US intel on the Balkans.
Your information on irregular forces is also incorrect, and all sides in the conflict fielded large numbers of lightly armed irregulars and militia-type forces. You use the term “high-profile” when describing them, but I candidly have no idea what “high-profile” irregular units are. Irregular, insurgent and militia-type units aren’t high- or low-profile, they are what they are.
As far as personal experience goes, I spent three years in Central America doing counterinsurgency work, so I do happen to have some personal experience in this regard.
all
June 7, 2010 @
12:04 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: Again, and you need to refer to articles other than the clearly biased UN UNPROFOR after-action reports, that clearly discuss the fact that the Dutch stood by while the massacre took place. That is without dispute, as is the fact that the Serbs themselves pointed out that even a token effort by the Dutch to stop them would have had an effect.
All of this is obscured by your mention of the numbers of tanks and tubes at the disposal of the Serbians. Those numbers are the TOTAL TO&E available to the Serbians and not the disposition of forces during the Srebrenica Massacre. According to US Army reporting, the disposition of forces DIRECTLY involved in Srebrenica was largely made up of soft vehicles (i.e. heavy trucks) and APCs (armored personnel carriers). You’re using the TOTAl number of Serbian tanks and tubes to somehow make the point that they were present at Srebrenica when, in fact, they were not. My information also comes from a friend of mine, who was with STABFOR and privy to NATO, UN, UK and US intel on the Balkans.
[/quote]
I’ll try indirection – the force was sufficient to break the resistance of 10K+ Muslim fighters, who either fled or surrendered while protecting 20K+ civilians (those would be family members, not some random civilians).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Your information on irregular forces is also incorrect, and all sides in the conflict fielded large numbers of lightly armed irregulars and militia-type forces. You use the term “high-profile” when describing them, but I candidly have no idea what “high-profile” irregular units are. Irregular, insurgent and militia-type units aren’t high- or low-profile, they are what they are.
[/quote]
High-profile… e.g. those featured in mass-media, both local and global (as in CNN). ‘Tigers’ is one such high profile unit, usually described as ‘irregular’. Its members were actually Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia special forces who retained their position after the end of the war and who later assassinated Serbian prime-minister in 2003.
They were irregular in a sense that they were not under more than formal command of the Army chiefs, but they were not renegades or vigilantes. They were well trained, equipped and tightly controlled.
Or Abu Hamza Al-Masri’s group of mujahidins.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As far as personal experience goes, I spent three years in Central America doing counterinsurgency work, so I do happen to have some personal experience in this regard.[/quote]
Allan, I was not questioning your military credentials. You use that card a lot and I have no reason to believe that you are faking it.
What I meant is my experience of 17 years in Bosnia and another 10 in Serbia is what trumps your military expertise in this particular case. I KNOW what happened because I SAW it happening.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 7, 2010 @
12:41 PM
captcha wrote:
What I meant [quote=captcha]
What I meant is my experience of 17 years in Bosnia and another 10 in Serbia is what trumps your military expertise in this particular case. I KNOW what happened because I SAW it happening.[/quote]
Captcha: I stand corrected and you have my apology. I wouldn’t for a second try to contradict this type of experience and I clearly WASN’T there and you were. Not meaning this as an excuse, but there are certain posters on the board that will take an article and/or a book and advance whole cloth arguments designed to stake out a partisan position. In this instance, that wasn’t what happened.
The main thrust of what both Jim and I were saying is that the UN lacks any sort of credibility, moral or otherwise, and that the Balkans are an excellent example of proving exactly that point. NATO clearly shares in this as well, and you may or may not be aware of the fact that NATO had targeting packages (for air strikes) that would have effectively destroyed 90% of the Serb armor/MBTs and APCs in theater, but didn’t use them.
I would also point out that the Rwandan genocide could have been averted, and a Canadian general, LtGen Romeo Dallaire, repeatedly warned of the impending slaughter, but was ignored ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/308542.stm). And, yes, America was complicit here, too.
I didn’t read Jim’s original post as him rebuffing a Dutch contention regarding Bush’s policies, but rather a retort pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Similar to the French accusing Bush of imperialism in Iraq while French paratroopers patrolled Cote D’Ivoire protecting French business interests.
You can accuse me of being parochial or even nationalistic when it comes to America, but I’ve seen way too much hypocrisy and self dealing when it comes to the UN and NATO (their participation in Afghanistan is an excellent example) and the expectation that America will always come riding to the rescue if the situation gets bad enough.
all
June 7, 2010 @
4:34 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You can accuse me of being parochial or even nationalistic when it comes to America, but I’ve seen way too much hypocrisy and self dealing when it comes to the UN and NATO (their participation in Afghanistan is an excellent example) and the expectation that America will always come riding to the rescue if the situation gets bad enough.[/quote]
Nothing wrong with that, I guess. People around the world share the same patriotic feelings (not for the U.S., but their own countries). I have the ‘benefit’ of having lived in a country that had the same attributes as the next one, there was a flag, national anthem, prettiest beaches, glorious army, an idea worth dying for (democracy, liberté, égalité, fraternité, whatever, there is always something) and then seeing it fall apart and it makes me kind of numb to the concept.
People in need will get a loan from a loan-shark, say thank you and still don’t like it. Similarly, people will ask the U.S. for help and still not like it. The U.S. is sometimes perceived as the biggest guy on the playground who makes the rules as he sees fit and then breaks them when he does not like them anymore. The UN is somewhere perceived as a failing framework that the biggest guy ignores when he fails to bully it. The problem is I guess that things are rarely as simple as their projection onto 1-dimensional space.
But something is not right when entire historically allied nations are rooting for your failure and if you want to change that you probably need to understand their motives first. It can’t be just that they are envious – they weren’t ten or thirty years ago.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 7, 2010 @
5:02 PM
Captcha: As with anything Captcha: As with anything else, ascribing everything to a single word like “envy” is obviously simplistic and naive. That being said, envy is a part of it, especially for a nation like France that, for a time, commanded far more influence than they do now.
I remember talking to my uncle Joe, who fought in Italy during WWII. The Italians and the French and the Dutch loved Americans and we were perceived as not only liberators, but on the side of the angels. Fast forward to Vietnam and Fulbright’s “Arrogance of Power” is on full display and America is not so much loved as feared.
I think we’ve now entered a new phase of American power, and that is one where we’ll do whatever it takes to keep the machine running and don’t particularly care about the consequences, so long as the outcome is positive. All that said, there is still an integral part of this country, namely the people, that keep us from sliding completely into the abyss.
I have a tendency to be biased and largely because my time in the military was spent in places where the doctrine of Gunboat Diplomacy still applied. So, I’ve seen us at our worst, but I’ve also seen us at our best. Like I’m fond of saying: Sometimes your choices aren’t Good and Bad, they’re Bad and Worse.
briansd1
June 7, 2010 @
9:22 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: As with anything else, ascribing everything to a single word like “envy” is obviously simplistic and naive. That being said, envy is a part of it, especially for a nation like France that, for a time, commanded far more influence than they do now.
I remember talking to my uncle Joe, who fought in Italy during WWII.
I remember talking to my uncle Joe, who fought in Italy during WWII. The Italians and the French and the Dutch loved Americans and we were perceived as not only liberators, but on the side of the angels. Fast forward to Vietnam and Fulbright’s “Arrogance of Power” is on full display and America is not so much loved as feared.
I think we’ve now entered a new phase of American power, and that is one where we’ll do whatever it takes to keep the machine running and don’t particularly care about the consequences, so long as the outcome is positive. [/quote]
So the French and Italians don’t love America so much anymore. There must be some good reasons.
But that’s besides the point. So the French are envious of us and our power? So what?
Why are certain Americans bothering with the French and turning into petulant teenagers resentful of the French’s feelings towards us?
I was told that those with the highest morals perform good deeds because they are the right things to do.
The argument is that we should do what we feel is right to do and not bother about the reactions of others.
Bush and his supported decided to go it alone. So why then be surprised and resentful of the reactions of those whose approval we didn’t even care about to be begin with?
Do friends favors if you really want to. But don’t do it then bitch about it when people don’t show enough appreciation. One “thank you” should be enough.
Jim Jones
June 7, 2010 @
7:41 PM
Allan from [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=captcha]
I didn’t read Jim’s original post as him rebuffing a Dutch contention regarding Bush’s policies, but rather a retort pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Similar to the French accusing Bush of imperialism in Iraq while French paratroopers patrolled Cote D’Ivoire protecting French business interests.
You can accuse me of being parochial or even nationalistic when it comes to America, but I’ve seen way too much hypocrisy and self dealing when it comes to the UN and NATO (their participation in Afghanistan is an excellent example) and the expectation that America will always come riding to the rescue if the situation gets bad enough.[/quote]
Allan,
Thank you for responding just as I would have. I agree with Captcha that by using the argument that I did it was to basically shut the individual up. That is a point I am openly willing to concede. But is was for a valid reason.
Each country is going to take a foreign policy trajectory which is in its own best interests in 99% of the circumstances. Right or wrong the Dutch decided to sit that one out. Right or wrong Bush went into Iraq. Either way I was not part of the planning or execution process for either event and met the requirements of my civic duty by voting in that election.
I was frankly tired of being thrown out there as an American who should be held responsible for my governments foreign policy choices all the time. When I was working with the NGO’s I had shared many of the same ideals for peace and prosperity for the people and the nation we were working in. The problem is that many of the NGO’s could only see the ideal world they could imagine living in and failed to recognize the reality of global realpolitik. My reference to the Dutch incident was a opportunity for the Dutch citizen to take a taste of the medicine he was dishing out. Most Europeans are never held to task in that regard as their governments choose to sit out the major crisis and instead criticize from the sidelines.
By the way how come the whole world and the UN is not up in arms over the sinking of the Korean corvette. It was a clear act of war by a nuclear rouge nation which is currently exporting globally destabilizing nuclear and missile technology to some of the worlds most repressive regimes in Myanmar, Syria and Iran. Again its in the national interest of many large players to sit this one out and let the chips fall where they may.
Also Allan and Captcha thank both of your for the stimulating and intellectually honest conversation that has not devolved somehow into blaming Hitler or arguing over Democrats and Republicans
Allan from Fallbrook
June 7, 2010 @
8:27 PM
Jim: My frustration stems Jim: My frustration stems from people who have enjoyed all the benefits of being an American, including access to some of the best higher education in the world, and then turning around and adopting a “Hate America First” mentality. Not because they believe it, but because its what they were indoctrinated to believe, either through college/university, political affiliation, or both.
I don’t believe, nor have I ever claimed, that America is perfect. Far from it. However, its also interesting to note that when earthquakes or tsunamis or other natural disasters strike, its an American aircraft carrier pulling into the harbor and American money (donations) pouring in. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world, like the Saudis, preach piety and charity and help, but can’t ever be found when it comes to giving or to help. Yeah, I recognize that hypocrisy comes with the territory, but most of these Utopians are the worst offenders: Holding people to an impossible standard of conduct, while turning a blind eye to the transgressions of those that they favor.
One of the best definitions of fascism I came across says that fascism is the system of outlawing everything and then selectively enforcing the laws against those you don’t like.
Framing arguments in the Dem versus Repub or Right versus Left not only generally misses the point in question entirely, but it reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. Which is about a step away from the dreaded “Neener, neener” argument. Or, “I know you are, but what am I?”.
briansd1
June 7, 2010 @
9:33 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jim: My frustration stems from people who have enjoyed all the benefits of being an American, including access to some of the best higher education in the world, and then turning around and adopting a “Hate America First” mentality. Not because they believe it, but because its what they were indoctrinated to believe, either through college/university, political affiliation, or both.
[/quote]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Framing arguments in the Dem versus Repub or Right versus Left not only generally misses the point in question entirely, but it reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. Which is about a step away from the dreaded “Neener, neener” argument. Or, “I know you are, but what am I?”.[/quote]
If throwing “you hate America” at other Americans is not framing in a partisan manner, then I don’t know what is.
Saying “you hate America” implies “You hate American but I love America”. This casts the other party as evil whose opinions are wrong and not worth considering. This type of labeling is certainly not conducive to debate.
I’m sorry, but it’s one man one vote. Each American is equally entitled to his/her opinion; and equally entitled to influence the direction of our country.
PHOENIX (AP) – Mexico is PHOENIX (AP) – Mexico is asking a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional.
Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the law.
The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally.
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.[/quote]
Right or wrong, I have to admit…The law appears to be pretty effective at doing what it was designd to do.
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.[/quote]
Right or wrong, I have to admit…The law appears to be pretty effective at doing what it was designd to do.[/quote]
As was said before, the law appears to be effective for in chasing unauthorized immigrant out of Arizona… but SB1070 might turn out to be worse for California as the immigrants move her.
Why are Californians supporting the AZ law that might be detrimental to our state?
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.[/quote]
Right or wrong, I have to admit…The law appears to be pretty effective at doing what it was designd to do.[/quote]
As was said before, the law appears to be effective for in chasing unauthorized immigrant out of Arizona… but SB1070 might turn out to be worse for California as the immigrants move her.
Why are Californians supporting the AZ law that might be detrimental to our state?[/quote]
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.
briansd1
July 27, 2010 @
12:14 PM
flu wrote:
Maybe the correct [quote=flu]
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.[/quote]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)
all
July 27, 2010 @
1:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:flu [quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.[/quote]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)[/quote]
Access to public schools.
Access to public roads.
Access to public parks.
Access to public beaches.
Access to emergency room medical care (it might not apply in your view, but no hospital will take “Brian approves of it” as a form of payment).
briansd1
July 27, 2010 @
2:09 PM
captcha, access is not a captcha, access is not a direct government benefit and it’s not welfare.
We don’t pay for emergency room care directly. The patients still gets billed for care (at much higher costs than insurance negotiated rates). When the patients don’t pay, then the hospital have bad debt expenses. It’s a cost of doing business, just like an oil gusher is a cost of doing business (cost to business and cost to society).
Remember that unauthorized immigrants contribute to our GDP. If we make them legal, they will contribute more to our economic growth.
[quote=CONCHO]
They might have to, I’m not sure there will be any other way. However if after the amnesty is declared the border as it stands today still exists, the problem won’t be fixed.
[/quote]
We know that almost all the unauthorized immigrants in this country will be made legal eventually.
So why not make them legal now so they contribute more?
What happens after the amnesty is for the politicians to work out.
We should not hold people hostage to the political stalemate. Future immigration is between the future immigrants and the politicians. It has nothing to with the immigrants in the country already.
Coronita
July 27, 2010 @
2:50 PM
briansd1 wrote:
So why not [quote=briansd1]
So why not make them legal now so they contribute more?
[/quote]
Fine by me, as long as
1)Folks file taxes
2)Folks contribute more $$$ to the system them remove from the system ( i.e.: the majority will not be welfare recipients and/or needing government assistance
3)Folks that do need financial subsidies must apply participate in a lottery system..
briansd1
July 27, 2010 @
9:20 PM
As I’ve said before our As I’ve said before our future economic growth depends on immigration.
Our economy is dynamic because of immigration.
Look at how Japan, which by being insular, is losing relevance and heft in the world. They are also on a slow but steady economic decline.
For Japan, maintaining economic relevance in the next decades hinges on its ability — and its willingness — to grow by seeking outside help. Japan has long had deep misgivings about immigration and has tightly controlled the ability of foreigners to live and work here.
But with the country’s population expected to fall from 127 million to below 100 million by 2055, Prime Minister Naoto Kan last month took a step toward loosening Japan’s grip on immigration, outlining a goal to double the number of highly skilled foreign workers within a decade.
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.[/quote]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)[/quote]
Access to public schools.
Access to public roads.
Access to public parks.
Access to public beaches.
Access to emergency room medical care (it might not apply in your view, but no hospital will take “Brian approves of it” as a form of payment).[/quote]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course). Do thoes expenses not count, Brian?
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. Also, the schools that educate illegals and their children allocate a LOT more resources for these students than to students who are U.S. citizens. They get more federal money, too. I guess that doesn’t count in your book, brian?
edit: Just saw meadandale’s comment above. He’s absolutely right, but there are also many more costs associated with these illegal students (bilingual classes and all the personnel, documentation and administration expenses related to it; additional teachers, aides, and other resources that are supposed to help them catch up with their native peers, full-time nurses, phychiatrists, P.E. teachers, etc. because the school “qualifies” for these additional expenses because of the poverty of the students’ families, etc.). Trust me, when you add it all up, it’s a HUGE number.
briansd1
July 28, 2010 @
11:45 AM
I believe that SB 1070 will I believe that SB 1070 will have national implications, just like Prop 187 had statewide implications for California.
Reporting from Phoenix —
A federal judge has halted the most controversial elements of Arizona’s new immigration law, which had been scheduled to take effect at midnight.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone for a new crime of failing to possess immigration documents.
Bolton’s ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving the two provisions, and two other ones in the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration. Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
briansd1
July 28, 2010 @
11:57 AM
CA renter wrote:
California [quote=CA renter]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course). Do thoes expenses not count, Brian?
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. Also, the schools that educate illegals and their children allocate a LOT more resources for these students than to students who are U.S. citizens. They get more federal money, too. I guess that doesn’t count in your book, brian?
[/quote]
We can hardly say unauthorized immigrants in prison are receiving welfare services. I don’t see how SB 1070 solves the prison cost problem. SB 1070 might prove more costly to AZ by putting more people in jail.
As for the schools, since we already know that the unauthorized immigrants already here will stay here, and will eventually be made legal, we are better off educating them. We are investing in our future, a future that will include those children as productive adults.
I would rather the children go to school than wander the streets. It’s a humanitarian issue and also a pragmatic issue of educating future members of our society/economy.
As our society gets older, we will need to import workers. Better to import workers and integrate them little by little over the years, than to be faced with a sudden shortage and an economic shock.
all
July 28, 2010 @
12:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:
We can hardly [quote=briansd1]
We can hardly say unauthorized immigrants in prison are receiving welfare services. I don’t see how SB 1070 solves the prison cost problem. SB 1070 might prove more costly to AZ by putting more people in jail.
[/quote]
Far fewer illegals will be present leading to reduced number of arrested illegals.
[quote=briansd1]
As for the schools, since we already know that the unauthorized immigrants already here will stay here, and will eventually be made legal, we are better off educating them.
[/quote]
That’s your assumption, not a fact. Wealthy emancipated countries have history of successful removal of unauthorized visitors. As this wealthy country becomes more socialist by making more services available to people regardless of their income the pressure from the paying populus to restrict access to benefits will grow.
German citizens might have paid health care and higher education, but good luck to any illegal trying to enroll in such program. Illegals are put in camps (as always, I guess Germans like to put people in camps) and deported (unlike before).
[quote=briansd1]
We are investing in our future, a future that will include those children as productive adults.
I would rather the children go to school than wander the streets. It’s a humanitarian issue and also a pragmatic issue of educating future members of our society/economy.
As our society gets older, we will need to import workers. Better to import workers and integrate them little by little over the years, than to be faced with a sudden shortage and an economic shock.[/quote]
Even if that was the case it is better to import educated, healthy, vetted people with proven skill set and ability to acquire new skills (see example of modern western countries with celebrated health care systems, such as Canada or Germany) than uneducated law breakers.
I really don’t understand your motivation. Do you believe that illegals are ‘good people’ and deserve special treatment by virtue of being uneducated and exploited? If you want to help them why not focus on helping them return to their home countries? Just the money various attorneys will collect to litigate this non-issue would be enough to significantly improve lives of thousands of people in Latin America.
briansd1
July 28, 2010 @
12:55 PM
captcha wrote:
That’s your [quote=captcha]
That’s your assumption, not a fact. Wealthy emancipated countries have history of successful removal of unauthorized visitors.
[/quote]
I don’t see anyone advocating mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants.
Until there is such removal plan, I’ll assume the immigrants will stay here indefinitely.
[quote=captcha]
German citizens might have paid health care and higher education, but good luck to any illegal trying to enroll in such program. Illegals are put in camps (as always, I guess Germans like to put people in camps) and deported (unlike before).
[/quote]
Do you want us to put people in camps and deport them by force?
Btw, I was told that higher education is FREE for foreign students in Germany. Health care is also free to legal immigrants in Germany. Not so in America.
[quote=captcha]
I really don’t understand your motivation. Do you believe that illegals are ‘good people’ and deserve special treatment by virtue of being uneducated and exploited? If you want to help them why not focus on helping them return to their home countries?
[/quote]
My motivation is humanitarian. I don’t see the point of kicking people while they are down.
I would be in favor of the government paying the plane tickets of people who want to go back home.
But people don’t want to go back home. They would rather live underground. These economic refugees may be uneducated now, but there is no reason why their children and grandchildren can’t become highly educated productive members of our society.
all
July 28, 2010 @
3:17 PM
briansd1 wrote:
captcha [quote=briansd1]
[quote=captcha]
German citizens might have paid health care and higher education, but good luck to any illegal trying to enroll in such program. Illegals are put in camps (as always, I guess Germans like to put people in camps) and deported (unlike before).
[/quote]
Do you want us to put people in camps and deport them by force?
Btw, I was told that higher education is FREE for foreign students in Germany. Health care is also free to legal immigrants in Germany. Not so in America.
[/quote]
Precisely my point. Eligible people consume benefits. Ineligible people are not promoted to eligible, they are removed from the country. Refugees from Bosnia were returned to Bosnia after spending 5+ years in Germany. Kosovo refugees were returned after 15+ years.
[quote=briansd1]
[quote=captcha]
I really don’t understand your motivation. Do you believe that illegals are ‘good people’ and deserve special treatment by virtue of being uneducated and exploited? If you want to help them why not focus on helping them return to their home countries?
[/quote]
My motivation is humanitarian. I don’t see the point of kicking people while they are down.
[/quote]
🙂
Unless they are deadbeats, in which case you want them kicked out as quickly as possible.
Sorry, you need to project your humanitarian side consistently if you want to make it more believable.
Why don’t we take a look at solutions implemented by countries generally recognized as more ‘humane’ than this county?
[quote=briansd1]
I would be in favor of the government paying the plane tickets of people who want to go back home.
But people don’t want to go back home. They would rather live underground.
[/quote]
I don’t want to obey certain laws either. What kind of argument is that?
[quote=briansd1]
These economic refugees may be uneducated now, but there is no reason why their children and grandchildren can’t become highly educated productive members of our society.[/quote]
Well, there is a reason why children of uneducated people on average do worse in school than children of people with more education.
Regardless, your argument is that amnesty is good for the country for a specific reason. I gave you an alternative to achieve the same goal. Do you really believe it is better for a country (any country) to import a ton of illiterate people vs. the same number of people with 15+ years of education? How many gang members do you think are born to uneducated vs. highly educated?
briansd1
July 28, 2010 @
4:14 PM
captcha wrote:
Regardless, [quote=captcha]
Regardless, your argument is that amnesty is good for the country for a specific reason. I gave you an alternative to achieve the same goal. Do you really believe it is better for a country (any country) to import a ton of illiterate people vs. the same number of people with 15+ years of education? How many gang members do you think are born to uneducated vs. highly educated?[/quote]
Yes, amnesty is good because it integrates people into our society rather that leave them in limbo indefinitely. We are creating gang members by keeping people on the edge of society.
Unless there is an arrest-and-deport-by-force policy, amnesty is the best solution.
Amnesty for immigrants already here is not mutually exclusive from welcoming other immigrants who are highly educated. We can do both.
UCGal
July 29, 2010 @
1:52 PM
I just saw on the news that I just saw on the news that the majority of counties in AZ are not using the AZ mandated e-verify system. It becomes hard to make the case that the feds exclusively dropped the ball on the undocumented worker problem if the AZ counties can’t even be bothered to make employers verify documentation for their employees.
Businesses are mandated to use the e-verify system or risk losing their business license. Less than 1/3 of the employers have even signed up, even though the law has been in place for 2 years. Most of the counties are not checking to see if employers are complying.
UCGal wrote:I just saw on the [quote=UCGal]I just saw on the news that the majority of counties in AZ are not using the AZ mandated e-verify system. It becomes hard to make the case that the feds exclusively dropped the ball on the undocumented worker problem if the AZ counties can’t even be bothered to make employers verify documentation for their employees.
Businesses are mandated to use the e-verify system or risk losing their business license. Less than 1/3 of the employers have even signed up, even though the law has been in place for 2 years. Most of the counties are not checking to see if employers are complying.
Furthermore, the Obama administration has been enforcing immigration laws more vigorously than any administration before.
In a bid to remake the enforcement of federal immigration laws, the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants and auditing hundreds of businesses that blithely hire undocumented workers.
Just because nobody else has Just because nobody else has addressed this yet….
[quote=CA renter]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course).
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. [/quote]
No, our prisons are not “full” of illegal immigrants. Nor do prisons and schools have a 30% or more illegal population.
A recent study showed the Ca prison system with 17% both documented AND undocumented aliens. And The public school system is estimated somewhere south of 10%. (Total undocumented population of CA is thought to be around 7%. Intuitively, the school population can’t possibly be more than four times that percentage.)
CA renter
July 29, 2010 @
2:56 PM
SK in CV wrote:Just because [quote=SK in CV]Just because nobody else has addressed this yet….
[quote=CA renter]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course).
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. [/quote]
No, our prisons are not “full” of illegal immigrants. Nor do prisons and schools have a 30% or more illegal population.
A recent study showed the Ca prison system with 17% both documented AND undocumented aliens. And The public school system is estimated somewhere south of 10%. (Total undocumented population of CA is thought to be around 7%. Intuitively, the school population can’t possibly be more than four times that percentage.)[/quote]
Oh yes, our prisons are FULL of illegal immigrants and their “naturalized” children, as are our schools.
———-
California’s nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stricter immigration policies.
Educating the children of illegal immigrants is the largest cost, estimated at $7.7 billion each year, according to the report. Medical care for illegal immigrants and incarceration of those who have committed crimes are the next two largest expenses measured in the study, the author said.
Jack Martin, who wrote the report, said Thursday that the $9 billion figure does not include other expenses that are difficult to measure, such as special English instruction, school lunch programs, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal immigrant workers.
As Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:
“The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.”
Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: “Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That’s a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population.”
Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics – but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.
• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these non-gang “Hollywood dealers,” as the city attorney calls them, but the gang injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And if a Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the street as a “border brother”) for his immigration status, or even notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (since early 2003, absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he would face severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the city’s sanctuary policy.
After their brief moment of truth in 1996, Los Angeles politicians have only grown more adamant in defense of Special Order 40. After learning that cops in the scandal-plagued Rampart Division had cooperated with the INS to try to uproot murderous gang members from the community, local politicians threw a fit, criticizing district commanders for even allowing INS agents into their station houses. In turn, the LAPD strictly disciplined the offending officers.
Criminal aliens also interpret the triage as indifference. John Mullaly a former NYPD homicide detective, estimates that 70 percent of the drug dealers and other criminals in Manhattan’s Washington Heights were illegal. Were Mullaly to threaten an illegal-alien thug in custody that his next stop would be El Salvador unless he cooperated, the criminal would just laugh, knowing that the INS would never show up. The message could not be clearer: this is a culture that can’t enforce its most basic law of entry. If policing’s broken-windows theory is correct, the failure to enforce one set of rules breeds overall contempt for the law.
As to why the population of illegal (or “natualized” children of illegal immigrants) immigrants in the public school system can be much greater than that of the general population…
More than 380,000 “anchor babies” born in the United States in 2005 were to parents who are illegal aliens; making those 380,000 babies automatically U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayer.
More than 66% of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
While these massive budget deficits cannot be attributed to any single source, the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.1
This enormous expenditure of the taxpayers’ hard-earned contributions does not, however, represent the total costs. Special programs for non-English speakers are an additional fiscal burden as well as a hindrance to the overall learning environment. A recent study found that dual language programs represent an additional expense of $290 to $879 per pupil depending on the size of the class.2 In addition, because these children of illegal aliens come from families that are most often living in poverty, there is also a major expenditure for them on supplemental feeding programs in the schools. Those ancillary expenditures have not been included in the calculations in this report.
A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state’s already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.
The story in the following link is something you’ll see often on the internet when researching the effects of illegal immigration on our school system. As a former teacher, I can confirm much of what is written here. It is not hyperbole.
In 2005, the California K–12 school system was 48.5 percent Hispanic, compared with 30.9 percent white. By now it is above 50 percent Hispanic. Two-thirds of kindergarten students were Hispanic, most of them unable to speak English.
For a closer glimpse of what’s in store for California, look at the Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest in California and the second largest in the country. Of its roughly 700,000 students, almost three-quarters are Hispanic, 8.9 percent are white, and 11.2 percent are black. More than half of the Latino students (about 300,000) are “English learners” and, depending on whether you believe the district or independent scholars, anywhere between a third and a half drop out of high school, following significant attrition in middle school. A recent study by UC Santa Barbara’s California Dropout Research Project estimates that high-school dropouts in 2007 alone will cost the state $24.2 billion in future economic losses.
Now, about that “policy of silence” regarding immigration status…
Back when I worked for LAUSD in the mid-90s, it was a policy that nobody could question students or their parents about their immigration status. Because of this, statistics are difficult to find (this is intentional, as the *real* reason for the lack of accurate numbers is because they don’t want to give ammunition to those who oppose illegal immigration). That being said, it was “unofficially understood” at the time that about 40%-60% of the student population in LAUSD were either illegal immigrants or “anchor babies” — this, in the largest public school district in the state, and second largest in the nation. That was in the mid-90s, and the problems have only gotten worse since then.
Here is some more information about the (intentional) lack of accurate statistics. As of now, we have to rely mostly on whether or not prisoners and students/families self-identify as “illegal immigrants.” One thing I can guarantee is that the “official” numbers grossly understate what’s really going on. -CAR
—————
Developing credible estimates of the costs and revenues for illegal aliens
in California is difficult because limited data are available on this
population’s size, use of public services, and tax payments. This difficulty
is compounded by the lack of consensus among researchers on the
appropriate methodologies, assumptions, and data sources to use in
estimating costs and revenues associated with illegal aliens.
…Although we believe our
adjusted estimate is more reasonable, because of severe data limitations it
is by no means precise.
But how many millions? The truth is that neither Bush nor anyone in his government can say exactly how many undocumented workers live in the United States
The Census Bureau does not ask about immigration status, and the federal government has not issued an estimate of the undocumented population for the past few years. That has left the issue open for debate in the private sector, where counts of the illegal population range from 7 million to 20 million.
Estimates of how many are here now vary from twelve million to thirty million. Nobody really knows for sure, since agencies that should be asking are not allowed to do so. It is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. It forbids welfare agencies to ask the legal status of recipients. The two federal agencies, (the IRS and Census Bureau), that might have somewhat accurate figures will not give them out, citing “privacy” issues. We are left to speculate that we might have twice the cited illegal population here, which would be about twenty-four million, or even three times the estimate, which would be thirty-six million.
Okay, enough for now. Just needed to point out that illegal immigration should be our first priority when dealing with our deficits. Fix that problem first, then we can properly address reduced public services, reduced wages/benefits for public employees, and higher taxes.
Some extra info…
Education expenses comprise over 50% of the state’s general fund expenditures.
While I’ve read that education and corrections are the state’s largest expenditures, according to this summary, it’s education and health and human services that are the greatest (page 5). Since I have spent enough time on this, I’ll leave it up to you to do the research on the impact of illegal immigration on our HHS resources. 😉
CA renter wrote:
Oh yes, our [quote=CA renter]
Oh yes, our prisons are FULL of illegal immigrants and their “naturalized” children, as are our schools.[/quote]
I don’t see how “illegal immigrants” are having “naturalized” children.
Those children are natural-born American citizens.
If you won’t pay to educate American children, I don’t want to pay to educate your kids either.
CA renter
July 29, 2010 @
3:22 PM
The children born to illegal The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. 😉
SK in CV
July 29, 2010 @
6:17 PM
CA renter wrote:The children [quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
I hope you are teaching your home-schooled children to look things up and not just believe what you tell them. Children born in the US, regardless of their parents citizenship, are not naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens are those not born with (US) citizenship. Children of undocumented aliens are born US citizens, ergo, not naturalized.
And on your stats, they’re all over the board. (I chose lower ones, you chose to link to higher numbers. But none indicate that the schools or prisons are “full” of illegal aliens. If schools were full of illegal aliens, there would be no room (even using your inflated 30%) for the rest of the students.
(Some of the best non-partisan information on the effects of immigration can be found at http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp the Public Policy Institute of California)
CA renter
July 29, 2010 @
7:05 PM
You are correct. The You are correct. The technical definition of a “naturalized citizen” would not include the “anchor babies” born here. I’ve seen them referred to as naturalized citizens, but never looked up the technical definition. Nonetheless, the law that allows children of illegal immigrants to have U.S. citizenship (whatever you want to call it) is a huge problem.
I didn’t see you link to anything that showed that illegal immigrants and their children comprise less than 10% of the student population in California’s public school system. Anyone who has had any experience with the school system (or prison system, or public healthcare system, etc.) would know how totally unrealisitic that number is.
mike92104
July 29, 2010 @
7:20 PM
To summarize, the point is To summarize, the point is there are a LOT of illegals in the prison and school systems, and it costs us (taxpayers) BILLIONS of dollars.
briansd1
July 30, 2010 @
8:48 AM
mike92104 wrote:To summarize, [quote=mike92104]To summarize, the point is there are a LOT of illegals in the prison and school systems, and it costs us (taxpayers) BILLIONS of dollars.[/quote]
But what is the solution? People complain but don’t offer solutions.
Not putting criminals in jail? Felons get deported after serving their sentences anyway.
Not allowing children to attend school?
My solution, amnesty, is certainly a solution to unlawful presence.
mike92104
July 30, 2010 @
10:21 PM
briansd1 wrote:mike92104 [quote=briansd1][quote=mike92104]To summarize, the point is there are a LOT of illegals in the prison and school systems, and it costs us (taxpayers) BILLIONS of dollars.[/quote]
But what is the solution? People complain but don’t offer solutions.
Not putting criminals in jail? Felons get deported after serving their sentences anyway.
Not allowing children to attend school?
My solution, amnesty, is certainly a solution to unlawful presence.[/quote]
1. More manpower on the border.
I grew up in El Paso, TX. When Sylvester Reyes was head of the Border Patrol in that area, he decided to put a man every 100 yds or so along the portion of the border that ran through the city. It had a massive effect on reducing the number of illegals crossing within the city.
2. Let the E-Verify program do what it was intended to.
I think it’s stupid not to use a very cheap, and easy way of putting pressure on business to stop hiring illegals.
3. Make “sanctuary cities” illegal.
Arizona already did this in the SB1070
4. Deny benefits.
Take away as much incentive to be here as possible.
5. Deport illegals already here.
If you’re worried about being kicked out, maybe you’ll be more willing to go through the proper steps to immigrate legally.
6. Make the immigration process easier.
I’ve mentioned this before. I think if it were easier for Mexicans to immigrate or work in this country legally they would do so, but this has to be implemented along with stricter enforcement when people immigrate illegally. I would go so far as to deny any and all state services to anyone caught in the country illegally for the rest of their lives. They essentially lose their opportunity to ever immigrate legally.
As far as amnesty is concerned, if it was a solution, we wouldn’t need to do it again. When we did that in the late 80’s, it didn’t have any effect on the amount of illegal immigration. If anything it encouraged more of it.
UCGal
August 2, 2010 @
2:56 PM
I agree with several of I agree with several of Mikein92104 points – especially the e-verify one. Arizona employers should be using this, as required under AZ law. Unfortunately, the enforcement on the employers isn’t happening.
Manpower has been beefed up on the border under Obama – and the numbers of deportations have risen.
I have issues with terms like “anchor baby” being tossed around. It’s a myth. If an illegal immigrant has a child in the U.S. the child is a citizen but the parent is still illegal. The INS can and DOES deport the parent(s). The child can either stay in the U.S. with relatives/friends, or return with the family to the home country. The child retains their citizenship. The only advantage for the parents immigration prospects is that when the child reaches age 21, they can apply to sponsor their parents to enter the country legally. 21 years is a very long payoff time to have an “anchor baby”.
As far as changing the law… it would be a change to the constitution. A much harder process. I’m glad the constitution is hard to change. (I wish California’s constitution were as hard to change.)
KSMountain
August 2, 2010 @
6:37 PM
UCGal wrote:I’m glad the [quote=UCGal]I’m glad the constitution is hard to change. (I wish California’s constitution were as hard to change.)[/quote]
Agree. The whole initiative process is being abused, imo.
CA renter
July 30, 2010 @
6:03 PM
SK in CV wrote:CA renter [quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
I hope you are teaching your home-schooled children to look things up and not just believe what you tell them. Children born in the US, regardless of their parents citizenship, are not naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens are those not born with (US) citizenship. Children of undocumented aliens are born US citizens, ergo, not naturalized.
And on your stats, they’re all over the board. (I chose lower ones, you chose to link to higher numbers. But none indicate that the schools or prisons are “full” of illegal aliens. If schools were full of illegal aliens, there would be no room (even using your inflated 30%) for the rest of the students.
(Some of the best non-partisan information on the effects of immigration can be found at http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp the Public Policy Institute of California)[/quote]
For the record, I’ve always made it a point to not personally attack other posters. It’s inflamatory, degrades the level of discourse, doesn’t contribute anything to the debate, and usually makes the attacker look like a fool. While I usually refrain from responding to personal attacks, when you took it upon yourself to personally insult me and my family, you went over the line. My children are off-limits, and had nothing to do with the topic we were debating. My response to brian was only meant to address his assertion that he didn’t want to pay for my childrens’ education; it’s not fodder for your personal attacks.
Let’s address your points now, so that we can see who really has a grasp of the facts.
We’ll discuss your “enlightened” claim that schools and prisons are not overcrowded as a result of illegal immigration.
——————
The overcrowding crisis in American schools is directly attributable to high immigration
Without school-age immigrants and the children of immigrants, school enrollment would not have risen at all during the past decade.
One in every five students has an immigrant parent. One-quarter of these children were foreign-born themselves.
Immigration will account for 96 percent of the future increase in the school-age population over the next 50 years.
Even those who appear to favor illegal immigration admit to the overcrowding (they just want us to pay more for it). -CAR
Ending School Overcrowding in California: Building Quality Schools for All Children, a joint report from PolicyLink and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), illustrates California’s school overcrowding crisis, analyzes the state’s New Construction and Critically Overcrowded Schools programs, discusses structural barriers to addressing school overcrowding, and outlines policy recommendations for more equitable distribution of school construction funds.
This is bad news for efforts to reduce classroom crowding across the U.S. Faced with an influx of students, more than one-third of schools are using portable classrooms and holding classes in temporary instructional space, such as cafeterias and gyms. In county after county, students eat lunch in staggered schedules starting as early as 10:30 to ease the strain on crowded cafeterias. Teachers say classes are too large to be managed effectively, and they can’t assist students who need extra help.
Based on figures from the U.S. Census BureauNoun 1. Census Bureau – the bureau of the Commerce Department responsible for taking the census; provides demographic information and analyses about the population of the United States
Bureau of the Census
….. Click the link for more information., the report concludes that if immigration continues at current rates, efforts to reduce class size and ease overcrowding will be doomed to failure.
May 31, 2008|Tony Barboza, Times Staff Writer
For the second time in a decade, the cash-strapped Santa Ana Unified School District is asking voters to approve a construction bond to fund improvements to its school buildings.
The $200-million bond, Measure G on Tuesday’s ballot, would make the district eligible for up to $120 million in state matching funds to ease overcrowding.
Santa Ana is greatly impacted by illegal immigration, BTW. -CAR
——————
Multi-track, year-round education, which began as a stopgap effort to cope with severe
overcrowding, has only exacerbated the inequities between and among California’s schools.
(See Duke Helfand, Year-Round Discontent at Hollywood High, L.A. Times, Nov. 20, 2000, at
A1 (although a multi-track calendar was introduced in LAUSD at a single school about 25 years
ago as “a temporary fix for overcrowding,” LAUSD now operates more multi-track schools than
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, and Houston combined).) Students who attend
schools operating on the multi-track, year-round calendar known as Concept 6 suffer several
clear disadvantages as compared to students at schools on traditional calendars: (1) overcrowded
and large schools…
Lawyers for a group of California inmates have been fighting for 20 years for improved medical and mental health care. Courts have ruled that the level of care in overcrowded California prisons violates the Constitution. But efforts at reform have stalled or failed as California prison populations have ballooned to roughly twice the system’s design capacity.
January 13, 2010|By Michael Rothfeld
Reporting from Sacramento — A panel of three federal judges Tuesday approved a court-ordered plan submitted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce overcrowding in California prisons by 40,000 inmates within two years.
The judges ruled against the state in August in two lawsuits by inmates who argued that overcrowding was the main cause of inadequate medical and mental health care in the prisons.
CHINO – It’s nearing noon inside the central wing of the California Institution for Men, and it’s not hard to find evidence of how this has become Exhibit A in California’s prison crisis.
A gymnasium is a sea of bunk beds. The 213 inmates inside are quarantined on this day, the result of worries about a swine flu outbreak. In a room like this, there is nowhere for a virus to go but directly to another inmate never more than a foot or two away. The basketball hoops and theater stage are reminders that this decaying part of the prison was never meant to house prisoners.
Likewise, a “day room” once envisioned as a place for inmates to play cards or watch TV is stacked with bunk beds, 54 beds for 54 prisoners who have little room to stand. In one corner, there is a shower and a toilet. Large fans stir the fetid air.
“This is self-explanatory,” says an inmate perched on a top bunk. “We’re overcrowded.”
CALIFORNIA’S PRISON SYSTEM is failing at every level. The cost to taxpayers and public safety for this failure is staggering. More than 170,000 inmates are now being warehoused in facilities designed to accommodate 80,000 inmates. Coupled with severe staff shortages, this overcrowding is inordinately jeopardizing the safety of inmates and correctional officers, while straining prison resources and infrastructure to the breaking point.
California’s emergency rooms have become the healthcare safety net and are the front lines of any public health emergency. Overcrowding in California’s emergency rooms is a real and continued threat to the health and safety of patients in need of care.
California is currently last in the nation when it comes to the number of emergency rooms available per capita, providing only six emergency rooms for every one million residents.
In case you’re wondering why we have so few beds per person…
The Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare studied shortterm
general acute care hospitals that closed in California during the years 1995 to 2000.
We identified 23 closures, 11 of which took place at for-profit facilities. The vast
majority took place in urban areas, and they were most often in southern California.
Payer Mix
In a further effort to describe the closed hospitals, we also studied the mix of
discharges and revenues from government payers they reported. We found that, as a
group, the closed hospitals reliance on Medicare and MediCal patients and revenue did
not differ greatly from the state’s 1999 open general acute care (GAC) hospitals. This
fact is illustrated in Figure 6.
According to the California Healthcare Association CHA, 70 acute care hospitals closed in California between 1993 and 2003—a 13.33% drop in hospital capacity. During the same period, about 11,000 staffed hospital beds were lost (staffed beds are those which are both licensed and have the requisite staff available to care for patients). As the state’s population grew by 13.44% over that decade, acute care hospital bed capacity dropped by 14.24%.
A total of 525 EDs (91%)
reported overcrowding as a problem. Emergency
departments serving populations less than 250,000
reported less overcrowding (87%) than those serving
larger populations (96%). Prevalences of overcrowding
were similar in academic, county, and
private EDs (Table 1).
The situation has
the potential for danger, as the ED staff becomes
overwhelmed with caring for critical or high-risk
patients who have no hospital bed while ambulances
continue to arrive with seriously ill or injured
patients. At this point many EDs must close
to all ambulance traffic in order to cope, resulting
in a public health dilemma. Another factor exacerbating
this issue is increasing ED volume. As the
population continues to increase, demand on emergency
services will grow accordingly. However,
more EDs are closing than are being built, and
there appears to be no incentive for expanding existing
EDs to cope with this increase in patient volume.
These findings are especially intriguing
given the main drivers of ED overcrowding.
Several studies and our own work point to
high hospital occupancy with shrunken inpatient
capacity (especially in critical care) and
impaired patient flow as the major determinants
of backups in the ED.3
BTW, I certainly hope the “CV” in your username stands for Chula Vista and not Carmel Valley. There is nothing worse than hypocrites who insist on forcing illegal immigration on others, while not wishing to encouter the affects of this illegal immigration themselves. Unless your children attend schools that have a high illegal immigrant population, and your family uses hospitals/medical offices that are severely impacted by illegal immigrants, then you cannot criticize those who oppose illegal immigration. As long as you are not living among illegal immigrants, and directly affected by the consequences of illegal immigration in your daily life, then you are simply a hypocrite who likes to talk the talk, but refuses to walk the walk.
Additionally, for someone who thinks my children shouldn’t listen to what I say and should verify what I say by looking it up (not a bad exercise for anybody, BTW, as nobody can be trused to know everything 100% of the time — including yourself), you’ve provided absolutely no facts, no logic, and no citations to back up any of your claims. It’s all based on emotion. At least I present facts, logic, and citations.
SK in CV
July 30, 2010 @
7:14 PM
CA renter wrote:
For the [quote=CA renter]
For the record, I’ve always made it a point to not personally attack other posters. It’s inflamatory, degrades the level of discourse, doesn’t contribute anything to the debate, and usually makes the attacker look like a fool. While I usually refrain from responding to personal attacks, when you took it upon yourself to personally insult me and my family, you went over the line. My children are off-limits, and had nothing to do with the topic we were debating. My response to brian was only meant to address his assertion that he didn’t want to pay for my childrens’ education; it’s not fodder for your personal attacks. [/quote]
Chill dude. I didn’t insult your family. If you make a mistake, someone corrects you, and then you continue to assert you’re correct simply because you are, you might be insulted the 2nd time around.
[quote=CA renter]
Let’s address your points now, so that we can see who really has a grasp of the facts.
We’ll discuss your “enlightened” claim that schools and prisons are not overcrowded as a result of illegal immigration.
[/quote]
Talking to the wrong person. I never made that claim. (Nuance matters. The world is not black and white.)
And as far as what the CV stands for. Nice rant. I guess if i don’t deal with the evil that is brown people every day, I shouldn’t have any opinions. And if I do deal with them every day, I can cite any kind of racist screed I can find, as proof of the accuracy of my claims. Gotcha.
SD Realtor
July 30, 2010 @
8:17 PM
CAR obviously you are a CAR obviously you are a horrible racist for your views on immigration. I am looking forward to the next meetup and we can all wear our hoods and chant together. Shame on you for your common sense, I mean racist views.
BTW I could not agree with you more so I guess I am a racist to correct?
Coronita
July 31, 2010 @
8:16 PM
SD Realtor wrote:CAR [quote=SD Realtor]CAR obviously you are a horrible racist for your views on immigration. I am looking forward to the next meetup and we can all wear our hoods and chant together. Shame on you for your common sense, I mean racist views.
BTW I could not agree with you more so I guess I am a racist to correct?[/quote]
🙂
CA renter
July 30, 2010 @
10:37 PM
SK in CV wrote:
Chill dude. I [quote=SK in CV]
Chill dude. I didn’t insult your family. If you make a mistake, someone corrects you, and then you continue to assert you’re correct simply because you are, you might be insulted the 2nd time around.[/quote]
I admitted immediately when I made a mistake about the technical definition of a “naturalized” citizen. I was clearly refering to the process (whatever it’s called) where children born to illegals are allowed to become U.S. citizens, not trying to define “naturalized,” even though I see how someone might have read it that way.
I’d like to know where you corrected me with respect to the actual substance of the debate, as I never saw this apparent “correction” of yours. You never did that, nor did you back up anything you’ve said (while I did).
[quote=SK in CV]Talking to the wrong person. I never made that claim. (Nuance matters. The world is not black and white.)
And as far as what the CV stands for. Nice rant. I guess if i don’t deal with the evil that is brown people every day, I shouldn’t have any opinions. And if I do deal with them every day, I can cite any kind of racist screed I can find, as proof of the accuracy of my claims. Gotcha.[/quote]
Right, because people who oppose illegal immigration because they are actually affected by the consequences of it are “racists” and “xenophobes” while those who buy their way into a lifestyle where their only interaction with illegals is when the cleaning lady and gardener come by once a week are somehow not “racist.” Gotcha.
Practice what you preach.
SK in CV
July 30, 2010 @
11:32 PM
Actually my friend, no you Actually my friend, no you didn’t admit it immediately when you made a mistake. Brian corrected you and you replied:
[quote]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how.[/quote]
(As to the rest of the “correction section”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. It seems you’re disputing a claim I never made)
As to your hypocrite charge. Eh. Laugable at best. It seems your argument is that anyone that isn’t directly affected by an issue has no right to an opinion on the issue, or their a hypocrite. I suggest you check the definition of hypocrite.
Followed by, if you live with illegal aliens, you can’t harbor racist attitudes and if you don’t live with them, you must be racist.
I’m glad you’re the one bringing logic to the discussion. It’s a great responsibility.
(Just as an aside, I’m quite sure that nowhere in this discussion have I claimed I was in favor of illegal immigration, or even opposed to enforcement of immigration laws. My comments have been more focused on unsubstantiated claims or exaggerations.)
CA renter
July 31, 2010 @
12:03 AM
While everyone’s entitled to While everyone’s entitled to have an opinion, the opinions of those who have more experience and knowledge about a particular subject certainly carry more weight.
BTW, you still haven’t backed up any of your claims that oppose these supposed “exaggerations.” If you haven’t actually been in the trenches with it, and if you’ve never **lived in it** then you have no credibility when opposing someone who has.
CA renter
July 31, 2010 @
12:41 AM
SK,
We’re never going to see SK,
We’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this because we come from different backgrounds and have obviously had different experiences with it.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Do yourself a favor and visit schools, hospitals, and prisons that are impacted by illegal immigration. Talk to people who work there and learn about what they are seeing and how they perceive it. Walk around neighborhoods with a large illegal immigrant population and decide for yourself if this is a step up from what it was before illegal immigrants took over the area (ask long-term residents, or look at old photos of the areas for some ideas). Talk to people in the public assistance offices and ask them about what they see and experience. Ask yourself if you **honestly** would prefer to live in these neighborhoods, and have your children attend these schools and use these hospitals. You can’t force upon others what you, yourself, are not willing to endure.
One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument. Know that this is a debate primarily about resource allocation. After that come the issues of culture (clashes in language, social mores & beliefs, and way of life, etc.).
Race plays very little part in this. If white Australians were coming here in the same numbers and had the same numbers WRT crime, social service expenditures, differences in cultural vaues, etc., and marched down our streets hoisting Australian flags as they *demanded* more concesssions from us, most Americans would be arguing just as loudly to shut them out.
I want to call a truce on this. Let’s just say we strongly disagree about illegal immigration, okay?
SK in CV
July 31, 2010 @
9:36 AM
CA renter wrote:SK,
We’re [quote=CA renter]SK,
We’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this because we come from different backgrounds and have obviously had different experiences with it.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Do yourself a favor and visit schools, hospitals, and prisons that are impacted by illegal immigration. Talk to people who work there and learn about what they are seeing and how they perceive it. Walk around neighborhoods with a large illegal immigrant population and decide for yourself if this is a step up from what it was before illegal immigrants took over the area (ask long-term residents, or look at old photos of the areas for some ideas). Talk to people in the public assistance offices and ask them about what they see and experience. Ask yourself if you **honestly** would prefer to live in these neighborhoods, and have your children attend these schools and use these hospitals. You can’t force upon others what you, yourself, are not willing to endure.
One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument. Know that this is a debate primarily about resource allocation. After that come the issues of culture (clashes in language, social mores & beliefs, and way of life, etc.).
Race plays very little part in this. If white Australians were coming here in the same numbers and had the same numbers WRT crime, social service expenditures, differences in cultural vaues, etc., and marched down our streets hoisting Australian flags as they *demanded* more concesssions from us, most Americans would be arguing just as loudly to shut them out.
I want to call a truce on this. Let’s just say we strongly disagree about illegal immigration, okay?[/quote]
You have no idea what my background is. Nor do i have any idea what yours is. Fact is, I’ve spent time among immigrants, both legal and undocumented for most of my life. My kids attended most of their public schooling with a significant population of immigrant students. My wife works in public health. Probably less than 1% of her patients are not on some form of public and private assistance. She hasn’t had a raise in probably 15 years. Many years right around now she has to defer her pay because the state has stopped issuing reimbursements because the there’s no more money in the budget. But if she didn’t treat them, no one would. So she waits until October to be paid.
As to the specifics of this part of your comment…
“One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument.”
Again with the exaggeration. I’ll repeat again, I haven’t claimed anywhere that I support illegal immigration. (I’m pretty sure no one has made that claim.) Nor have I called you racist. The only direct reference to racism was to an article you linked to. And thanks to the info provided by Arraya in the other thread, it seems the conclusion I drew from my cursory reading of that article is consistent with other opinions about that author’s work.
My argument is not for or against. My argument is for good faith discussion. There is no place in good faith discussion for exaggeration of the facts.
The prisons and schools are not “full of illegals”. According to a study a few years ago, there are roughly 2 million men incarcerated in this country. Almost half of them are black (and presumably, only a tiny percentage of these men are also in the US illegally.) California’s numbers may be slightly different, but regardless if almost 1/2 the prison population is NOT here illegally, it is impossible for the prisons to be full of a different population.
On the schools, you said 30%, again NOT full. In an article you cited, FAIR arrived at 15%. I said less than 10%. Which is more accurate? FAIR’s calculation included almost 600,000 US born children of undocumented immigrants. If those US citizen children were removed from their calculation, the percentage would be less than 10%.
You can argue that those children should not be citizens entitled to the same benefits that our children are entitled to. You can argue that the constitution should be changed. But you can’t argue in good faith that they’re not citizens under current law.
As to a truce on discussion, that would only be logical if one of us concedes that our arguments are based on ideological beliefs. I’ve spent most of my life avoiding ideologies of all kinds. They hinder progress.
briansd1
July 31, 2010 @
9:43 AM
CA renter wrote:
One thing [quote=CA renter]
One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument. Know that this is a debate primarily about resource allocation. After that come the issues of culture (clashes in language, social mores & beliefs, and way of life, etc.).[/quote]
CA renter, nobody called you a racist.
I agree with SK in CV, Madeleine Pelner Cosman, the author of piece that Hobie linked to is clearly racist and biased. It shows in her piece.
Like SK in CV, nowhere did I say that I support illegal border crossing.
I support the immigrants who are ALREADY HERE. Big difference.
Arraya
July 31, 2010 @
10:50 AM
Drug incarcerations have gone Drug incarcerations have gone up over 1000% since 1980 as well as funding for the “drug war”. During that time drugs have become much more plentiful, better quality and cheaper.
DEA employees have gone up from <1000 to almost 12,000.
The more and more energy, resources we put to it, the worse it gets. Stricter laws, more manpower, more $$, etc... It just did not work.
fwiw- Illegal Narcotics are the 3rd or 4th biggest industry in the world behind energy and weapons. Americans do the most illegal and legal drugs per capita in the world. Interestingly, most drug money winds up in US banks. But that is another discussion.
Once you understand why the war on drugs is a monumental failure, you can understand that whatever proposal to curb or stop illegal immigration will be a failure as well. Though, either will employ a lot of people. Through, the security apparatus or the illegal trade itself.
We took the perceived drug problem, built and multi-billion dollar industry around it, committed a huge amount of resources and it essentially exacerbated the problem.
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that when a root cause is not understood or addressed, that doing anything to combat a symptom will be futile.
I don't see it any different with the "war on illegal immigration". We won't stop it until the root cause is addressed and, ironically, the root cause is considered desirable.
I can definitely see this issue becoming a nightmare over the next few years, and yes, the racists and xenophobs will come out of the woodwork and support one side of the issue.
briansd1
July 31, 2010 @
11:11 AM
Good post Arraya on the root Good post Arraya on the root cause of the problem.
But more on immigration, I hate the use of the term “illegal immigration” because there is no such thing.
Immigration is a basic human right and that has been happening since of beginning of human life.
Unauthorized entry is illegal but immigration is not illegal.
Unauthorized presence is not even illegal (but there are civil penalties).
Hobie
July 31, 2010 @
7:35 AM
CAR: You have done a terrific CAR: You have done a terrific job of presenting and supporting your opinions. I was looking forward to a spirited discussion from SK and the rest about your front line issues.
Some of us here -in a blog format- place a lot of weight on nuances and details that pull the conversation away from the main issue. We are not arguing PhD dissertations and a little latitude is necessary to keep the topic alive and interesting. We don’t need contest for the final Gotcha, QED, etc.
I am disillusioned when someone drops the ‘racist’, ‘correct definitions’, ‘not an academic piece’,ect. line yet doesn’t follow up with a good response to the core issue. Seems like the easy way out if you are can’t develop an argument.
Keep on posting CAR a don’t let small people get under your skin.
Hobie
July 31, 2010 @
9:32 AM
SK in CV wrote:CA renter [quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
I hope you are teaching your home-schooled children to look things up and not just believe what you tell them. Children born in the US, regardless of their parents citizenship, are not naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens are those not born with (US) citizenship. Children of undocumented aliens are born US citizens, ergo, not naturalized.
And on your stats, they’re all over the board. (I chose lower ones, you chose to link to higher numbers. But none indicate that the schools or prisons are “full” of illegal aliens. If schools were full of illegal aliens, there would be no room (even using your inflated 30%) for the rest of the students.
(Some of the best non-partisan information on the effects of immigration can be found at http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp the Public Policy Institute of California)[/quote]
SK: Frankly, I think you owe CAR an apology regarding your home schooling comment.
Her intent was simply a little light humor and you took a personal shot at her. When she called you on it, you ducked.
briansd1
July 29, 2010 @
6:25 PM
CA renter wrote:The children [quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
SK in CV already corrected the misinformation about “naturalized citizens”.
Either way, an American citizen is an American, regardless of whether that person was born with citizenship or acquired it later through naturalization.
As far as we know, there is only one class of citizenship, some citizens are not better or worse than others.
You seem to imply that some American children don’t deserve education.
enron_by_the_sea
July 30, 2010 @
9:47 AM
CA renter wrote:The children [quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong.
Any child born on the US soil is “natural born citizen” of the USA. He/she is no different from any other child born in USA to a US citizen. He/she can grow up to become the president, for example.
You may not like it, but that is what the constitution says and we have to accept it, (just like there are many folks who don’t like second amendment but have to accept it.)
There are people who say that the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear when this amendment was passed. That is a fair point. However, until supreme court decides to rule on that point, it is still an accepted law of this land that they are US citizens.
DWCAP
July 30, 2010 @
10:35 AM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:CA [quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong.
Any child born on the US soil is “natural born citizen” of the USA. He/she is no different from any other child born in USA to a US citizen. He/she can grow up to become the president, for example.
You may not like it, but that is what the constitution says and we have to accept it, (just like there are many folks who don’t like second amendment but have to accept it.)
There are people who say that the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear when this amendment was passed. That is a fair point. However, until supreme court decides to rule on that point, it is still an accepted law of this land that they are US citizens.[/quote]
The only thing wrong there was that they are native citizens, not naturalized. However you completely ignor the rest, and most pertinant, part of the argument, which is that children born to illegal immigrants should no longer be given citizenship. Your discounting of the type of citizen they are does not play into the argument against them being able to obtain citizenship in the first place.
But you are correct on the very narrow point you are making.
enron_by_the_sea
July 30, 2010 @
11:36 AM
I am saying that
[1] Any I am saying that
[1] Any child born on US soil is US citizen – as per generally accepted law of this land.
[2] Laws of the land apply equally to everyone. Thus US citizen children of illegal immigrants have as much right over public schools and public benefits as US citizen kids of legal US citizens.
[3] For those who believe that such children born to illegal immigrants should not be US citizens, current law is not on your side – I emphasize this because, you all never fail to point out how the laws of this country have not been followed by illegal immigrants.
enron_by_the_sea wrote:
[3] [quote=enron_by_the_sea]
[3] For those who believe that such children born to illegal immigrants should not be US citizens, current law is not on your side – I emphasize this because, you all never fail to point out how the laws of this country have not been followed by illegal immigrants.
[/quote]
I absolutely agree with you enron.
Those American citizen children did not violate any laws.
Why would anybody want to deny education and social benefits to American children who are eligible?
DWCAP
July 30, 2010 @
1:18 PM
I agree, current law does not I agree, current law does not support the notion that these children are in any way less entitled to the basic services of our government than any other citizen. But that doesnt mean the law is correct, only old.
DWCAP
July 30, 2010 @
1:21 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Why would [quote=briansd1]
Why would anybody want to deny education and social benefits to American children who are eligible?[/quote]
Perhaps to reduce the stimulus to immigrate illegally driving their parents? Same as the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to restrict the jobs?
BTW, I dont agree with the ‘no schooling’ argument. They are full US citizens with all rights and privlages of. If we want to reduce this problem, it should be done the right way and the law should be changed. It isnt easy, but little is anymore.
CA renter
July 30, 2010 @
3:14 PM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:CA [quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong.
Any child born on the US soil is “natural born citizen” of the USA. He/she is no different from any other child born in USA to a US citizen. He/she can grow up to become the president, for example.
You may not like it, but that is what the constitution says and we have to accept it, (just like there are many folks who don’t like second amendment but have to accept it.)
There are people who say that the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear when this amendment was passed. That is a fair point. However, until supreme court decides to rule on that point, it is still an accepted law of this land that they are US citizens.[/quote]
Enron,
Yes, I had already acknowledged in my post above that they are not considered “naturalized” citizens. I wasn’t arguing about the correct name, process, or type of citizenship granted to these anchor babies, I thought initially that brian was questioning the fact that babies born here are able to obtain citizenship. It’s easy to see how he misunderstood my point as I misunderstood his. I honestly don’t know the details about how one applies for, or regects, citizenship when a baby is born here. I was commenting about the fact that these anchor babies are a direct result of illegal immigration and are considered part of the burden of illegal immigration from the day they are born, as most of their births are paid for by taxpayers as well.
Still the point I was trying to make was that illegal immigration places a tremendous burden on our resources and on our society. It needs to be stopped, and any amount of name calling (racist, xenophobe, etc.) does not negate that fact.
Arraya
July 30, 2010 @
3:24 PM
I’m not sure if you can make I’m not sure if you can make the claim that illegals are, in aggregate, a burden on the financial system. Reality is not that simple. Removing all illegals would be like taking an organ out of a body. Of course all humans are a stress on the worlds resource base, but as far as our financial system goes, they are very interconnected in the ebb and flow of things.
briansd1
July 31, 2010 @
8:12 AM
CA renter wrote: I thought [quote=CA renter] I thought initially that brian was questioning the fact that babies born here are able to obtain citizenship.
It’s easy to see how he misunderstood my point as I misunderstood his. I honestly don’t know the details about how one applies for, or regects, citizenship when a baby is born here.
[/quote]
All babies born in this country are not “allowed to become U.S. citizens” nor to do they need to apply.
They ARE citizens.
[quote=CA renter]
I was commenting about the fact that these anchor babies are a direct result of illegal immigration and are considered part of the burden of illegal immigration from the day they are born, as most of their births are paid for by taxpayers as well.
[/quote]
We are all a burden, some more than others.
Smokers are a burden; fat people are burden; all children are a burden until they can pay for themselves.
meadandale
July 27, 2010 @
2:17 PM
briansd1 wrote:
What [quote=briansd1]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)[/quote]
Free school breakfast and lunch programs, ESL instruction…I think that we spend A LOT of money giving benefits to illegal immigrants and their children.
Someone at one of the schools told me once that the (non working) parents of some of these kids go to school with the kids and end up eating with the children–the free meals that you and I are paying for.
GH
July 26, 2010 @
8:12 PM
I think the law made a I think the law made a critical mistake in requiring police to “believe a person is in the US illegally” and not simply require ID from ALL persons, making the issue MOOT, as it would be applied fairly to ALL people regardless of color, sex or race. There are a lot of Europeans here illegally who are white, so I would definitely support the law more if it simply made it a requirement to provide ID on demand. Personally, I would not be opposed to being required to provide ID myself, just to make 100% sure no single group is targeted. Most of my friends would too.
scaredyclassic
July 26, 2010 @
8:27 PM
So if you’re on you way to an So if you’re on you way to an important business meeting and the cops detain you 20 minutes in 100 degree weather you don’t mind? If it happens 2x a week? 4th amendment? Gonna have to amend the constitution tothe cops can ATP you and check you out whenever the he’ll they feel like it.”
blahblahblah
July 26, 2010 @
9:52 PM
walterwhite wrote:So if [quote=walterwhite]So if you’re on you way to an important business meeting and the cops detain you 20 minutes in 100 degree weather you don’t mind? If it happens 2x a week? 4th amendment? Gonna have to amend the constitution tothe cops can ATP you and check you out whenever the he’ll they feel like it.”[/quote]
??? The law simply says that they can check immigration status in the course of a normal investigation (traffic stop, etc…) It doesn’t say that they can just at will stop people and demand papers. Also, your example is silly as I have been pulled over by cops for traffic violations on the way to important meetings and detained for 10 minutes while they check me out. If I hadn’t provided ID they probably would have taken me to the pokey. It would be easy to verify that I am entitled to work there by asking for a passport or green card in addition to the DL. This is the way it works in 99% of the world. Get pulled over in France and don’t speak the language? They’re gonna want to see your passport, same in the UK or Italy.
scaredyclassic
July 26, 2010 @
11:06 PM
i havent read the law. i i havent read the law. i don’t know. you’re probably right. maybe it’ll all be fair. all i know is black people get stopped for being black. now brown people will get stopped for being brown. and white people will say, well, f it, I wouldn’t theoretically mind being stopped. if i were stopped. truly I don’t have any opinion about immigration or what the right thing to do is. I just don’t trust cops 100% on stops. they don’t always tel lthe truth. maybe from most people’s point of view it doesn’t matter.
blahblahblah
July 27, 2010 @
6:57 AM
I hear ya man, I don’t trust I hear ya man, I don’t trust cops either. But if we have laws we should at least attempt to enforce them. At least in Arizona a lot of the cops have names like Gonzalez and Littlecloud, so I don’t know how much racial profing of Hispanics you’ll actually see. My guess is it will be more based on what kind of vehicle they’re driving and whether or not the driver speaks English. Still it’s profiling, and that’s not nice.
I don’t know what to do about this whole issue. We destroyed Mexico with NAFTA and now we are paying the price. When I was a kid there weren’t many people crossing the border but as soon as NAFTA destroyed Mexican agriculture it became a flood. And then when we gave most-favored nation trading status to China, that put a lot of the Mexican factories out of business which made the situation worse. We will probably just need to do a blanket amnesty at some point and deal with the results. We have to be honest and admit that 90+% of undocumented immigrants are refugees fleeing the damage done by our own policy of globalization.
As for me, I like living in the southwest and have always lived pretty close to the border, so I just keep practicing my Spanish. I figure I’m gonna need it a lot more as I get older! Hopefully they’ll still let me live here in 40 years ha ha.
briansd1
July 27, 2010 @
9:01 AM
CONCHO wrote: We will [quote=CONCHO] We will probably just need to do a blanket amnesty at some point and deal with the results. We have to be honest and admit that 90+% of undocumented immigrants are refugees fleeing the damage done by our own policy of globalization.
As for me, I like living in the southwest and have always lived pretty close to the border, so I just keep practicing my Spanish. I figure I’m gonna need it a lot more as I get older! Hopefully they’ll still let me live here in 40 years ha ha.[/quote]
So why not give them amnesty now and integrate them into our economy. Give them a stake in our country and their citizen children will adapt better and become better citizens.
Time has a way of taking care of things. Give them legal status now (better) or give them legal status later (worse).
blahblahblah
July 27, 2010 @
9:11 AM
briansd1 wrote:
So why not [quote=briansd1]
So why not give them amnesty now and integrate them into our economy. Give them a stake in our country and their citizen children will adapt better and become better citizens.
Time has a way of taking care of things. Give them legal status now (better) or give them legal status later (worse).[/quote]
They might have to, I’m not sure there will be any other way. However if after the amnesty is declared the border as it stands today still exists, the problem won’t be fixed. I think there are only two options post-amnesty.
1) Enforce existing immigration laws. Deport people here illegally.
2) Eliminate the border entirely. Anyone who is here can claim US citizenship. Green cards and visas no longer apply in US territory.
Anything between those two options will leave us where we are now, with criminals and drug dealers engaging in human trafficking, many unnecessary deaths and needless suffering in desert crossings, and poor working and living conditions for immigrant workers. Also the way the crossings are being done now is destroying delicate desert ecosystems and farms.
We can’t have it both ways. We can’t pretend to care about these people while allowing them to live in a system that exploits them and has them working in unsafe and illegal conditions for low pay and no benefits. We can’t pretend to care about them but look the other way as hundreds die in the desert and thousands are abused or robbed by drug dealing criminal coyotes.
I’m not sure that globalization makes sense if people aren’t also given complete freedom of movement as well. Notice that the big business types who push globalization never mention that part.
KSMountain
July 29, 2010 @
3:48 PM
CONCHO wrote:We destroyed [quote=CONCHO]We destroyed Mexico with NAFTA and now we are paying the price. When I was a kid there weren’t many people crossing the border but as soon as NAFTA destroyed Mexican agriculture it became a flood.[/quote]
The last amnesty I believe was in 1984 and was pre-NAFTA…
bubba99
July 27, 2010 @
11:37 AM
The notion of “reasonable The notion of “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is “illegal” is not as ambigious as it may seem. Those of us who work for our Uncle Sam on the border have a whole bag of trick questions to determine a persons immigration status.
Some questions are very simple. Questions like “how did you get into the US?” or “where did you get your green card?’ or “where were you naturalized?” For the most part legal immigrants are very proud and knowlegable about the process. Illegals tend to have no knowledge about the legal entrance process at all. Creating reasonable suspicion.
Bubba on the border.
enron_by_the_sea
July 28, 2010 @
12:11 PM
From the ruling …
“The From the ruling …
“The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times”
“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
I am glad that the judge decided to precisely focus on the parts of this law that in my opinion are most unfair and discriminatory.
Somehow both pro and anti illiegal immigration groups ignored the large number of legal immigrants and legal aliens in this country and how this law basically puts all of them under suspicion too and makes them the subject for racial profiling.
all
July 28, 2010 @
12:37 PM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:From [quote=enron_by_the_sea]From the ruling …
“The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times”
“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
I am glad that the judge decided to precisely focus on the parts of this law that in my opinion are most unfair and discriminatory.
Somehow both pro and anti illiegal immigration groups ignored the large number of legal immigrants and legal aliens in this country and how this law basically puts all of them under suspicion too and makes them the subject for racial profiling.[/quote]
Interesting. It is already a legal requirement for Permanent Residents to carry their Permanent Resident Card with them at all times.
Hobie
July 29, 2010 @
9:09 PM
And since no one has And since no one has addressed this yet:
Great article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons written by a medical lawyer discussing the medical costs and social implications of illegal immigration.
Simply hits the nail on the head. I am hopeful that SK is enlightened.
SK in CV
July 29, 2010 @
9:55 PM
Enlightened how? Enlightened how?
Hobie
July 30, 2010 @
7:10 AM
Good Morning SK. Enlightened Good Morning SK. Enlightened as to the far reaching negative impacts of illegal immigration. Both in direct cost and social consequences.
Have you read the article? Thoughts?
SK in CV
July 30, 2010 @
7:54 AM
Hobie wrote:Good Morning SK. [quote=Hobie]Good Morning SK. Enlightened as to the far reaching negative impacts of illegal immigration. Both in direct cost and social consequences.
Have you read the article? Thoughts?[/quote]
I have read it. I’m not sure why you believe I need enlightenment. Nor how you think I can be enlightened by a fear mongering racist, his credentials notwithstanding. That article is not an acedemic piece, it is opinion, sprinkled with statistics. (Words and phtrases like “stealthy assualt”, and his listing and assailing of pro-immigration NGO’s are pretty good evidence of that. His inclusion of George Soros’ name in that list is telling.)
briansd1
July 30, 2010 @
8:34 AM
I also read the referenced I also read the referenced article.
I don’t see why people keep on maligning American children. What does it matter who they are born to? They are American kids who need care. We need to provide it to them.
“stealthy assault” makes it sound like there’s a coordinated effort to attack America on the part of the immigrants, whom the author exhort us to “fight” against and not “surrender” to.
In reality, immigrants, unauthorized or otherwise, just want jobs and decent lives.
Hobie
July 30, 2010 @
3:08 PM
SK in CV wrote: [quote=SK in CV] [/quote]
Regarding this piece, I included it for its brevity and backing up her opinions with facts. (98 citations in a 4 page article.)
If you take a step back and look beyond your personal feelings about the author I would like to hear some good reasons why we should subject all of our citizens to the health risks by not following the law which requires emigrants to pass a health exam before entering the country.
Since this is a new direction I have started a new thread under the same name.
afx114
July 31, 2010 @
11:19 AM
Yet another immigration Yet another immigration discussion without consideration of a large variable in the equation: The employers who hire illegal immigrants and their addiction to cheap labor. Fine or jail any employer who hires illegals and I imagine we’d see a large reduction in immigrants. But how do we enforce this? How does the anti-immigration crowd reconcile their desire for less with bureaucracy with their desire to enforce an issue as large as this? And if we do start enforcing, is our economy prepared for the prices of everything to rise significantly? What do you think is going to happen to the price of a head of lettuce when all of a sudden the field workers need to be paid minimum wage and overtime for their 12 hour days, as opposed to the pennies on the dollar they are currently paid for their backbreaking labor?
Again, I urge any unemployed American citizen to take up the offer at http://takeourjobs.org/ to work 12 hour days in the scorching San Joaquin valley, living away from their family in camps and getting paid pennies on the dollar. I look forward to the comments on their experiences.
Again, I urge any unemployed American citizen to take up the offer at http://takeourjobs.org/ to work 12 hour days in the scorching San Joaquin valley, living away from their family in camps and getting paid pennies on the dollar. I look forward to the comments on their experiences.[/quote]
Americans cannot have those jobs because such working conditions are illegal. Only people who have no rights can work under those conditions. Americans would have the right to get an attorney, file a lawsuit, and win a judgment from the farm for violating any number of labor laws. Illegals have no such recourse since they fear being deported.
Arraya
July 31, 2010 @
12:08 PM
It’s just another case of It’s just another case of “nanny state” regulations ruining the country. We need to get back to the good old day were we could legally exploit our own impoverished and put their kids in coal mines with no pesky laws infringing on our ruling classes profits. God knows, the super-wealthy are hurting these days. No wonder americans are so soft.
afx114
July 31, 2010 @
1:17 PM
CONCHO wrote:Americans cannot [quote=CONCHO]Americans cannot have those jobs because such working conditions are illegal. Only people who have no rights can work under those conditions. Americans would have the right to get an attorney, file a lawsuit, and win a judgment from the farm for violating any number of labor laws. Illegals have no such recourse since they fear being deported.[/quote]
That’s exactly my point. Americans complaining about illegals taking their jobs are unwilling to do said jobs under the conditions and pay rate that the illegals do them. On top of this, Americans opposed to illegal immigration reap the benefits of it daily. All they have to do is look at the receipts from their grocery store, hotel, or oil change shop.
That’s not to say that there aren’t negatives to immigration — clearly there are. But we can’t have a rational discussion about the scourge of illegal immigration unless we also discuss the benefits that we all enjoy and take for granted. It is much easier to demonize a segment of a population than it is to take a deeper look and realize how much we benefit from them.
I think Arraya described it best. Like it or not, illegal immigrants have become a vital organ of our economy, and opponents of illegal immigration need to ask themselves if they’re willing to take on the risk of removing it. And if they are willing to remove said organ, what do they plan to replace it with? As with any replacement organ it must be of the same relative size and perform the same relative functions at the same relative cost. Otherwise, it’s not worth the transplant.
blahblahblah
July 31, 2010 @
4:36 PM
afx114 wrote:CONCHO [quote=afx114][quote=CONCHO]Americans cannot have those jobs because such working conditions are illegal. Only people who have no rights can work under those conditions. Americans would have the right to get an attorney, file a lawsuit, and win a judgment from the farm for violating any number of labor laws. Illegals have no such recourse since they fear being deported.[/quote]
That’s exactly my point. Americans complaining about illegals taking their jobs are unwilling to do said jobs under the conditions and pay rate that the illegals do them. On top of this, Americans opposed to illegal immigration reap the benefits of it daily. All they have to do is look at the receipts from their grocery store, hotel, or oil change shop.[/quote]
I don’t think you understood what I was trying to say. My point was that you are conflating two separate issues — immigration and worker’s protections and rights. There should be no jobs in this country that do not conform to the nation’s labor laws regarding safety, working hours, and pay. The fact that such jobs exists means that employers are skirting the law and are exploiting illegal immigrants to do so. While it might be true that produce would be more expensive were produce workers treated according to US and state law, that has nothing to do with immigration. Again, Americans cannot work in these positions because they are protected by American labor laws. No farm would ever hire an American, even if they were willing, because an American could inform the authorities of unsafe/illegal work practices. An illegal immigrant is not able to do so because they fear deportation and there is even less work available in Mexico or Guatemala thanks to NAFTA. Perhaps you don’t believe in worker rights or protections and if so then I understand your point.
CA renter
July 31, 2010 @
10:22 PM
afx114 wrote:
That’s exactly [quote=afx114]
That’s exactly my point. Americans complaining about illegals taking their jobs are unwilling to do said jobs under the conditions and pay rate that the illegals do them. On top of this, Americans opposed to illegal immigration reap the benefits of it daily. All they have to do is look at the receipts from their grocery store, hotel, or oil change shop.
That’s not to say that there aren’t negatives to immigration — clearly there are. But we can’t have a rational discussion about the scourge of illegal immigration unless we also discuss the benefits that we all enjoy and take for granted. It is much easier to demonize a segment of a population than it is to take a deeper look and realize how much we benefit from them.
I think Arraya described it best. Like it or not, illegal immigrants have become a vital organ of our economy, and opponents of illegal immigration need to ask themselves if they’re willing to take on the risk of removing it. And if they are willing to remove said organ, what do they plan to replace it with? As with any replacement organ it must be of the same relative size and perform the same relative functions at the same relative cost. Otherwise, it’s not worth the transplant.[/quote]
afx,
You’ll get no disagreement from me about the need to come down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. I would institute very harsh financial penalties initially (first 2-3 times they are caught), and serious jail time/confiscation of private property for offenses beyond that.
Personally, I don’t think the total “benefits” of the cheap labor filter down to the consumer. Corporate profit margins have been on the rise:
“For the last several years, tax cuts and low short-term rates have provided a huge tailwind for Corporate America. As a result of this record stimulus, profit margins are at 35-year highs …”
While they don’t attibute it to globalization (insourcing of cheap labor, and outsourcing of jobs), I think it’s one of the primary drivers of these higher profit margins.
Still, I’d much rather pay higher prices for quality products that are produced in a way that is environmentally responsible, and respects workers’ rights to a decent, middle-class lifestyle and safe working conditions.
Personally, I think the price we pay for this “globalization” is far greater than the benefits we receive.
Here is a case of a potentially VERY costly enforcement happening in San Diego. It’s not always about back-breaking lettuce picking in illegal conditions…
Another interesting thing about this case is that what appeared to REALLY piss the Feds off was the repeated SSN fraud.
Two points:
– It’s not just crap jobs that are being taken – e.g. Construction jobs are being taken nowadays – those were previously good middle-class jobs
– the illegal status of these people forces other consequences – e.g. Underground economy, uninsured motorists (possibly leading to more hit and runs?)
We need to have a way to have folks be plugged into the system – I support e-verify and don’t understand why it’s use varies so widely from state to state.
As far as “the people already here” Brian, where would you draw the line? 5 years ago? Yesterday? Say we legalized all the folks who were able to get in by noon tomorrow… What about folks who come in after that? Say 15 years from now will we have another 15 million (or more) to deal with?
KSMountain
August 1, 2010 @
11:28 AM
Sorry about the Sorry about the mis-punctuated “it’s” above – I couldn’t figure out how to fix it on this iPad…
briansd1
August 1, 2010 @
12:08 PM
KSMountain wrote: Say we [quote=KSMountain] Say we legalized all the folks who were able to get in by noon tomorrow… What about folks who come in after that? Say 15 years from now will we have another 15 million (or more) to deal with?[/quote]
Again, I’m looking at it from a humanitarian view.
I see the people already here as economic refugees, not migrants. I don’t want to hold them hostage to future immigration and policy.
The unauthorized immigrants who are law-abiding and not criminals and already here have nothing to do with future immigration. Let’s not punish them for fear of future immigration.
Again, remember than those unauthorized immigrants already here are having American children who will eventually sponsor their parents. Legalize them now, or legalize them later.
Unless we arrest millions of them, put them in camps and forcibly deport them, they are part of our society. Let’s integrate them.
KSMountain
August 1, 2010 @
12:30 PM
Brian, you didn’t answer Brian, you didn’t answer question.
Arraya
August 1, 2010 @
12:12 PM
How about rendering the How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought
briansd1
August 1, 2010 @
12:33 PM
Arraya wrote:How about [quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Globalization and the Internet are taking us in that direction.
KSMountain
August 1, 2010 @
12:44 PM
Arraya wrote:How about [quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Sounds like Utopia. I like the idea of Utopia, maybe, but I don’t think it is likely – even if we all start making our own small changes.
Here’s a question Arraya: if humans are still around in 20000 years, do you think there will still be conflict? Do you think there will still be inequality? Do you think think some will still be more ambitious, or greedy than others? Will there still be criminals? People who find it easier to take than earn?
Looking at the animal kingdom, it seems that conflict is not new, is not unique to humans, and doesn’t “go away” with increased maturity of the system. Do you think that humans are qualitatively different from animals?
Arraya
August 2, 2010 @
9:28 AM
KSMountain wrote:Arraya [quote=KSMountain][quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Sounds like Utopia. I like the idea of Utopia, maybe, but I don’t think it is likely – even if we all start making our own small changes.
Here’s a question Arraya: if humans are still around in 20000 years, do you think there will still be conflict? Do you think there will still be inequality? Do you think think some will still be more ambitious, or greedy than others? Will there still be criminals? People who find it easier to take than earn?
Looking at the animal kingdom, it seems that conflict is not new, is not unique to humans, and doesn’t “go away” with increased maturity of the system. Do you think that humans are qualitatively different from animals?[/quote]
Those are big questions. If we are still around in 20000 years we will probably have figured out how not to create environments that lead to conflict. Einstein figured we were in our “predatory phase” and if we could get past it before doing to much damage, we might have a chance. Which probably inspired him to write this:
Our view of nature as “red in tooth and claw” is mostly a projection of our own cultural prejudices, IMO. We find what we look for in a big inkblot of information(we seem to do that with politicians as well). Genetic determinism certainly is not what we thought a hundred years ago.
Humans are qualitatively different from animals by being self aware or second-order consciousness, as some philosophers would put it. Unfortunately, what makes us special also makes us very dangerous.
KSMountain
August 2, 2010 @
7:29 PM
Arraya wrote:KSMountain [quote=Arraya][quote=KSMountain][quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Sounds like Utopia. I like the idea of Utopia, maybe, but I don’t think it is likely – even if we all start making our own small changes.
Here’s a question Arraya: if humans are still around in 20000 years, do you think there will still be conflict? Do you think there will still be inequality? Do you think think some will still be more ambitious, or greedy than others? Will there still be criminals? People who find it easier to take than earn?
Looking at the animal kingdom, it seems that conflict is not new, is not unique to humans, and doesn’t “go away” with increased maturity of the system. Do you think that humans are qualitatively different from animals?[/quote]
Those are big questions. If we are still around in 20000 years we will probably have figured out how not to create environments that lead to conflict. Einstein figured we were in our “predatory phase” and if we could get past it before doing to much damage, we might have a chance. Which probably inspired him to write this:
Our view of nature as “red in tooth and claw” is mostly a projection of our own cultural prejudices, IMO. We find what we look for in a big inkblot of information(we seem to do that with politicians as well). Genetic determinism certainly is not what we thought a hundred years ago.
Humans are qualitatively different from animals by being self aware or second-order consciousness, as some philosophers would put it. Unfortunately, what makes us special also makes us very dangerous.[/quote]
I read the Einstein paper, thanks. I thought the first half (analysis) was very good. I agreed less with the prescriptive part about planned economies, etc.
I do think nature is *literally* “red in tooth and claw” (nice phrase), and that humans are part of it. I’d like to think that I arrived at that conclusion via observation, not cultural prejudice. Who knows.
Agree about genetic determinism, but the uniqueness of self-awareness to humans is not what we thought a few decades ago either.
When you consider just the major conflicts that are currently in progress around the world, it seems to me quite an ambitious project to think one could get a large proportion of the world to agree on *anything*.
Granted progress does happen. For example the treatment of the disabled in this country and others.
I do agree nations ain’t what they used to be, and are continuing to be “undermined” by global communication of all kinds.
Hmm, maybe this could be summed up by “Do you think we’ll *ever* emerge from the “predatory” phase?”.
There is a certain small percentage of the world with the luxury and inclination to contemplate a post-predatory world, but it seems to me a much larger proportion does not.
Chrissie Hynde: “We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars”.
UCGal
August 3, 2010 @
5:46 AM
KSMountain wrote:Chrissie [quote=KSMountain]Chrissie Hynde: “We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars”.[/quote]
Props for using a Pretenders quote!
Zeitgeist
September 2, 2010 @
11:30 AM
Got bed bugs? “If we screen Got bed bugs? “If we screen legal aliens for contagious diseases, why are we allowing unscreened and contagious illegal aliens to roam the country infecting the citizenry?”
Zeitgeist wrote:Got bed bugs? [quote=Zeitgeist]Got bed bugs? [/quote]
Experts say they’ve heard blame pinned on many foreign ethnic groups and on historic events from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the Persian Gulf war to the spread of mosquito nets in Africa. Every theory has holes, and many are simply racist.
(For example, Dr. Potter said, he has heard Mexicans blamed, but Mexican pest control companies he contacted said they rarely see the bugs except in the homes of people returning from the United States, often with scavenged furniture.)
Arraya wrote:How about [quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
I’d like to soften my previous response to this proposal. I actually agree with the sentiment. I think it’s *highly* unlikely though that you would get enough other sufficiently “enlightened” folks to buy in.
I’ve had the words to “Imagine” and “Us and Them” going through my head since your post. The reality is, people aren’t about to give up “possessions” anytime soon. Once you accept that, you need laws, therefore police and courts and jails, therefore taxation, and pretty soon you’ve got yourself a nation state. The previous system, prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, was Feudalism, right? Was that better? I guess the point of my previous post was that competition is endemic to all life on earth, from plankton to blue whales and redwood trees. In that environment, and given (in my opinion) you will always have unenlightened scoundrels, you need some sort of system to try to mitigate chaos to some extent.
In a world with no possessions, would you even have a right to privacy in your own house/apartment? Or would you have to accept that 100 drunken teenagers might come in at midnight and use your house for a rave party until 5 am. On a work night no less!
CA renter
August 2, 2010 @
12:38 AM
Very good posts on this Very good posts on this topic, KSMountain.
scaredyclassic
August 2, 2010 @
7:15 AM
i am willing to give up my i am willing to give up my possessions for a good nights sleep and to kick out those goddamned rave-party teens.
Here is a case of a potentially VERY costly enforcement happening in San Diego. It’s not always about back-breaking lettuce picking in illegal conditions…
Another interesting thing about this case is that what appeared to REALLY piss the Feds off was the repeated SSN fraud.
Two points:
– It’s not just crap jobs that are being taken – e.g. Construction jobs are being taken nowadays – those were previously good middle-class jobs
– the illegal status of these people forces other consequences – e.g. Underground economy, uninsured motorists (possibly leading to more hit and runs?)
We need to have a way to have folks be plugged into the system – I support e-verify and don’t understand why it’s use varies so widely from state to state.
[/quote]
I wanna see the “please take our jobs” postings in the construction industry, or in gardening/home care, or in the resturant industry. I have cousins in all three, and they are citizens. I am pretty sure they are not the only Americans who want those jobs.
As for the farm industry, the loss of cheap labor would only nessitate a transition to other forms of harvest. My grandfather grew up harvesting corn by hand, now they drive air conditioned combines with GPS and Stereo sound for your IPOD. . Prices may go up some, but it wont be $4 for a head of lettuce or anything.
ucodegen
August 1, 2010 @
6:02 PM
From a legal mexican From a legal mexican immigrant..
He’s a Racist! And that whole video was a heartless Racist Screed.
Btw I have a friend who lays tile. He’s a citizen. I guess he competes with the under the table guys in this video…
ucodegen
August 1, 2010 @
6:44 PM
KSMountain wrote:
He’s a [quote KSMountain]
He’s a Racist! And that whole video was a heartless Racist Screed.
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO… 😎
[quote KSMountain]
Btw I have a friend who lays tile. He’s a citizen. I guess he competes with the under the table guys in this video…
[/quote]
Correct. I also found the illegals response that because no ‘legal citizens’ were out on the corners looking for jobs that no one wanted them kind of interesting.
Normally we apply for a jobs. Not wait for one to come driving by or asking for handouts(I guess there are some ‘exceptions’ with respect to asking for handouts..).
Personally, I would not want to have one of these people lay tile. I have seen some of their work, and usually it would be .. tear out and redo ..
One thing about using these people for laying tile, is that there is no way to check their work record (previous employers), or previous work history (previous employers or visiting previous job-sites if possible). If I am going to do a large enough job that I would want help, I would want references.
KSMountain
August 1, 2010 @
6:55 PM
To be clear/consistent, if my To be clear/consistent, if my friend is working under the table I don’t support that either.
For the social contract that Brian and others extol to work, there has to be a true “contract”. That means obligations on both sides, not just the side that doles out the goodies.
sd_matt
September 2, 2010 @
12:33 PM
In the last 20 years of In the last 20 years of watching this I remember only one person saying we should help Mexico solve her problems. LOL
I am pretty sure Mexicans would rather live and prosper in Mexico and not the USA as thats where they grew up.
The fact that no one ever takes this angle says it all.
If you say Mexico can’t solve her problems then you imply that Mexicans are dumber or less capable than Americans.
Counterpoint…the cartels. Of course they live under the gun of the cartels.
But this only shows that if we had real compassion we would have focused our military on the cartels and not Iraq..or at least made them our priority since Mexico is our neighbor.
Anyway…if you still insist on solving Mexico’s problems for her without any effort for Mexico’s part then you probably believe in Big Brother and probably don’t believe in equality. You probably want someone lesser than you to need you. Equality also implies expecting a mutual effort to solve a problem.
You really want hope and change.? Pull out of Iraq (when they can stand on their own feet) start on the Cartels and give Mexicans the hope that they can change their country for the better and don’t need to go to the Norte. When you really care about someone you help or show them how to stand on their own two feet…anything other is, at best, a symbiotic relationship.
Neither side wants the problem to go away…not with all this labor for the big business and not with all these potential voters.
Aecetia
September 2, 2010 @
12:43 PM
“The global human rights “The global human rights organization Amnesty International has harsh criticism for the way Mexico treats illegal immigrants on its southern border, calling it a human rights crisis. A recently released video documents the treatment of borders crossers into Mexico. The video shows treatment that includes rape, murder and torture at the hands of gangs and Mexican officials.”
Aecetia wrote:”The global [quote=Aecetia]”The global human rights organization Amnesty International has harsh criticism for the way Mexico treats illegal immigrants on its southern border, calling it a human rights crisis. A recently released video documents the treatment of borders crossers into Mexico. The video shows treatment that includes rape, murder and torture at the hands of gangs and Mexican officials.”
The US Justice Department on Thursday announced indictments against six people for luring 400 Thais to the United States and conspiring to force them into working as farm laborers.
A grand jury in Honolulu indicted the six for their alleged scheme “to coerce the labor and services of approximately 400 Thai nationals brought by the defendants to the United States from Thailand from May 2004 through September 2005 to work on farms across the country.”
Officials said Israeli Mordechai Orian, Pranee Tubchumpol, Shane Germann and Sam Wongsesanit of the Los Angeles-based company Global Horizons Manpower conspired with Thai labor recruiters Ratawan Chunharutai and Podjanee Sinchai to carry out the crimes that began with false promises of lucrative jobs.
The Thais, upon arrival in the United States, had their passports taken away and forced to pay thousands of dollars in recruitment fees, which were “financed by debts secured with the workers’ family property and homes.”
The defendants maintained the victims’ labor on farms in Hawaii and the western US state of Washington “by threatening to send them back to Thailand, knowing they would face serious economic harms created by the debts,” said the Justice Department.
If convicted, Orian and Tubchumpol face maximum sentences of 70 years in prison, and Chunharutai faces a maximum sentence of 65 years in prison, officials said.
The others face maximum sentences of five to 10 years in prison.
Anonymous
September 4, 2010 @
8:20 PM
Interesting to see the vote Interesting to see the vote go more than 60% for this law and most of the comments go against it. I am absolutely for this law and against all law breakers of any type. We would never say such stupid things for car theives or rapists, etc. Bottom line is that we share a border with a corrupt regime and we have a huge jobs magnet that the republicans want for the CHEAP labor to depress wages and bust Unions and the Democrats want as voters. So both parties have not enforced the laws for years. So most of the people thumbing their noses at the law happen to be South American and primarliy MExicans. That’s not racists, it is a fact. With way more than 10% unemployment, anyone for this cheap labor is racist against poor Americans. This includes your representatives who have not done their jobs. For all of you who are foolish enough to believe we could not send them all back, we could do it in a few months directly with normal law enforcement, or in a few years by throwing a few CEO’s in jail and shutting down the jobs magnet. Thta’s why the feds are against AZ, because they will prove this will work! IF they want to have another amnesty, then they need to offset any increase of new immigration with the amnestied evenly, so if there are 20 million, then they need to shut down immigration for 20 years for assimilation and jobs reasons period. The problem is that if you import 20-50M poor people who need assistance then this drags down the rest of the country as it has already done to CA and you get a lot of the bad with the good, maybe more of the bad! So it is a loser for America pretty much any way you look at it.
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.
urbanrealtor
September 14, 2010 @
4:50 PM
steveno wrote:Interesting to [quote=steveno]Interesting to see the vote go more than 60% for this law and most of the comments go against it. I am absolutely for this law and against all law breakers of any type. We would never say such stupid things for car theives or rapists, etc….[/quote]
Or pot smokers, or file sharers or non-permitted granny flats.
We must believe that anything the government says is bad is all equally bad.
We have no right to question the law.
No matter what it is.
Coronita
September 14, 2010 @
4:51 PM
steveno wrote:Interesting to [quote=steveno]Interesting to see the vote go more than 60% for this law and most of the comments go against it. I am absolutely for this law and against all law breakers of any type. We would never say such stupid things for car theives or rapists, etc. Bottom line is that we share a border with a corrupt regime and we have a huge jobs magnet that the republicans want for the CHEAP labor to depress wages and bust Unions and the Democrats want as voters. So both parties have not enforced the laws for years. So most of the people thumbing their noses at the law happen to be South American and primarliy MExicans. That’s not racists, it is a fact. With way more than 10% unemployment, anyone for this cheap labor is racist against poor Americans. This includes your representatives who have not done their jobs. For all of you who are foolish enough to believe we could not send them all back, we could do it in a few months directly with normal law enforcement, or in a few years by throwing a few CEO’s in jail and shutting down the jobs magnet. Thta’s why the feds are against AZ, because they will prove this will work! IF they want to have another amnesty, then they need to offset any increase of new immigration with the amnestied evenly, so if there are 20 million, then they need to shut down immigration for 20 years for assimilation and jobs reasons period. The problem is that if you import 20-50M poor people who need assistance then this drags down the rest of the country as it has already done to CA and you get a lot of the bad with the good, maybe more of the bad! So it is a loser for America pretty much any way you look at it.
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.[/quote]
Wow, the oxymoron is that if you believe what you say, that H1-B’s don’t cut it compared to your esteemed good old native-american-indian engineering blood, then you shouldn’t feel threatened about H1-B’s. The fact that you are tells me something else…..The irony… Check the engineering school enrollment buddy. Not like our generation are willing (or able) to readily sign up for the job….And yet, folks are wondering why the unemployment rates are so staggering….
all
September 14, 2010 @
5:05 PM
steveno wrote:
I see some of [quote=steveno]
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.[/quote]
The brave new world arrived sooner than you expected. ACM/IBM sponsored International Collegiate Programming Contest – 2010 results
The top U.S. schools – Stanford, Cornell, MIT, Carnegie Mellon… happily sharing spots 14-35 with second-tier Chinese and Russian schools.
UCSD responded to ‘Honorable Mention’ in 2008 by dropping out of contest.
Coronita
September 14, 2010 @
6:07 PM
captcha wrote:steveno [quote=captcha][quote=steveno]
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.[/quote]
The brave new world arrived sooner than you expected. ACM/IBM sponsored International Collegiate Programming Contest – 2010 results
The top U.S. schools – Stanford, Cornell, MIT, Carnegie Mellon… happily sharing spots 14-35 with second-tier Chinese and Russian schools.
UCSD responded to ‘Honorable Mention’ in 2008 by dropping out of contest.[/quote]
Hey, I went to one of those schools listed in that survey. NTU has long time been know to be one of the best schools.
Slight hijack.
I think one of the interesting tidbits from the above survey is comparing the international schools to the U.S. schools. In the international schools, the top schools are all public, education mostly paid by the government, where students get in by merit and extrance criteria. If you don’t get in, you pay to go to private…. In the U.S., it’s the reverse..the private schools you pay (dearly to get in) and they also hold all the monopoly…. Tells you the relative priorities of education in this country versus the rest of the world. It’s why I think, unfortunately in this country, you can buy your way into a decent education, and why some people who are poor but otherwise capable might never get a shot at being the best. Pretty screwed up if you ask me….
A US citizen with US birth certificate, Social Security Card & Texas ID deported to Mexico…lol
Just shows you how hard it is to “prove” you are legally in the country on spot checks.
How many of you carry anything other than Driver’s license for ID every day. And driver’s license does not prove your citizen ship nor legal residency.
Aecetia
September 14, 2010 @
4:43 PM
steveno:
They want the steveno:
They want the population dumbed down and it is working pretty well so far. In the above case, the person deported spoke remedial English and signed a document (he probably did not understand what he signed or could not read it). Uneducated people are easier to control.
Anonymous
September 14, 2010 @
7:53 PM
Great, stirred up some good Great, stirred up some good stuff with that long diatribe. Agreed, pretty much anything the govt or MSM come up with should be questioned long and hard and not accepted by anyone. school rankings are OPINIONS based on some stupid measures…I have not seen two that agree past the first few schools after that its a total free for all. Agreed, in the 3rd world, school is a privilege and it is typically hard work to get in. The problem is that third world countries are decades or farther behind in most items, and the professors have not worked on the top technologies with few exceptions. they do not have the equipment, capabilities, etc. That’s why they are such good book quoters. I have read many international papers in my field and they are still making basic mistakes that were learned in the US 20 years ago. There are areas like software and electronics where we are probably falling behind, but in anything military…we lead by decades. The major problem is the cheap-labor thinking. Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.
urbanrealtor
September 14, 2010 @
8:52 PM
steveno wrote:… Germany [quote=steveno]… Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.[/quote]
Uhhh…..okay.
The basic concept of Keynesian thought is the use of fiscal policy (government spending) to effect aggregate demand (to improve the economy).
That’s not a controversial statement.
That’s the (overly reduced) definition.
Germany has the government as a whopping half of its economy.
The US has the government as 20% of the economy as a point of comparison.
So you have taken an example of the success of keynesian fundamentals (though I don’t think the Germans would call themselves keynesians) and used it as an example of how we need to be less keynesian and adopt more keynesian policies(????!?!?!?).
Do you get high before posting?
briansd1
September 14, 2010 @
9:09 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:steveno [quote=urbanrealtor][quote=steveno]… Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.[/quote]
Do you get high before posting?[/quote]
People are Keynesian but they don’t know it and won’t admit it.
At least we now know that trickle-down, supply-side economics is all about going on a debt binge, which boosts spending short term, but doesn’t work long term.
urbanrealtor
September 14, 2010 @
10:29 PM
briansd1 wrote:
At least we [quote=briansd1]
At least we now know that trickle-down, supply-side economics is all about going on a debt binge, which boosts spending short term, but doesn’t work long term.[/quote]
We know no such thing.
All we know is that there is no free lunch and that any intervention by government (which is all government ever does) has to be thought out and intelligent.
To quote Christine Kehoe:
“the defining policy document of any government is its budget”.
Honestly brian I kind of wish you weren’t on the same side of the political spectrum as me.
BTW, many economists consider Reaganomics one of the most substantial examples of peacetime keynesian policies in history.
Aecetia
September 14, 2010 @
11:12 PM
Wrong again Brian. “The Wrong again Brian. “The former socialist economies have been at the forefront of those moving toward supply-side tax policies. Following the collapse of communism, most of these countries had a combination of personal income and payroll taxes that generated high marginal tax rates. As a result, the incentive to work was weak and tax evasion was massive.”
In January 2001, the Putin administration shifted to a 13 percent flat-rate income tax and also sharply reduced the payroll tax rate with impressive results. Tax compliance increased and the inflation-adjusted revenues from the personal income tax rose more than 20 percent annually during the three years following the adoption of the flat-rate tax.
Honestly brian I kind of wish you weren’t on the same side of the political spectrum as me.[/quote]
I think that I lack the empathy that most liberals share. So I’m not always welcomed. But I’m OK with that.
[quote=urbanrealtor]
BTW, many economists consider Reaganomics one of the most substantial examples of peacetime keynesian policies in history.[/quote]
Sure, we could say that, especially about the military spending part.
Either way, we know that government action is highly effective in affecting economic outcomes. I’m all for calibrating government intervention as appropriate.
The example of Singapore is most interesting. It’s a capitalist society, but it’s run like a communist country. It became rich is one generation. Purchasing power has now surpassed Japan as Japan’s economy stagnated.
Maybe not. I’m hoping that incoherence and insanity takes over and defines the other side. 😉
Coronita
September 14, 2010 @
9:22 PM
steveno wrote:Great, stirred [quote=steveno]Great, stirred up some good stuff with that long diatribe. Agreed, pretty much anything the govt or MSM come up with should be questioned long and hard and not accepted by anyone. school rankings are OPINIONS based on some stupid measures…I have not seen two that agree past the first few schools after that its a total free for all. Agreed, in the 3rd world, school is a privilege and it is typically hard work to get in. The problem is that third world countries are decades or farther behind in most items, and the professors have not worked on the top technologies with few exceptions. they do not have the equipment, capabilities, etc. That’s why they are such good book quoters. I have read many international papers in my field and they are still making basic mistakes that were learned in the US 20 years ago. There are areas like software and electronics where we are probably falling behind, but in anything military…we lead by decades. The major problem is the cheap-labor thinking. Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.[/quote]
I think you got it backwards. I think the reason why U.S. leads in defense research has nothing to do with “cheap labor”. It has everything to do with
1) U.S. is the largest arms producer (we love things that kill)…to the point it’s bankrupting this country
2) Being the nature of defense business it’s limited competition. It’s not a free market, in that you cannot easily hire people who are NOT U.S. citizens to do this work. By that nature, there is a natural market control on it.
I find that ironic you’re mentioned about H1-B and talking about defense companies in the same topic. It’s contradictory, because for really sensitive stuff, you need security clearance which H1-B’s can’t get.
So I’m not sure what your basing your “cheap labor/quality” and defense industry points on. And frankly, over the past decades top talent has migrated away from the defense business and was considered a “last resort consideration”…because well…. frankly relative to other peer industries employing the same skill set..it pays worse and higher risk due to cyclical nature of defense budgets.
Lastly, good luck finding great defense contracting these days. Everything is moving back to VA/Washington area. If in doubt, ask all the SAIC and BAE people….
$10 says you never stepped into a a top seed international university before. And I wonder which industry you work in. Because if you’re in defense, you wouldn’t have tried to make a comparison to H1-B employment (it virtually doesn’t exist in the more important things). And if you’re not in defense, then what’s your basis for claiming that “we’re the best and the best tech is in defense”? Got UAW blood in you?
Coronita
September 14, 2010 @
11:22 PM
What I want to know is What I want to know is this:
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical.
What firm/industry are we talking about, where (here in SD), and what level?
Sorry, but my B.S. meter is going off here…Defense industry/ MIT/ H1-B? It’s just not adding up. The three usually don’t go hand in hand.
April 27, 2010 @ 1:41 PM
In California, Meg Whitman,
In California, Meg Whitman, the Republican front-runner in the California gubernatorial primary, said that Arizona is taking the wrong approach to with its tough new law.
“I think there’s just better ways to solve this problem,” Whitman said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-immigration-enforcement,0,4684567.story
April 27, 2010 @ 2:33 PM
I don’t support the law
I don’t support the law because it’s inhumane and tyrannical. I don’t believe that people walking around doing their business should be subject to being asked for ID.
But those who support Arizona’s immigration law, why do you support it?
Or is the subject too controversial to discuss in the open?
April 27, 2010 @ 2:58 PM
How many of us could provide
How many of us could provide proof of our citizenship upon demand?
Currently, I could not. I would hate to live in a society where I would be required to always carry such paperwork or ID with me.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:06 PM
It’s a god-awful small
It’s a god-awful small affair
To the girl with the mousy hair
But her mummy is yelling “No”
And her daddy has told her to go
But her friend is nowhere to be seen
Now she walks through her sunken dream
To the seat with the clearest view
And she’s hooked to the silver screen
But the film is a saddening bore
‘Cause she’s lived it ten times or more
She could spit in the eyes of fools
As they ask her to focus on
Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
It’s the freakiest show
Take a look at the Lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he’ll ever know
He’s in the best selling show
Is there life on Mars?
It’s on Amerika’s tortured brow
That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Now the workers have struck for fame
‘Cause Lennon’s on sale again
See the mice in their million hordes
From Ibiza to the Norfolk Broads
Rule Britannia is out of bounds
To my mother, my dog, and clowns
But the film is a saddening bore
‘Cause I wrote it ten times or more
It’s about to be writ again
As I ask you to focus on
Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
It’s the freakiest show
Take a look at the Lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he’ll ever know
He’s in the best selling show
Is there life on Mars?
April 27, 2010 @ 7:21 PM
Enorah,
Thanks for the
Enorah,
Thanks for the flashback to 1970s dorm living. I had the Honky Dory album. I probably bought because of “Changes” but who knows. The guy from YES or King Crimson (or both, I forget) played piano on the Life on Mars track, and Mick Ronson was his usual understated excellence on the guitar.
It’s on youtube for younger Piggs who may not have been around when this album/song was first released.
April 27, 2010 @ 8:10 PM
PatentGuy
[quote=PatentGuy]Enorah,
Thanks for the flashback to 1970s dorm living. I had the Honky Dory album. I probably bought because of “Changes” but who knows. The guy from YES or King Crimson (or both, I forget) played piano on the Life on Mars track, and Mick Ronson was his usual understated excellence on the guitar.
It’s on youtube for younger Piggs who may not have been around when this album/song was first released.[/quote]
You’re welcome. I had just posted on the ET thread and it was in my head. Then I read this thread and realized the real reason it was in my head. I know there is a better way. I know it, feel it in my bones, a better way to relate and be and love. This separation carp is the same old story told again and again and again on this planet.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:07 PM
FYI, the provision that
FYI, the provision that resident aliens (green card holders) carry their resident card is already the federal law. As an immigrant I carry that around and prior to that I carried my passport around (also as required). I have been asked once to see my passport when passing through the border checkpoints and that is legal. Is it a pain – yes, however, that is the law as it stands. My understanding is that if you are a citizen and say so, the police cannot require you to show evidence of it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
April 27, 2010 @ 7:14 PM
looking wrote:FYI, the
[quote=looking]FYI, the provision that resident aliens (green card holders) carry their resident card is already the federal law. As an immigrant I carry that around and prior to that I carried my passport around (also as required). I have been asked once to see my passport when passing through the border checkpoints and that is legal. Is it a pain – yes, however, that is the law as it stands. My understanding is that if you are a citizen and say so, the police cannot require you to show evidence of it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
To go any further they have to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion. Here in CA it us up to the CBP to establish probable cause. So the police will pull someone over, see that the individual has no id, and then call customs or the border patrol to establish citizenship. By the same token the border patrol can pull over a possible DUI but has to call CHP or the police for an “evaluation”. Different jurisdictions.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:10 PM
pencilneck wrote:How many of
[quote=pencilneck]How many of us could provide proof of our citizenship upon demand?
Currently, I could not. I would hate to live in a society where I would be required to always carry such paperwork or ID with me.[/quote]
Don’t you carry around driver license with you? Don’t you have to prove that you’re here legally to get a driver license? Don’t you have your citizenship paper at home (or somewhere safe)? Are there already check points when you leave SD, where they can pull you aside and check if you’re here legally or not? Don’t they already ask for your driver license when they pull you over for speeding?
April 27, 2010 @ 3:24 PM
AN, cops don’t currently ask
AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?
April 27, 2010 @ 3:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, cops don’t
[quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
[/quote]
But the person asked for ID is suspected of having done something wrong: being in the country illegally, which is a federal as well as a state offense! Would it be acceptable for the police to stop you if you’re driving a car that’s been reported stolen, or if you’re seen two blocks from the scene of a robbery and you match the description of the robber? This is the same.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:36 PM
Well, if we have laws in
Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:Well, if we
[quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
I don’t think that laws in place allow police officers to check the immigration status.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:Well, if we
[quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
So you don’t really know exactly what this law say, but you know you object to it. Got it.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:49 PM
AN wrote:briansd1 wrote:Well,
[quote=AN][quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
So you don’t really know exactly what this law say, but you know you object to it. Got it.[/quote]
I never said that it’s the same. It’s not. The new law is more punitive and give local cops, in AZ, more power to demand IDs of people who they suspect of being unauthorized.
But those who argue that it’s the same should oppose the new law because it adds nothing new.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:52 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN
[quote=briansd1][quote=AN][quote=briansd1]Well, if we have laws in place already, then why the new law?
Conservatives should oppose unnecessary new laws.[/quote]
So you don’t really know exactly what this law say, but you know you object to it. Got it.[/quote]
I never said that it’s the same. It’s not. The new law is more punitive and give local cops, in AZ, more power to demand IDs of people who they suspect of being unauthorized.
But those who argue that it’s the same should oppose the new law because it adds nothing new.[/quote]
Did I ever said that you said that it’s the same? I’m just asking a question, since I don’t know about this specific law. Eugene posted it. Now we all know what the exact wording is.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:12 PM
Is this really about
Is this really about illegals? The question we should be asking is how this affects legal citizens. There are plenty of legal citizens who will now be targeted simply because of their last name, skin, accent, or any other arbitrary means.
Imagine you are a legal immigrant who has dark skin, your last name is Gonzalez, you speak with an accent, you drive a beater, work in construction, rock your Chivas jersey on weekends, frequent the Bodega, and have a wicked mustache. You work hard, pay taxes, provide for your family, and are active in your community. Would you feel welcome in Arizona, even though you are a legal, productive member of society? Welcome to America, indeed.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:34 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, cops don’t
[quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?[/quote]
I totally disagree. There are plenty of people who are going through proper channels to get their visa and have been waiting for a long time. Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?
BTW, with your proposal, if it’s that cheap to get to be legalized citizen here, I can see a lot of people buying plain tickets to Canada, drive to the US, pay the $2500, and become a legal US resident.
I could have sworn that this law was about allowing cops to ask for residence info only after they pulled you over for some other infraction? Are you sure they can just pull you over without other infraction?
April 27, 2010 @ 3:37 PM
“AN” wrote:I could have sworn
[quote=”AN”]I could have sworn that this law was about allowing cops to ask for residence info only after they pulled you over for some other infraction? Are you sure they can just pull you over without other infraction?[/quote]
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).
The same law also makes it illegal to seek work as a day laborer. Law officers are obligated to make “lawful contact” with prospective day laborers, and, once they are in contact, they are obligated to determine their immigration status if they suspect those day laborers to be here illegally.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:44 PM
AN wrote: Why reward people
[quote=AN] Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?[/quote]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:49 PM
briansd1 wrote:
They’d have
[quote=briansd1]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
Sorry, still don’t agree. NO ONE should be allow to cut in line. Comparing illegals to refugees is quite a reach. Refugees don’t enter here illegally. They stay in camps and await their papers before they enter the US. They enter the US legally, through proper channels.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:04 PM
AN, not all refugees are
AN, not all refugees are treated the same. For example, Cuban refugees get to stay in America if they can reach our shores, in whatever manner. Some have entered through Mexico.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:31 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote: Why
[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?[/quote]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
Wasn’t the point of amnesty in the 80s a way to start with a clean slate? The existing illegal immigrants (who resided here for at least four years, IIRC) were granted amnesty and then we were supposed to get tough on illegal immigration. That certainly didn’t seem to happen, so why should we trust them now?
That was when we were “nice” about those who lived her for awhile. Now, it’s time to finally do what the vast majority of U.S. citizens want: fix the problem of illegal immigration once and for all.
————–
The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both houses in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. This year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. First, employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, placated at least in part by the “affirmative defense” clause in the law which explicitly releases employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of documents presented to them. Second, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers’ lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
——————–
With the technology that’s been developed since 1986, it shouldn’t be a problem having to comply with verifying the resident status of new employees, right?
Let’s at least enforce the 1986 law and ammend it so that employers are mandated to verify the legitimacy of the documents/legal status of the employee.
April 29, 2010 @ 12:25 AM
Looking for a response from
Looking for a response from Brian, if you don’t mind. Why do we need to go through the whole amnesty debate again? We’ve already done that, and the problem was not solved.
[quote=CA renter]
[quote=briansd1]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
Wasn’t the point of amnesty in the 80s a way to start with a clean slate? The existing illegal immigrants (who resided here for at least four years, IIRC) were granted amnesty and then we were supposed to get tough on illegal immigration. That certainly didn’t seem to happen, so why should we trust them now?
That was when we were “nice” about those who lived her for awhile. Now, it’s time to finally do what the vast majority of U.S. citizens want: fix the problem of illegal immigration once and for all.
————–
The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both houses in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. This year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. First, employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, placated at least in part by the “affirmative defense” clause in the law which explicitly releases employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of documents presented to them. Second, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers’ lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
——————–
With the technology that’s been developed since 1986, it shouldn’t be a problem having to comply with verifying the resident status of new employees, right?
Let’s at least enforce the 1986 law and ammend it so that employers are mandated to verify the legitimacy of the documents/legal status of the employee.[/quote]
April 29, 2010 @ 12:31 AM
As Investors Business Daily
As Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:
“The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.”
Story Continues Below
Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: “Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That’s a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population.”
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson places the percentage of illegal aliens in U.S. prisons even higher. In 2001, he told Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly:
“We had problems related to the costs of educating children who were acknowledged to be in the country illegally, healthcare costs. One in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally.”
The Federation for American Immigration Reform also turned to the Justice Department to get statistics on criminal aliens. They report:
“In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones [including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings].
“In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens [who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges].”
Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics – but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.
As to the “hard-working” claim, CIS notes: “The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3 percent for native households.”
Investor’s Business Daily concurs: “Once [illegals] get here, they are 50 percent more likely to be on welfare than citizens.”
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml
April 29, 2010 @ 12:40 AM
Judge: Arm Yourself
Ashtabula
Judge: Arm Yourself
Ashtabula County, Ohio
Judge: Arm Yourself
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Budget cuts have whacked Ashtabula County so hard that just one sheriff’s cruiser now patrols 720 square miles, raising a troubling question: Who will protect residents of this sprawling, rural Northeast Ohio county when sheriff’s deputies are miles away? A county judge has a suggestion: Concerned people may want to arm themselves. “We are living in a large county, and you cannot count on the availability of your sheriff to come to your home if you are in danger in a prompt manner,” Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey said.
http://www.governing.com/news-item/judge-arm-yourself
April 29, 2010 @ 8:55 AM
CA renter wrote:Looking for a
[quote=CA renter]Looking for a response from Brian, if you don’t mind. Why do we need to go through the whole amnesty debate again? We’ve already done that, and the problem was not solved.
[/quote]
The 1986 amnesty bill was signed by Ronald Reagan and was implemented through the late 1980s and 1990s.
It did solve the problem of unauthorized immigrants who were here since 1982. I think that’s what the bill meant to address.
The problem of unauthorized immigrants, as a whole, will never go away. We have to deal with it periodically. It’s like house maintenance. You do it over and over again.
Short of deporting all the unauthorized immigrants, there is no other solution but to give them amnesty. Mark my words, it will happen sooner or later.
I personally want to see a Republican Congress and President address the amnesty issue in the future.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:13 AM
briansd1 wrote:
The 1986
[quote=briansd1]
The 1986 amnesty bill was signed by Ronald Reagan and was implemented through the late 1980s and 1990s.
It did solve the problem of unauthorized immigrants who were here since 1982. I think that’s what the bill meant to address.
The problem of unauthorized immigrants, as a whole, will never go away. We have to deal with it periodically. It’s like house maintenance. You do it over and over again.
Short of deporting all the unauthorized immigrants, there is no other solution but to give them amnesty. Mark my words, it will happen sooner or later.
I personally want to see a Republican Congress and President address the amnesty issue in the future.[/quote]
Your premise is flawed. We don’t want to do this ‘over and over again’. The only reason that amnesty was passed in 1986 was because it was SUPPOSED to be coupled with more stringent enforcement of employers to reduce or eliminate the draw of people across the border. Effectively, what we did was give everyone amnesty and then turn a blind eye to more stringent enforcement.
The only way that I, and many like me, will support any kind of amnesty program again is to tighten AND ENFORCE the existing provisions to prevent the flood of people from continuing. Otherwise we should just give up our sovereignty, throw the door open and be done with it. Of course, giving up our sovereignty would mean dissolving our government since it would have no purpose anymore (there would be no ‘country’ to govern).
April 29, 2010 @ 9:17 AM
Does anybody have data on
Does anybody have data on those who were naturalized in the 1986 amnesty? What percentage of those people are now working, productive, tax-paying members of society, and what percentage of those people are in jail/gangs, criminals, on welfare, etc?
April 29, 2010 @ 9:24 AM
meadandale wrote:
Your
[quote=meadandale]
Your premise is flawed. We don’t want to do this ‘over and over again’. The only reason that amnesty was passed in 1986 was because it was SUPPOSED to be coupled with more stringent enforcement of employers to reduce or eliminate the draw of people across the border. Effectively, what we did was give everyone amnesty and then turn a blind eye to more stringent enforcement.[/quote]
I don’t think that 1986 bill was supposed to do anything more than what it did. Ronald Reagan sold it as what you think it was supposed to do. But that was just political salesmanship.
Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty bill. GHW Bush followed as president.
That’s why I want the Republicans to propose an immigration bill. Who are you gonna vote for then?
April 29, 2010 @ 9:36 AM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale
[quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
Your premise is flawed. We don’t want to do this ‘over and over again’. The only reason that amnesty was passed in 1986 was because it was SUPPOSED to be coupled with more stringent enforcement of employers to reduce or eliminate the draw of people across the border. Effectively, what we did was give everyone amnesty and then turn a blind eye to more stringent enforcement.[/quote]
I don’t think that 1986 bill was supposed to do anything more than what it did. Ronald Reagan sold it as what you think it was supposed to do. But that was just political salesmanship.
Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty bill. GHW Bush followed as president.
That’s why I want the Republicans to propose an immigration bill. Who are you gonna vote for then?[/quote]
For someone who thinks he’s informed, you continue to display your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.
That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:42 AM
meadandale wrote:That’s the
[quote=meadandale]That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.[/quote]
That is my (somewhat fuzzy) recollection – that the “amnesty” at that time was partially sold on the basis that it was a one time deal to “fix” the problem.
That’s another reason why talking about “amnesty” again is somewhat annoying. Of course, if you weren’t here or weren’t old enough to remember the first you wouldn’t feel that way.
I understand briansd thinks this is something that should be done periodically I guess, preferably by republicans, ad infinitum.
I don’t consider that going after a “solution” by any means.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:45 AM
KSMountain wrote:meadandale
[quote=KSMountain][quote=meadandale]That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.[/quote]
That is my (somewhat fuzzy) recollection – that the “amnesty” at that time was partially sold on the basis that it was a one time deal to “fix” the problem.
That’s another reason why talking about “amnesty” again is somewhat annoying. Of course, if you weren’t here or weren’t old enough to remember the first you wouldn’t feel that way.
I understand briansd thinks this is something that should be done periodically I guess, preferably by republicans, ad infinitum.
I don’t consider that going after a “solution” by any means.[/quote]
Yeah, I had just started college when this passed. I remember it well. Brian…he probably wasn’t even a twinkle in his mother’s eye yet.
That’s why I’m skeptical of this ‘financial reform’ bill. Seems like more lip service…when we’ll end up doing the same thing the next time this happens…and it will unless the reform has teeth. I don’t support endless bailouts anymore than I support endless amnesties.
April 29, 2010 @ 11:59 AM
KSMountain wrote:
I don’t
[quote=KSMountain]
I don’t consider that going after a “solution” by any means.[/quote]
It depends what you’re trying to solve.
There is no solution to end all future problems, otherwise, we’d be in nirvana.
Remember the pursuit of happiness? It’s a never ending process.
Forming a more perfect union is also a never ending process.
The reality of demographics is such that there will come a time, again, when the majority of citizens in America will have parents who were not born and bred in America. Simple reality.
We have the choice of dealing with demographics in a humane and compassionate fashion; or we can let the demographics of numbers find the solution for us decades down the road. It’s our choice.
The more we isolate people who generate economic output, the less likely they will have a stake in the continuation of our way of life. When those socially marginalized, but economically necessary people outnumber us, then we’ll have a big and potentially explosive problem. At that time, we won’t win because we’ll be in the minority.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:29 PM
I’m going to be at the SD
I’m going to be at the SD downtown rally, not to chant and yell (because it’s not my style), but to get a feel of people’s frustrations and to witness history.
*
LAPD officials expect crowd of up to 100,000 at immigration march on Saturday
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/lapd-officials-expect-crowd-of-up-to-100000-at-may-day-rally-on-saturday-.html
San Diego County immigration activists are planning a rally at 11 a.m. Saturday in Chicano Park. The rally will be followed by a march to the downtown San Diego federal building, where another rally will be held at 1 p.m.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/29/new-ariz-law-likely-focus-of-may-day-rally/
April 29, 2010 @ 11:33 AM
meadandale wrote:
For someone
[quote=meadandale]
For someone who thinks he’s informed, you continue to display your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.
That’s the only way they could include ‘amnesty’–if they acted to stop the flood. None of the conservatives would have supported it otherwise.[/quote]
Like I said the 1986 amnesty signed by Ronald Reagan did was it was supposed to do. We created more criminals.
But if you don’t knowingly hire an authorized immigrants, then you’re not a criminal.
I’d love for Republicans to propose another plan to stop the flood, as you put it. I’m sure that conservatives will support that new plan.
April 27, 2010 @ 8:27 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote: Why
[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] Why reward people who ignore the rules/laws?[/quote]
They’d have to prove that they’ve been here for a long time already.
Humanitarian reasons would be good reasons to legalize existing unauthorized residents — like allowing refugees to jump ahead of the line.
Remember the 1986 amnesty? I believe that, eventually, a Republican president will sign another similar law.[/quote]
My wife’s family will sure feel stupid for waiting in line for 20 years if that happens.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:05 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:
My wife’s
[quote=cdesilva44]
My wife’s family will sure feel stupid for waiting in line for 20 years if that happens.[/quote]
No they won’t.
They waited 20 years so they should be eligible for a green card soon.
Had they come here, 20 years ago as unauthorized immigrants, they would have lived underground the whole time. You and your wife would likely have had to support them in some way or another.
They’d still be waiting, with nothing on the horizon. We may not have an immigration bill until the situation deteriorates further, and past 2016 when a Republican might be president.
April 28, 2010 @ 2:02 AM
briansd1 wrote:cdesilva44
[quote=briansd1][quote=cdesilva44]
My wife’s family will sure feel stupid for waiting in line for 20 years if that happens.[/quote]
No they won’t.
They waited 20 years so they should be eligible for a green card soon.
Had they come here, 20 years ago as unauthorized immigrants, they would have lived underground the whole time. You and your wife would likely have had to support them in some way or another.
They’d still be waiting, with nothing on the horizon. We may not have an immigration bill until the situation deteriorates further, and past 2016 when a Republican might be president.[/quote]
My wife’s parents waited patiently for 19 years and then finally got their green cards 11 years ago. My wife was under 21 at the time and was able to come with them, but unfortunately her brother was too old and had to re-apply on his own. My wife and her parents are now citizens, but her brother is still in the Philippines waiting for a green card.
BTW, they all speak fluent English and despise illegal immigration. They also support what Arizona is doing.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:23 AM
My wife is Chinese. Her
My wife is Chinese. Her parents live with us. I spent thousands of dollars, countless hours in paperwork to LEGALLY transition these three into American citizenship. They are proud to have followed the legal process. My wife worked hard to speak English fluently, to get her Masters degree in education, and to attain her tenure teaching at one of Silicon Valley’s best high schools.
My wife and her parents STRONGLY support the AZ immigration bill, and so do I.
Ask my wife about illegal immigrants. You’ll get an earful that will put your ears in pain. Yet she started out unbiased, a blank slate, when she took her first substitute teaching assignments in San Diego’s heavily Hispanic areas.
Those classrooms were filled with illegal immigrants, or legals with illegal parents.
A couple years teaching in those classrooms gave her a VERY strong opinion, formed simply from countless observations
The minute those kids walked out the classroom she would see them throw the stack of homework assignments they had just received right into the trash bins. But it was their attitudes that were too much for my wife, the attitude of entitlement “Hey we made it out of Mexico to the land of milk and honey so now we can just sit back and enjoy the Wonderful Life (of entitlements)”
She visited countless student’s home and every time it was ten kids sitting in front of a 60″ big screen TV that our tax dollars paid for. And mama said (in Spanish) “look I don’t force them to do homework. They can watch TV all the time. Look, you’re the teacher! Your job is to teach my kids and make ’em do homework!”
Those random teaching assignments also took her to classrooms filled with immigrant children from India, or from China, or Korea. What a contrast.
Those children brought back completed homework assignments ON TIME and ASKED FOR EXTRA HOMEWORK. The parents didn’t allow any TV until homework was DONE. Those children expressed an attitude of “I’ve made it to the land of milk and honey, where IF I WORK HARD then I get rewarded with a Wonderful Life”
As for fifty Mexicans milling around in front of every Home Depot?
Damn right they need to show the police proof of citizenship. And the police can ask any time they want.
And if they cannot produce proof, or their relatives cannot bring it to the jail holding cell within a few days, then the result is DEPORTATION. And if the family gets split up because you got deported, that’s a problem you created when you crossed the border illegally.
April 28, 2010 @ 6:40 AM
Frankly stockstradr, your
Frankly stockstradr, your wife’s beliefs have zero to to with the legal status of her students – does it? This is precisely why the law is problematic – because it conflates people’s categorical judgments about a group of people with the issue of legal status, two completely independent issues. One person’s distaste for a group of people (regardless of how ungrateful they seem – not a crime) is not an argument for implementing a law. It’s surprising that you would not realize this, given american beliefs about Chinese immigration. I wonder how Az would feel about a law banning further Chinese immigration? If it were on a ballot, what would happen? Are individual beliefs about groups really how you want US law to be determined? Scary vision.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:41 PM
What is so difficult with
What is so difficult with having to show ID to prove citizenship? I’m happy the police are finally being empowered to enforce these laws, it is a long time coming.
In San Diego, if a policeman pulls over an illegal for a driving violation, he is powerless to do anything. That is a sad joke.
Also, enough about “racial profiling” complaining. Yes most illegals are from Mexico and most of them have brown skin. However, I can spot an illegal from a mile away, it is obvious. Its not just the skin color, it is the way they dress, their overall appearance, the way they talk, smell, etc.
Stop letting political correctness get in the way of common sense. THANK YOU ARIZONA!
April 27, 2010 @ 4:10 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, cops don’t
[quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?[/quote]
It is offensive to me as someone who did go through legal channels and know many people who went through legal channels to hear that people who came in illegally should be given a small fine and then be legal. Most people who come here on H1B pay a lot more than $2500 in just legal fees to get themselves through the maze of paperwork. I have previously joked with my co-workers that they would get work papers faster if they illegally entered the country.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:16 PM
looking wrote:briansd1
[quote=looking][quote=briansd1]AN, cops don’t currently ask for ID unless you’ve done something wrong, or at pre-announced check points.
What makes America exceptional is that cops don’t walk around asking for ID.
I know a gal who was here illegally for many years and worked in a restaurant. She got married and is now a citizen. I’m happy for her.
I believe that we should give amnesty and legalize those who are already here. Make them pay a fine (maybe $2,500) and immediately give them legal work papers. Perhaps, for them, extend the waiting period to qualify for citizenship from 5 years to 10 years.
We could use more tax paying residents. Why not bring people who are already working in the country under the fold?[/quote]
It is offensive to me as someone who did go through legal channels and know many people who went through legal channels to hear that people who came in illegally should be given a small fine and then be legal. Most people who come here on H1B pay a lot more than $2500 in just legal fees to get themselves through the maze of paperwork. I have previously joked with my co-workers that they would get work papers faster if they illegally entered the country.[/quote]
If Brian gets his way, I can see all the H1B people declaring themselves as illegal, ask for amnesty, pay the $2500, and become legal resident. Then they’ll fly all their relatives over here, ask for amnesty, pay the $2500, and become legal resident. Rinse and repeat.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:26 PM
looking wrote: Most people
[quote=looking] Most people who come here on H1B pay a lot more than $2500 in just legal fees to get themselves through the maze of paperwork. I have previously joked with my co-workers that they would get work papers faster if they illegally entered the country.[/quote]
The unauthorized aliens who are already here have already endured years of hardship in the underground economy.
H1B visa holders don’t have to endure that. I don’t think that H1Bs would want to endure years of deprivation.
BTW, I think that a new immigration bill, whenever it becomes law, will look very much like the 1986 bill signed by Ronald Reagan.
If I had my way, we’d have a repeat of the 1986 bill.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:
The
[quote=briansd1]
The unauthorized aliens who are already here have already endured years of hardship in the underground economy. [/quote]
What does that have anything to do with it? I can bet you $100 bucks that what they had to “endure” is better than what they would have to “endure” in their own country, else they wouldn’t have crossed over here illegally.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:44 PM
What you said is not
What you said is not necessary true, AN.
The first European immigrants to America probably endured more hardship upon landing that they did back in Europe. Many died leaving offsprings in the new world.
Plus, if an unauthorized immigrant endured hardship in her home country does not mean that she doesn’t endure it here.
But you said that hardship has nothing to do with it; so why even bring up the relative hardship in America vs. the home country.
I, however, claim that hardship and suffering are relevant because this is a humanitarian issue. There is physical and psychological suffering.
April 27, 2010 @ 5:02 PM
briansd1 wrote:What you said
[quote=briansd1]What you said is not necessary true, AN.
The first European immigrants to America probably endured more hardship upon landing that they did back in Europe. Many died leaving offsprings in the new world.
Plus, if an unauthorized immigrant endured hardship in her home country does not mean that she doesn’t endure it here.
But you said that hardship has nothing to do with it; so why even bring up the relative hardship in America vs. the home country.
I, however, claim that hardship and suffering are relevant because this is a humanitarian issue. There is physical and psychological suffering.[/quote]
Are they the only one who’s suffering?
BTW, did you lose any family members who tried to escape the country, just for the hope that they can be in a camp. Just for a chance to come here legally? Like I said, if your proposal ever become reality, I know a few people who would love to take advantage of this amnesty.
April 27, 2010 @ 7:10 PM
AN wrote:
Are they the only
[quote=AN]
Are they the only one who’s suffering?
BTW, did you lose any family members who tried to escape the country, just for the hope that they can be in a camp. Just for a chance to come here legally? Like I said, if your proposal ever become reality, I know a few people who would love to take advantage of this amnesty.[/quote]
If people are suffering in our country, then we are responsible. We are not responsible (or at least much less so) for suffering in other countries. So we have to solve the situation of unauthorized immigrants already in the country.
I’m not understanding what you’re getting at regarding the refugee issue.
If a bill similar to the 1986 amnesty law signed by Ronald Reagan ever comes to pass again, it would give amnesty to people who are already in the country since a certain date(e.g. since 1/1/2005).
People who then come here, believing they would get amnesty in the future, would have to wait as unauthorized aliens for an undetermined amount of time, perhaps forever. They would face imprisonment and deportation. So they wouldn’t benefit from the amnesty.
So AN, the people you know, who would benefit from amnesty, would have to be already here (since an earlier date) as unauthorized aliens.
April 28, 2010 @ 1:13 AM
briansd1 wrote:
So AN, the
[quote=briansd1]
So AN, the people you know, who would benefit from amnesty, would have to be already here (since an earlier date) as unauthorized aliens.[/quote]
How do you prove how long they’ve been here? What if they got here yesterday?
Just because illegal immigrant suffer w/in our borders, we supposed to give them amnesty, while we shouldn’t care about those who suffer much worse in other countries? They’re here illegally, so, they shouldn’t be here. Why give amnesty to people who enter a suffering by their own choice while not give amnesty to people who suffer much worse and not have a choice in the matter?
April 28, 2010 @ 10:05 AM
AN wrote:
Just because
[quote=AN]
Just because illegal immigrant suffer w/in our borders, we supposed to give them amnesty, while we shouldn’t care about those who suffer much worse in other countries? They’re here illegally, so, they shouldn’t be here. Why give amnesty to people who enter a suffering by their own choice while not give amnesty to people who suffer much worse and not have a choice in the matter?[/quote]
AN, I’m glad that you believe that people who suffer in other countries should be given visas to America.
The legislature has the power to immediately give those suffering people expedited entry. I’m glad that you are voicing such support.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:07 AM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote:
Just
[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
Just because illegal immigrant suffer w/in our borders, we supposed to give them amnesty, while we shouldn’t care about those who suffer much worse in other countries? They’re here illegally, so, they shouldn’t be here. Why give amnesty to people who enter a suffering by their own choice while not give amnesty to people who suffer much worse and not have a choice in the matter?[/quote]
AN, I’m glad that you believe that people who suffer in other countries should allowed visas to America.
The legislature has the power to immediately give those suffering people expedited entry. I’m glad that you are voicing such support.[/quote]
Oh, I have no issue with amnesty. I actually support it comepletely. I just have issue with how illegal gets here.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:16 PM
briansd1 wrote:I don’t
[quote=briansd1]I don’t support the law because it’s inhumane and tyrannical. I don’t believe that people walking around doing their business should be subject to being asked for ID.
But those who support Arizona’s immigration law, why do you support it?
Or is the subject too controversial to discuss in the open?[/quote]
Shiiitttt! You know the first time I ever realized that my grandfather was a immigrant is when I was walking with him in Lemon Grove. His father live in Lemon Grove and he was from Arizona. We were stopped by border patrol in this State and asked our citzenship…
Ok this was 30 years ago but it does happen… everywhere.
CE
June 6, 2010 @ 8:57 AM
briansd1 wrote:In California,
[quote=briansd1]In California, Meg Whitman, the Republican front-runner in the California gubernatorial primary, said that Arizona is taking the wrong approach to with its tough new law.
“I think there’s just better ways to solve this problem,” Whitman said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-immigration-enforcement,0,4684567.story%5B/quote%5D
Translation: Best solved if simply ignored.
April 27, 2010 @ 2:57 PM
I am a legal imigrant, have
I am a legal imigrant, have green card and am brown. New law tells me, do not bother crossing into Arizona state Border or expect harrasment. I will stay out of Arizona and hope I will be able to manage with the rest of the 47 + states.
Now, i am not sure, how long I would be able to live in this country and how my kids will fare in the future, though they are born citizens.
I hope immigrants breed a little more and balance the population with a little more brown.
I do not berate the nation or the American culture, I would say what I said while underlining the fact that America and Americans are the most welcoming and tollerating of all cultures and countries of the world.
Its just these fringe characters make it difficult.
Though I do my best to adapt to the culture, people and system and try to be just one of them , I am different – color – accent – life style and stand out a little more in teh crowd than my white friends and guess what, I get picked out easily.
Being an immigrant have always been subject to the law, that I would have to produce ID when required.
but do not feel very comfortable with the idea that local police and anyone who wears a badge would be looking around to spot the brown guy and harass for ID at every stop sign and gas station
so thats my rant, well I pay my taxes but who cares, i am brown, so second class – that dosent sound right, not in America
April 27, 2010 @ 4:46 PM
Immigration from poor
Immigration from poor countries in general is supported by professional Democratic politicians who want to expand their political base.
Immigration of all types is supported by employers because it lowers wages and salaries, increasing business profits. These business owners control most Republican politicians.
Most other people lose from large amounts of immigration, so they oppose it.
Put these together and you can see why we have our current system that outlaws most immigration in theory, but accommodates it with few limits in practice.
April 27, 2010 @ 5:13 PM
patientrenter
[quote=patientrenter]Immigration from poor countries in general is supported by professional Democratic politicians who want to expand their political base.
Immigration of all types is supported by employers because it lowers wages and salaries, increasing business profits. These business owners control most Republican politicians.
[/quote]
One distinction is that Democrats want immigrants who vote, and Republicans want immigrants who can’t or don’t vote.
April 27, 2010 @ 5:49 PM
Eugene wrote:patientrenter
[quote=Eugene][quote=patientrenter]Immigration from poor countries in general is supported by professional Democratic politicians who want to expand their political base.
Immigration of all types is supported by employers because it lowers wages and salaries, increasing business profits. These business owners control most Republican politicians.
[/quote]
One distinction is that Democrats want immigrants who vote, and Republicans want immigrants who can’t or don’t vote.[/quote]
What Eugene posted is very true. Otherwise, if Democrats were able to increase their base, business owners will lose out.
April 27, 2010 @ 6:01 PM
Consider also how many
Consider also how many major-league baseball teams have their spring training camps in AZ. Then imagine the wackiness that will ensue the first time one of those team’s players winds up in jail for Driving While Brown.
April 27, 2010 @ 6:15 PM
afx114 wrote:Consider also
[quote=afx114]Consider also how many major-league baseball teams have their spring training camps in AZ. Then imagine the wackiness that will ensue the first time one of those team’s players winds up in jail for Driving While Brown.[/quote]
I think that AZ will come a pariah state like when they refused to honor the MLK holiday.
April 27, 2010 @ 6:43 PM
AZ Gov just killed domestic
AZ Gov just killed domestic partnership rights today too. Said “God made her do it” or something like that.
April 27, 2010 @ 6:55 PM
By the looter’s standards I
By the looter’s standards I have the right to go to Mexico for twenty years illegally, make a peso or two, and then ask for full citizenship all in the name of civil rights.
But before then I’ll parade around in a car with “Made in the USA” bumper stickers. Because after all my civil rights status gives me the moral high ground to shove my dick in their faces.
And when the Brown Shirts in all their nerve ask me to present my papers I’ll dig up the body of MLK, hold a candlelight vigil, and wave my American flag. Oh wait. I’ll have to switch it to a Mexican one….until I get my Mexican citizenship.
No let’s not help Mexico solve her problems. Let’s look the other way while our big business buddies get cheap labor and while the other side purchases new voters with food stamps.
And boy are they exploited,so much so that they risk their lives coming over the border to get exploited. All the money they send back home just reeks of exploitation.
April 27, 2010 @ 7:46 PM
In case anyone needs it, the
In case anyone needs it, the full text of the bill is here:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
My take is this doesn’t necessarily have open the door to racial profiling, but it is also hard to see how this won’t be legally challenged as such. Nothing in the law says anything about ethnicity or skin color but it leaves the interpretation to the officer. I don’t know what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” to presume someone is not legally present in the United States. I would think this needs to be carefully defined by the legislature.
I don’t see any section in the bill that mandates police verify the immigration status of everyone they contact. I just see a mandate to act on reasonable suspicion, if it is practical (convenient?) whatever that means.
A very unclear law in my mind.
April 27, 2010 @ 8:05 PM
garysears wrote:In case
[quote=garysears]In case anyone needs it, the full text of the bill is here:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
My take is this doesn’t necessarily have open the door to racial profiling, but it is also hard to see how this won’t be legally challenged as such. Nothing in the law says anything about ethnicity or skin color but it leaves the interpretation to the officer. I don’t know what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” to presume someone is not legally present in the United States. I would think this needs to be carefully defined by the legislature.
I don’t see any section in the bill that mandates police verify the immigration status of everyone they contact. I just see a mandate to act on reasonable suspicion, if it is practical (convenient?) whatever that means.
A very unclear law in my mind.[/quote]
I don’t think you can define what an illegal might or might not look like, I would bet the feds will challenge this law for starters.
You can’t have states setting their own immigration laws, there has to be laws that are the same for every state.
I’m happy I don’t live in Arizona as screwed up as California is.
Your papers, please…
April 27, 2010 @ 8:49 PM
“You can’t have states
“You can’t have states setting their own immigration laws, there has to be laws that are the same for every state.”
I think this bill is very careful to state the goal is the implementation to the fullest extent of the law the existing federal immigration law.
The additions made to existing law don’t really seem to be setting immigration policy that is not in accordance with the federal law. I think the real complaint besides racial profiling potential is that federal law is actually going to be comprehensively and intentionally enforced.
No one wants to live in a state where the presumption is guilt and you have to have federally recognized ID on you at all times or face arrest or harassment. I think this could be the road this bill forces Arizona down.
The problem is I don’t see how you can justify “reasonable suspicion” to be anything other than lack of accepted federal ID. Without a 100% ID verification policy where “reasonable suspicion” is left to the discretion of the officer, this is just going to create a poor racial and political environment and legal mess. With a mandatory 100% ID verification law, that would just piss everyone off on all parts of the political spectrum.
I get irritated when I have to stop at the Border Patrol checkpoints 3 times in an afternoon and face questions about my immigration/citizenship status. But you have to play the game unless you want to be further delayed. I try to be nice but inside I have a hard time not saying something confrontational. Same thing goes for police “seat belt safety checks.” These types of enforcement policies reduce my overall respect for law enforcement and willingness to cooperate. And I always used to consider myself pro law and order and a good law abiding citizen.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:01 PM
This is really good, Az
This is really good, Az assembly members can’t even answer questions about their own bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc
April 27, 2010 @ 9:05 PM
do NOT tell the police
do NOT tell the police officers to suck your 100% american meat penis when they ask if you’re a citizen. while not technically illegal arguably, it is definitely not a good move…
April 27, 2010 @ 9:15 PM
sd_matt wrote:
No let’s not
[quote=sd_matt]
No let’s not help Mexico solve her problems. Let’s look the other way while our big business buddies get cheap labor [/quote]
It not just Mexico.
There are unauthorized immigrants from all over the world — people from Europe who don’t need visas to visit and overstay, students who can’t get H1B jobs and overstay their visas, tourists who come by plane then stay, etc…
I believe that students who graduate from accredited US universities, in any field of study, should be automatically given a green card. We are losing valuable talent when we tell people whom we trained to go back. They came here as foreign students and paid for their own education.
It’s pretty stupid to send them back.
April 28, 2010 @ 8:58 AM
I don’t support the AZ law,
I don’t support the AZ law, but San Francisco’s response has been just as nutty as the law, itself. The LA city council has just voted to adopt the same measures. This, in a state that is flirting with bankruptcy. This place has no future. Nor does AZ, BTW.
“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It’s unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=62275&tsp=1#ixzz0mPasHMBX
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=62275&tsp=1#ixzz0mPAUDVRb
April 28, 2010 @ 9:37 AM
partypup wrote:I don’t
[quote=partypup]I don’t support the AZ law, but San Francisco’s response has been just as nutty as the law, itself. The LA city council has just voted to adopt the same measures. This, in a state that is flirting with bankruptcy. This place has no future. Nor does AZ, BTW.[/quote]
But doesn’t the ban on city employee travel to Arizona save the state money? You should be supportive of that then, right?
April 28, 2010 @ 12:10 PM
afx114 wrote:partypup wrote:I
[quote=afx114][quote=partypup]I don’t support the AZ law, but San Francisco’s response has been just as nutty as the law, itself. The LA city council has just voted to adopt the same measures. This, in a state that is flirting with bankruptcy. This place has no future. Nor does AZ, BTW.[/quote]
But doesn’t the ban on city employee travel to Arizona save the state money? You should be supportive of that then, right?[/quote]
If that were the worst thing about the proposed legislation, I might be okay with it – you’re right, I’m all for trimming cash from the budget.
But the discussion of boycotting private CA businesses that engage in commerce with AZ – that’s going to do nothing but hurt innocent people who are just trying to make a living.
As a gay person, I am probably a little more sensitive to this issue after the Prop 8 madness. It burned me up to see Mormons pouring money into our state to influence legislation that could affect the way I live my life – in my state. I think that states (or any third parties) should simply stay out of the affairs of other states and not attempt to influence their actions. I personally feel that the AZ law is unconstitutional and will be overturned. So let the SCOTUS handle that. Let the process work as it should in a democracy.
August 1, 2010 @ 7:07 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I believe
[quote=briansd1]
I believe that students who graduate from accredited US universities, in any field of study, should be automatically given a green card. We are losing valuable talent when we tell people whom we trained to go back. They came here as foreign students and paid for their own education.
It’s pretty stupid to send them back.[/quote]
You might be right about this one. Perhaps there are arguments for and against this idea.
August 2, 2010 @ 1:26 PM
KSMountain wrote:briansd1
[quote=KSMountain][quote=briansd1]
I believe that students who graduate from accredited US universities, in any field of study, should be automatically given a green card. We are losing valuable talent when we tell people whom we trained to go back. They came here as foreign students and paid for their own education.
It’s pretty stupid to send them back.[/quote]
You might be right about this one. Perhaps there are arguments for and against this idea.[/quote]
Not necessarily true. Case in point… Mi primos… My cousins. The both out stayed thier student visas while in this country because they could not get political asylum. They both fled Nicauragua because their father was a Colonel in Samosa’s Army. Going home was a very dangerous ordeal for them. The both out stayed thier visas in high school and entered the college system as illegals. They took out student loans and grants as illegals. They graduated with engineering degrees as illegals gained citznship and paid back those student loans BUT they did do it illegally and not with thier money. So the american tax payer got lucky on that one…
Also, what makes you think people want to stay here? Clinton (not saying good or bad) opened the flood gates of student visas so that more people could fill positions engineering and science position that was going unfilled by the local/indigenous population of americans (lazy us). They got thier degrees learned whatever techology then… Either lost thier work visa due to the dot.com bust OR decided they could go home and create thier own business abroad and do what american companies do… for less.
Once again… not making judgements just saying what is…
CE
August 2, 2010 @ 1:41 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:Case in
[quote=CDMA ENG]Case in point… Mi primos… My cousins. The both out stayed thier student visas while in this country because they could not get political asylum. They both fled Nicauragua because their father was a Colonel in Samosa’s Army. Going home was a very dangerous ordeal for them. The both out stayed thier visas in high school and entered the college system as illegals. They took out student loans and grants as illegals. They graduated with engineering degrees as illegals gained citznship and paid back those student loans BUT they did do it illegally and not with thier money. So the american tax payer got lucky on that one…[/quote]
That used to be the case… but can’t do it anymore.
Even refugees are having their social benefits cut off.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/us/01benefits.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=refugees&st=cse
August 2, 2010 @ 2:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:CDMA ENG
[quote=briansd1][quote=CDMA ENG]Case in point… Mi primos… My cousins. The both out stayed thier student visas while in this country because they could not get political asylum. They both fled Nicauragua because their father was a Colonel in Samosa’s Army. Going home was a very dangerous ordeal for them. The both out stayed thier visas in high school and entered the college system as illegals. They took out student loans and grants as illegals. They graduated with engineering degrees as illegals gained citznship and paid back those student loans BUT they did do it illegally and not with thier money. So the american tax payer got lucky on that one…[/quote]
That used to be the case… but can’t do it anymore.
Even refugees are having their social benefits cut off.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/us/01benefits.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=refugees&st=cse%5B/quote%5D
Nope. Can still be done. You are not naive. If you aquired a Soc No. and have a driver license and history in the US how hard do you think it is to obtain? Just as long as you filed taxes you are usually in.
CE
August 2, 2010 @ 2:37 PM
CE, here is the info
CE, here is the info regarding public school attendance as it pertains to the immigration reform of 1996.
August 2, 2010 @ 5:28 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:
Nope. Can
[quote=CDMA ENG]
Nope. Can still be done. You are not naive. If you aquired a Soc No. and have a driver license and history in the US how hard do you think it is to obtain? Just as long as you filed taxes you are usually in.
CE[/quote]
Sure if I can obtain a fake birth certificate, a fake SSN and a fake id to go with it, anything can be done in this country. No amount of laws can prevent it. It’s an enforcement problem.
That does not mean that it easy/condoned/accepted/encouraged…
By the way if I had all fake papers how would cops in AZ deport me for example? If you say that they will check their legitimacy against some clean nationally accepted database, then in theory the college can do the same.
April 27, 2010 @ 8:01 PM
afx114 wrote:Then imagine the
[quote=afx114]Then imagine the wackiness that will ensue the first time one of those team’s players winds up in jail for Driving While Brown.[/quote]
What would be the charge in this scenario?
April 27, 2010 @ 8:05 PM
Did you all read the thing
Did you all read the thing about domestic partnership rights being nullified? That AZ Gov is on some mission alright, she and Ellwood boys.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:33 PM
No, I don’t support it.
It’s
No, I don’t support it.
It’s a racist law.
Think I’m wrong?
What happens to employers who hire illegals?
Nothing.
Serious approach to illegal immigration goes after employers.
Persecuting brown people with no money is racist.
GOP is full of racists these days.
What’s that saying? “You’re known by the company you keep…”
April 27, 2010 @ 9:33 PM
“What happens to employers
“What happens to employers who hire illegals?
Nothing.”
Pages 6-14 of the 16 page bill address employers hiring illegals. Admittedly, much of that is existing law, which has been amended in a fairly minor manner.
Perhaps by “nothing” you mean “not enough”?
April 27, 2010 @ 9:53 PM
Yes, Gary. You’re right.
Yes, Gary. You’re right. Enforcement is anemic.
Serious approach to illegal immigration cracks down on employers.
Easier to ‘demonize’ Mexicans, political theater.
Open racism on the right wing of the GOP.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:46 PM
The comments on this board
The comments on this board have devolved into a false dichotomy between granting amnesty to illegals and the Az law. But this is not a choice we need to make (although it appears to be the one that our politicians want us to fight about). The Az law is unlike any other law in US history not because it requires us to carry ID, but because it requires officers to demand it if they have cause to suspect a person is illegal, AND to arrest them even if they are legal but are not carrying their paperwork. There are big, clear problems here. First, is that there is no physical trait that indicates whether someone is legal or not. Recall that in the not too distant future, most *legal* Americans will not be white. Still, the police now risk a flood of lawsuits if they do not stop people who *might* be illegal. No other law like this exists – e.g., stopping people who might be speeding, might be drunk, might be doing anything else illegal – without some probable cause (not just how someone looks). That is illegal. This law will simply not last because it is not constitutional and invades are most basic freedoms. If you don’t believe this, I ask you (if you can) to imagine 75 years from now when a Hispanic governor of CA proposes a law requiring all residents to prove they are not Canadian, and to carry ID proving that this. Any person who looks Canadian but cannot prove it will be taken immediately to jail, will not pass go, and will not collect $200. If they can’t raise bail, too bad. If they can’t find their papers, tough luck. Racial profiling? Naw – just protecting our borders, that’s all. If you can’t accept this scenario but you can accept the new Az law, it’s just plain old racism folks. Think about it.
April 27, 2010 @ 10:18 PM
wug said:
“The Az law is
wug said:
“The Az law is unlike any other law in US history not because it requires us to carry ID, but because it requires officers to demand it if they have cause to suspect a person is illegal, AND to arrest them even if they are legal but are not carrying their paperwork”
I’m not saying this is necessarily an incorrect assessment of what will reasonably happen. It is just reading something into the bill that I can’t see as a layperson. The reason I linked the bill earlier is to provide opportunity to cite specific parts of the bill and to read it in context. A large problem with internet argument IMO is most arguments appear to be waged without commonly agreed facts, grounds, or starting points. While this is good political theater, it is all just noise and emotion and ultimately is not constructive.
I don’t see anything in the bill that requires ID be carried. And I certainly don’t see anything that requires officers to arrest citizens who are legal but don’t have ID on them. I see a clause that requires peace officers to attempt to verify immigration status “if practical” upon “reasonable suspicion”. This vague wording without explanation of terms is the worst part of the bill to me since I don’t know how anyone can really explain what it means.
I can see how one might expect frequent abusive detaining of legal citizens but it is not a requirement. I’m not defending the law, just trying to accurately understand it for myself. I disagree with the clause because legal citizens/immigrants will certainly on occasion be presumed illegal based only on language and looks. I don’t like that legal Hispanic or foreign looking citizens will feel practically forced to carry ID and fear questioning/detainment that more “legal” looking citizens will not face.
The law has a hostile feel to it. That doesn’t seem to bode well for community relations with law enforcement. Then again, Arizona is the state with the photo speed traps. They really seem to like an aggressive police state there.
April 28, 2010 @ 12:41 AM
The language of the law was
The language of the law was taken from Federal Immigration Law, for the record.
On another note to follow up on Gandalf’s point about hiring illegals, the Feds are after the owner and an employee of the French Gourmet for violations:
“… the case against The French Gourmet[is] more than a simple immigration enforcement case. Prosecutors could have several reasons for seeking the property, legal experts said. They may want to make a prominent example of the restaurant as they pursue businesses that hire illegal workers. Or perhaps they want to increase the stakes and the pressure to get guilty pleas.”
“On Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office unsealed the indictment charging owner Michel Malécot, the restaurant corporation that he heads and manager and pastry chef Richard Kauffmann with knowingly hiring undocumented workers. The indictment seeks criminal forfeiture of the two land parcels the business occupies, which records show have an assessed value of more than $1.3 million.”
So these are not just interesting times for buying a house or investing, these are interesting times for the entire country.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/25/feds-push-to-seize-restaurant-a-rare-one/
April 28, 2010 @ 8:57 AM
wug wrote:The comments on
[quote=wug]The comments on this board have devolved into a false dichotomy between granting amnesty to illegals and the Az law. But this is not a choice we need to make (although it appears to be the one that our politicians want us to fight about). [/quote]
I agree that the AZ law has nothing to do with amnesty. But amnesty would go a long way in solving the unauthorized immigration problem and that’s why I brought it up.
[quote=AN]
How do you prove how long they’ve been here? What if they got here yesterday?[/quote]
If an amnesty law is enacted, unauthorized immigrants will have to prove that they’ve been here since a certain time to benefit from amnesty. That’s how it worked in the past when the 1986 amnesty law was signed by Ronald Reagan.
Immigrants could show an I94 and a passport stamp if they entered America legally but overstayed permission.
Or they could present other proof, such as a consular registration card issued their country’s consulate in USA. They can present rental agreements, utility bills, automobile title and registration, or any documents that would allow verification of residency since a certain time (that would depend on the legislature when the law is written).
BTW, AN, if your relatives flew in today, their passports and I94s would be stamped with yesterday’s date. So they won’t qualify for amnesty.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:32 AM
briansd1 wrote:
Immigrants
[quote=briansd1]
Immigrants could show an I94 and a passport stamp if they entered America legally but overstayed permission.
Or they could present other proof, such as a consular registration card issued their country’s consulate in USA. They can present rental agreements, utility bills, automobile title and registration, or any documents that would allow verification of residency since a certain time (that would depend on the legislature when the law is written).
BTW, AN, if your relatives flew in today, their passports and I94s would be stamped with yesterday’s date. So they won’t qualify for amnesty.[/quote]
How many illegal immigrants who jump the border got their I94 or a passport stamp or a consular registration card? With regarding to rental agreements, utility bills, etc. That can be easily attainable with the right amount of money.
I never said they would fly straight to America. Even if they did, they could say they got mugged and lost all of their papers and give a brand new name so it’s not traceable.
But, the basic question is, why should we give amnesty to people who broke the law?
April 28, 2010 @ 9:41 AM
AN wrote:
But, the basic
[quote=AN]
But, the basic question is, why should we give amnesty to people who broke the law?[/quote]
I don’t believe that there is a law that makes one a criminal for remaining in USA as an unauthorized alien.
Anyway, the simple answer is we have no other choice. The immigrants are already here. Do we want them to be part of economy or not?
BTW, the 1986 amnesty law signed by Ronald Reagan is still valid. It allows people who have been here since 1982 to be legalized. We could just amend the law to allow those who came later (e.g. since 2005) to remain.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:55 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I don’t
[quote=briansd1]
I don’t believe that there is a law that makes one a criminal for remaining in USA as an unauthorized alien.
Anyway, the simple answer is we have no other choice. The immigrants are already here. Do we want them to be part of economy or not?
BTW, the 1986 amnesty law signed by Ronald Reagan is still valid. It allows people who have been here since 1982 to be legalized. We could just amend the law to allow those who came later (e.g. since 2005) to remain.[/quote]
Wouldn’t jumping a fence somebody put up be considered trespassing? There is an immigration law, they didn’t abide by it, so yes, they broke that law.
We always have other choices. They can be part of this economy if they want, they just have to go back to their country and get in line like everyone else who abide by the US immigration laws. I have no issue w/ any of the illegal immigrant as a person. I just have an issue with how they got here. If they go back and get in line like everyone else, then I would welcome them with open arms.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:57 AM
AN wrote:If they go back and
[quote=AN]If they go back and get in line like everyone else, then I would welcome them with open arms.[/quote]
Even those who stood in line like they were supposed to will be second class citizens if they have to present ID at the whim of law enforcement.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:02 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:If they
[quote=afx114][quote=AN]If they go back and get in line like everyone else, then I would welcome them with open arms.[/quote]
Even those who stood in line like they were supposed to will be second class citizens if they have to present ID at the whim of law enforcement.[/quote]
Don’t you have to do that now when you get pulled over for speeding? Did Obama support the idea of a biometric ID for everyone? That means everyone who have to carry this ID w/ them? Wouldn’t that be enough proof that you’re here legally?
April 28, 2010 @ 10:47 AM
AN wrote:Don’t you have to do
[quote=AN]Don’t you have to do that now when you get pulled over for speeding?[/quote]
Of course, and that’s fine. But it’s easy to exhibit symptoms of speeding — namely driving over the speed limit. Likewise, if you’re robbing a store or buying drugs, it’s pretty easy to tell when you are doing so. But can you explain to me how someone can exhibit symptoms of being an illegal immigrant?
I don’t have a problem with having to show ID when breaking the law. And yes, illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should show ID. The problem is how do you know who is illegal and who is not without resorting to things such as skin color, accent, last name, choice in food/beer/music/sportsteam, etc?
April 28, 2010 @ 10:47 AM
Sir, you were pulled over for
Sir, you were pulled over for suspicion of illegally immigrating
April 28, 2010 @ 10:51 AM
del
del
April 28, 2010 @ 11:08 AM
In Britain, they’re upset
In Britain, they’re upset about immigrants from Eastern Europe who are legal.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/gordon-brown-calls-voter-bigoted/?hp
Like I said before, unauthorized aliens are not just from Mexico. We have plenty of Europeans here too. But they just blend in better. They don’t look like Mexicans. But those Europeans do fly in and never leave.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:55 AM
Arraya wrote:Sir, you were
[quote=Arraya]Sir, you were pulled over for suspicion of illegally immigrating[/quote]
If they did just that, isn’t that a good bases for a lawsuit?
April 28, 2010 @ 11:07 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:Don’t
[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Don’t you have to do that now when you get pulled over for speeding?[/quote]
Of course, and that’s fine. But it’s easy to exhibit symptoms of speeding — namely driving over the speed limit. Likewise, if you’re robbing a store or buying drugs, it’s pretty easy to tell when you are doing so. But can you explain to me how someone can exhibit symptoms of being an illegal immigrant?
I don’t have a problem with having to show ID when breaking the law. And yes, illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should show ID. The problem is how do you know who is illegal and who is not without resorting to things such as skin color, accent, last name, choice in food/beer/music/sportsteam, etc?[/quote]
Easier than you think.
So the CHP pulls someone over and no license.
“So you forgot your license? Okay. Do you know your license number? No. Do you know your social security number? No?” This is enough for Reasonable Suspicion.
“Okay sir. What high school did you go to? Ummm uhhhhh. What year did you graduate? Umm uhhhhh I didn’t graduate. What junior high did you go to? Ummm. Uhhh. What was the mascot?”
A good question for someone who claims to have naturalized is the date and place where this took place. Those who did legally are typically proud and can recite this info by heart.
The theme is simple life details that anyone can fire off in rapid succession.
The 10-29 and 10-28 that he ran on the license plate before pulling over the speeder shows who the car is registered to and if the car has been reported stolen. A release of liability is a red flag. If his name does not match, then obviously, red flag.
Being in a place known for alien smuggling, labor ect…is an articulable fact.
Probable Cause can be established as easily with a Russian illegal or a Guatemalan illegal or Mexican illegal. If our hypothetical Russian illegals are known to hang out in certain areas then that is an articulable fact without having to mention race. An answer to an officers question that is out of line with his or her experience is an articulable fact.
“Totality of the circumstances” was the theme that overturned a prior Ninth Circuit Court decision.
April 28, 2010 @ 11:16 AM
sd_matt wrote:
“So you forgot
[quote=sd_matt]
“So you forgot your license? Okay. Do you know your license number? No. Do you know your social security number? No?” This is enough for Reasonable Suspicion.
“Okay sir. What high school did you go to? Ummm uhhhhh. What year did you graduate? Umm uhhhhh I didn’t graduate. What junior high did you go to? Ummm. Uhhh. What was the mascot?”
A good question for someone who claims to have naturalized is the date and place where this took place. Those who did legally are typically proud and can recite this info by heart. [/quote]
And what then of the legal Mexican immigrant who is now a US citizen that didn’t attend school in their hometown Mexican pueblo? How do you verify their claimed naturalization date/place? You’d have them arrested then because they were going 75 in the 65 zone and they left their papers at home?
I said this earlier in the thread: I’m more concerned with how this bill will affect my fellow legal US citizens than how it will affect illegal immigrants.
April 28, 2010 @ 11:21 AM
afx114 wrote:sd_matt
[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]
“So you forgot your license? Okay. Do you know your license number? No. Do you know your social security number? No?” This is enough for Reasonable Suspicion.
“Okay sir. What high school did you go to? Ummm uhhhhh. What year did you graduate? Umm uhhhhh I didn’t graduate. What junior high did you go to? Ummm. Uhhh. What was the mascot?”
A good question for someone who claims to have naturalized is the date and place where this took place. Those who did legally are typically proud and can recite this info by heart. [/quote]
And what then of the legal Mexican immigrant who is now a US citizen that didn’t attend school in their hometown Mexican pueblo? How do you verify their claimed naturalization date/place? You’d have them arrested then because they were going 75 in the 65 zone and they left their papers at home?[/quote]
If the overall picture indicates probable cause then possibly yes.
Again….the totality of the circumstances.
Detain them (detain versus arrest is another discussion but from their perspective they are being arrested) and roll their prints to find out who they are. The records come back that the individual is indeed naturalized.
“Have a nice day sir”
Just one fact by itself can get an officer in trouble. It has to add up.
April 28, 2010 @ 11:30 AM
sd_matt wrote:
If the overall
[quote=sd_matt]
If the overall picture indicates probable cause then possibly yes.
Again….the totality of the circumstances.
Detain them (detain versus arrest is another discussion but from their perspective they are being arrested) and roll their prints to find out who they are. The records come back that the individual is indeed naturalized.
“Have a nice day sir”
Just one fact by itself can get an officer in trouble. It has to add up.[/quote]
I’m assuming then that the same standards will apply to a white English speaking person?
April 28, 2010 @ 12:12 PM
afx114 wrote:sd_matt
[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]
If the overall picture indicates probable cause then possibly yes.
Again….the totality of the circumstances.
Detain them (detain versus arrest is another discussion but from their perspective they are being arrested) and roll their prints to find out who they are. The records come back that the individual is indeed naturalized.
“Have a nice day sir”
Just one fact by itself can get an officer in trouble. It has to add up.[/quote]
I’m assuming then that the same standards will apply to a white English speaking person?[/quote]
AFX:
You know as well as I do that white English speakers are inherently good and blameless.
That’s why the English banned the Irish language.
They were being compassionate.
Bill O’Reilly is a good example of how savages can be made to seem almost white (and civilized).
April 28, 2010 @ 1:41 PM
AFX
The process would be the
AFX
The process would be the same if it were Turkish or English immigrants. Any hint of race in the officer’s narrative (the officer’s account of the arrest) and the case goes bye bye.
April 28, 2010 @ 2:16 PM
sd_matt wrote:The process
[quote=sd_matt]The process would be the same if it were Turkish or English immigrants. Any hint of race in the officer’s narrative (the officer’s account of the arrest) and the case goes bye bye.[/quote]
You mean like “Russian illegals are known to hang out in certain areas” ?? Unless you can prove that only Russian illegals hang out in that certain area, I don’t see how it can be seen as anything but a hint of race.
Tell me, what ‘certain areas’ do Mexican illegals hang out at? Chula Vista? Home Depot? La Bodega? Soccer fields? What of the non-illegal Mexicans who also frequent those places?
April 28, 2010 @ 2:43 PM
There was a good talk on KPBS
There was a good talk on KPBS today about the bill with equal time from both sides. Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter and the ACLU’s Kevin Keenan. Some good clarifications about the actual bill:
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/apr/28/san-diegans-react-arizona-immigration-law/
April 28, 2010 @ 3:51 PM
afx114 wrote:sd_matt
[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]The process would be the same if it were Turkish or English immigrants. Any hint of race in the officer’s narrative (the officer’s account of the arrest) and the case goes bye bye.[/quote]
You mean like “Russian illegals are known to hang out in certain areas” ?? Unless you can prove that only Russian illegals hang out in that certain area, I don’t see how it can be seen as anything but a hint of race.
Tell me, what ‘certain areas’ do Mexican illegals hang out at? Chula Vista? Home Depot? La Bodega? Soccer fields? What of the non-illegal Mexicans who also frequent those places?[/quote]
I am stating how it currently works. You need only to state that a place is frequented by illegals. If you want to argue it then that’s your prerogative Brian Junior. Do a ride along with the police or the Border Patrol as you don’t seem to believe me.
April 28, 2010 @ 12:05 PM
A few thoughts as I recover
A few thoughts as I recover from reading/skimming this very long thread.
With the exception of AZ (now) – it is not criminal to be in this country illegally. It is a civil offense. The same is true for hiring illegals. This law makes it a misdemeaner – and hence criminalizes it.
Drivers licenses and state IDs are only recently becoming proof of citizenship – part of the REALID act of 2008. Not all states are fully compliant, and licenses issue prior to 2008 may not have required proof. (Depends on the state.) So there are a whole lot of people who’s licenses are NOT proof of citizenship.
I’m of the pragmatic mind about illegal immigration:
– Protect the borders
– Clamp down hard – CRIMINALLY – for employers who hire illegals. This is everyone from large meat processing plants in the midwest to contractors who hire entire crews of undocumented workers to people who hire a cleaning person, babysitter/nanny, gardener. Make it criminal, not just a civil fine… something that goes on the employers record. If you do those things, illegal immigration would reverse.
In the meantime – harassing anyone with brown skin is NOT the way to go.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:13 PM
UCGal wrote:
With the
[quote=UCGal]
With the exception of AZ (now) – it is not criminal to be in this country illegally. It is a civil offense. The same is true for hiring illegals. This law makes it a misdemeaner – and hence criminalizes it.
[/quote]
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure it’s a federal criminal offense to be here illegally:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/…
“Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
“Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.”
[quote=UCGal]
– Clamp down hard – CRIMINALLY – for employers who hire illegals. This is everyone from large meat processing plants in the midwest to contractors who hire entire crews of undocumented workers to people who hire a cleaning person, babysitter/nanny, gardener. Make it criminal, not just a civil fine… something that goes on the employers record. If you do those things, illegal immigration would reverse.
[/quote]
Same with this, I believe it is a crime to hire illegals:
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.”
And don’t forget the various IRS code violations which are likewise criminal in nature.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:24 PM
UCG-
Then people need to
UCG-
Then people need to start using E-verify.
E-Verify program confirming workers’ legal status grows in popularity despite concerns about the reliability of the Web-based U.S. program to block hiring of illegal immigrants, 1,000 new businesses are signing up each week, with nearly 10,000 in California enrolled.
The federal government’s E-Verify program, which seeks to reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants, is becoming increasingly popular, with 1,000 new businesses signing up each week despite concerns about its reliability.
More than 124,000 businesses, including nearly 10,000 in California, are signed up for the Web-based identification program that enables employers to check whether an employee is authorized to work, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Among the employers enrolled in the state are restaurants, hospitals and temporary employment agencies.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/14/business/fi-everify14
April 28, 2010 @ 3:33 PM
Aecetia wrote:UCG-
Then
[quote=Aecetia]UCG-
Then people need to start using E-verify.
E-Verify program confirming workers’ legal status grows in popularity despite concerns about the reliability of the Web-based U.S. program to block hiring of illegal immigrants, 1,000 new businesses are signing up each week, with nearly 10,000 in California enrolled.
The federal government’s E-Verify program, which seeks to reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants, is becoming increasingly popular, with 1,000 new businesses signing up each week despite concerns about its reliability.
More than 124,000 businesses, including nearly 10,000 in California, are signed up for the Web-based identification program that enables employers to check whether an employee is authorized to work, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Among the employers enrolled in the state are restaurants, hospitals and temporary employment agencies.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/14/business/fi-everify14%5B/quote%5D
I would think that this would be only as good as we have the manpower to execute it.
Or maybe random audits or inspections from ICE.
As to race profiling that is an easy one to get around. Your intel that you get from the apprehended illegals tells you who tends to hire them. And what’s more, this approach is not race profiling. And remember to word the question as “From what you have seen who hires undocumented laborers?” not “Who hires Mexican laborers?”
Afx are you listening?
April 28, 2010 @ 3:25 PM
Last time I asked (about a
Last time I asked (about a year ago) a 1324 typically requires 12 or more aliens to be smuggled for prosecutions to accept it. It’s the threshold they set. We don’t have the resources to prosecute everyone that is caught smuggling. The smugglers know this so they bring in 11 or less people, or whatever the current number is that is set by prosecutions. Smugglers do, however, lose their vehicle which is why most of them use pieces of crap to do it.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Coming in after a felony conviction is a felony. I think that is a 1326.
Since we are limited in prison space the more cost effective solution ( IMHO ) is better border enforcement. Then step up prosecutions for those few that get through.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:31 PM
sd_matt wrote:Last time I
[quote=sd_matt]Last time I asked (about a year ago) a 1324 typically requires 12 or more aliens to be smuggled for prosecutions to accept it. It’s the threshold they set. We don’t have the resources to prosecute everyone that is caught smuggling. The smugglers know this so they bring in 11 or less people, or whatever the current number is that is set by prosecutions. Smugglers do, however, lose their vehicle which is why most of them use pieces of crap to do it.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Coming in after a felony conviction is a felony. I think that is a 1326.
Since we are limited in prison space the more cost effective solution ( IMHO ) is better border enforcement. Then step up prosecutions for those few that get through.[/quote]
Or perhaps a lottery system to see who gets prosecuted.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:40 PM
As long as the government is
As long as the government is ambivalent about enforcement of those who hire illegals, there will be no stopping the ingress. As long as the States harbor them with housing, food, welfare and health care they will continue to violate the law. This applies to all illegals, whether they are Eastern Europeans or those from South of the Border.
April 28, 2010 @ 4:05 PM
Or even Northern Europeans.
Or even Northern Europeans. I knew some Swedes who were overstaying their visas. They were well aware of it and fully expected to be sent back if they were ever caught.
In my mind, they were obviously as illegal as anyone else in the same situation. It has nothing to do with race. That lady holding the scale has a blindfold on.
If you chose to focus on Mexicans, and mention them specifically, then it is YOU who is being racist, by definition.
April 28, 2010 @ 4:26 PM
KSMountain wrote:……I knew
[quote=KSMountain]……I knew some Swedes who were overstaying their visas……..
If you chose to focus on Mexicans, and mention them specifically, then it is YOU who is being racist, by definition.[/quote]
I am always amazed at the crowds of Swedes hanging out outside Home Depot, looking to work for cash because they are here illegally. This illegal immigration is mainly a Swedish problem.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:55 AM
AN wrote:
How many illegal
[quote=AN]
How many illegal immigrants who jump the border got their I94 or a passport stamp or a consular registration card?
[/quote]
Any Mexican citizen can obtain a consular card at the Mexican Consulate by presenting Mexican ID. They don’t need US identification.
[quote=AN]
With regarding to rental agreements, utility bills, etc. That can be easily attainable with the right amount of money.
[/quote]
Sure fake documents can be obtained… but are they verifiable? SDGE does keep records and landlords do too.
It’s up to the legislature to build in some verification process.
[quote=AN]
I never said they would fly straight to America. Even if they did, they could say they got mugged and lost all of their papers and give a brand new name so it’s not traceable.
[/quote]
If your relatives come from a country that has diplomatic relations with USA, then the information is traceable. Your relatives would have to provide names of parents, birth dates, birth place, etc…
BTW, entering Canada by plane gets you a passport stamp. The entering passenger is recorded in the Canadian database which then gets uploaded to Interpol. That’s how travelers are traced. Passport stamps are physical evidence for travelers but they are mostly for show.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:47 PM
Although, I don’t support
Although, I don’t support people sneaking over the border illegally, I don’t think this type of Nazi-ism is the right way to stop it. I think if the federal government were serious about stopping illegal immigration, it would not be happening.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:52 PM
I do hesitate to pull out the
I do hesitate to pull out the much over-used Nazi analogy, but it is striking that this is only a step away from pinning stars onto chests.
April 27, 2010 @ 10:03 PM
FormerOwner wrote:Although, I
[quote=FormerOwner]Although, I don’t support people sneaking over the border illegally, I don’t think this type of Nazi-ism is the right way to stop it. I think if the federal government were serious about stopping illegal immigration, it would not be happening.[/quote]
It doesn’t even have to be federal government. If Arizona said that hiring an illegal immigrant is punishable by 6 months in prison, Arizona would lose 75% of its illegal population in less than a year.
April 27, 2010 @ 10:08 PM
That’s the truth.
That’s the truth.
April 27, 2010 @ 10:00 PM
In 2007, Arizona passed the
In 2007, Arizona passed the what was termed the strictest employee verification law.
After 2 years in effect, number of businesses sanctioned is not many more than a handful, and only notable punishment was imposed on Subway franchise. The punishment was a fine of $431 and forced closure for 2 full days.
All businesses were provided with access to E-Verify, only something like 6% implemented it to screen employees.
Of course, politicians are not pushing this issue further, since business owner both vote and donate money.
The new law will be both ineffective and expensive. Law enforcement agencies will be stuck between lawsuits accusing them of racial profiling on one side and inaction on the other. Illegal immigrants deported will return quickly since there is no way that Arizona is willing to spend a boat load of money required to keep tens of thousands additional people in jail. And you can forget about tourism, especially from Mexico.
All in all, it is pretty funny how quickly the libertarians in Arizona are willing to beg for Big Brother when immigrants move in their neighborhoods.
April 28, 2010 @ 7:34 AM
As a legal asian immigrant, I
As a legal asian immigrant, I support this law with mixed feelings. It took me 11 long hard years and a lot of sacrifices to get my green card. I did it because I love this country and respect her laws. Would I feel uncomfortable or even discriminated against should the police ask me for proof of legal status? I probably would. But the fact of the matter is the law needs to be enforced. The rule of law is part of what made this country so great in the first place. Let’s not forsake that.
To those immigrants who are opposed to this law: you should blame both parties, especially the democrats for lacking the courage to stand up to illegal immigration for fear of losing votes.
April 28, 2010 @ 2:49 PM
nocommonsense wrote:As a
[quote=nocommonsense]As a legal asian immigrant, I support this law with mixed feelings. It took me 11 long hard years and a lot of sacrifices to get my green card. I did it because I love this country and respect her laws. Would I feel uncomfortable or even discriminated against should the police ask me for proof of legal status? I probably would. But the fact of the matter is the law needs to be enforced. The rule of law is part of what made this country so great in the first place. Let’s not forsake that.
To those immigrants who are opposed to this law: you should blame both parties, especially the democrats for lacking the courage to stand up to illegal immigration for fear of losing votes.[/quote]
I liked this quote. Do we really want to reduce the requirements for citizenship to “just show up with $2500” as someone suggested earlier?
April 28, 2010 @ 7:54 AM
I support this bill.
let
I support this bill.
let Arizona experiment how a state will do without immigrants. As this law WILL deter immigrant of color legal or illegal from migrating to that state.
we all pay lip service that immigrants are really the backbone of this country’s continued success. but until a state actually go out on the limb and enact a law that discourage the arrival of new immigrants, we will never actually see the impact of continued immigration on our economy, good or bad.
April 28, 2010 @ 8:40 AM
Stockstrader
I’m with you.
Stockstrader
I’m with you.
Wug….no way.
We will always need immigrants. If this country is going to continue to be great then we need to keep it full of good people like the one Stocktrader talked of.
I DISCRIMINATE WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE!!!!…..I discriminate against those who are pieces of crap. I want the best of Mexico not the worst. And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.
Brian
Quite correct we should do more to retain the talent that gets educated over here. As for the illegals….FUCK EM. If I went to Mexico to work I would expect to be in the underground. I would expect my gravy train to end at any time and plan accordingly. Yeah Mexico would be exploiting my cheap labor but I’m getting mine too.
IT GOES BOTH WAYS.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:14 AM
sd_matt wrote:
I DISCRIMINATE
[quote=sd_matt]
I DISCRIMINATE WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE!!!!…..I discriminate against those who are pieces of crap. I want the best of Mexico not the worst.
[/quote]
[quote=sd_matt]
Brian
Quite correct we should do more to retain the talent that gets educated over here. As for the illegals….FUCK EM. [/quote]
Discriminating with a clear conscience is one way to do it. But that’s not the way we do it.
If we wanted the best, we would give Green Cards to those who have the most money and those who have the best education. That would be good immigration policy in my view.
But immigration is mostly based on family connection (children sponsoring parents, etc… ).
Immigration causes resentment from many citizens regardless of the people you allow in.
1) If you allow rich and educated people in, citizens will feel overwhelmed and complain that foreigners are causing inflation and driving up the curve.
2) If you allow poor immigrants in, then people will complain that the poor are lowering the standards for everyone.
The facts are that in order to have a healthy, dynamic, and growing economy, we need immigration of all kinds.
I’m predicting that as our public debt increases in the next few decades, congress will have no choice but to open up the door to more legal immigration.
I’m also predicting that there will eventually be an amnesty bill for unauthorized immigrants already in the country.
The politics are such that Obama may never sign an immigration bill. But the Congress and President after 2016 may not have a choice.
Anyway, time will tell…
April 28, 2010 @ 9:34 AM
sd_matt wrote:And about half
[quote=sd_matt]And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.[/quote]
Citation needed.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:22 AM
afx114 wrote:sd_matt
[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.[/quote]
Citation needed.[/quote]
Observation, I do the records checks on a regular basis.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:34 AM
sd_matt wrote:afx114
[quote=sd_matt][quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]And about half of these exploited victims that come over the border illegally are drunk drivers, wife beaters, and so on.[/quote]
Citation needed.[/quote]
Observation, I do the records checks on a regular basis.[/quote]
And keep in mind this is just my area of responsibility. Most of these people are labor. We rarely see drugs. Most of the drug trafficking is in Arizona. I imagine the cats that cross over there are much worse.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:01 AM
So riddle me this:
Why don’t
So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?
April 28, 2010 @ 10:04 AM
divide and conquer
us and
divide and conquer
us and them
round and round we go
been there done that countless times on this planet
There is a more joyful way
April 28, 2010 @ 10:07 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:
Why spend
[quote=urbanrealtor]
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
That’s the question. Same goes with drugs and prostitution. There are here regardless so why not generate some revenue?
April 28, 2010 @ 10:44 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:So riddle
[quote=urbanrealtor]So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
I don’t imagine any of the illegals will pay for what they already have. They suffer little consequences for crimes. At least not the consequences that an American citizen would. The current solution is to send them back over the border or formally deport them. It’s common to see three or more DUIs on a record without any prison time. I’ve seen up to five.
All who are caught are rolled and their records are checked. Federal,state and county. We know who most are already.
Typically it is only the aggravated felons that are prosecuted. The rest are sent back over the border. Many of the rest being multiple DUI, Domestic abuse or Possession or mixes of the three.
So they would simply ignore this too like many other laws since paying a coyote $1500 to $3000 to get smuggled back in is cheaper than $10K.
April 28, 2010 @ 11:21 AM
sd_matt wrote:urbanrealtor
[quote=sd_matt][quote=urbanrealtor]So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
I don’t imagine any of the illegals will pay for what they already have. They suffer little consequences for crimes. At least not the consequences that an American citizen would. The current solution is to send them back over the border or formally deport them. It’s common to see three or more DUIs on a record without any prison time. I’ve seen up to five.
All who are caught are rolled and their records are checked. Federal,state and county. We know who most are already.
Typically it is only the aggravated felons that are prosecuted. The rest are sent back over the border. Many of the rest being multiple DUI, Domestic abuse or Possession or mixes of the three.
So they would simply ignore this too like many other laws since paying a coyote $1500 to $3000 to get smuggled back in is cheaper than $10K.[/quote]
I actually came up with this idea while hanging with friends, several of which were illegals. Most have multiple jobs. They thought it would be a great idea. Getting a 4th job is a small price to pay for less fear (on the immigrants’ part) and some color of legal status.
So, in sum, i actually ran this past a focus group.
I think it would work.
April 28, 2010 @ 11:30 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:sd_matt
[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=sd_matt][quote=urbanrealtor]So riddle me this:
Why don’t we, as a state, offer a limited state level of authorization to illegal aliens?
Like require all applicants to pay a fine of several thousand dollars and submit to a (self-financed) series of background checks and biometric cataloging. That would weed out those whose only crime is the violation of policy from those who are gang bangers and felons and sex offenders. Maybe tax them at a higher rate as well.
If the fine were $10,000 and a million people ended up paying it,,,well you get the idea.
Basically, the question is this:
Why spend money finding/collecting them when you could make money from them?[/quote]
I don’t imagine any of the illegals will pay for what they already have. They suffer little consequences for crimes. At least not the consequences that an American citizen would. The current solution is to send them back over the border or formally deport them. It’s common to see three or more DUIs on a record without any prison time. I’ve seen up to five.
All who are caught are rolled and their records are checked. Federal,state and county. We know who most are already.
Typically it is only the aggravated felons that are prosecuted. The rest are sent back over the border. Many of the rest being multiple DUI, Domestic abuse or Possession or mixes of the three.
So they would simply ignore this too like many other laws since paying a coyote $1500 to $3000 to get smuggled back in is cheaper than $10K.[/quote]
I actually came up with this idea while hanging with friends, several of which were illegals. Most have multiple jobs. They thought it would be a great idea. Getting a 4th job is a small price to pay for less fear (on the immigrants’ part) and some color of legal status.
So, in sum, i actually ran this past a focus group.
I think it would work.[/quote]
I re-read your post. For those that only crossed and nothing else. Yeah possibly. Especially since the going for a coyote is going up lately. If it becomes easier/cheaper to cross in the future then that attitude would likely change.
I’ll put that question to my own “focus group” since is a rather large one and get back to you in a few months.
April 28, 2010 @ 11:38 AM
Brian
Well said about the
Brian
Well said about the rich and poor. But you sidestepped my point.
Rich or poor, come here legally. Rewarding those who came here illegally ( a high percentage that are genuinely bad people )builds a future on a foundation of shit.
Rewarding those who break the rules, in all aspects, tears down society. I don’t think you grasp this.
April 28, 2010 @ 12:00 PM
The Fall of Rome
Arnold J.
The Fall of Rome
Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke
In contrast with the declining empire theories, historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the Roman Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception, and that the entire Imperial era was one of steady decay of institutions founded in Republican times. In their view, the Empire could never have lasted longer than it did without radical reforms that no Emperor could implement. The Romans had no budgetary system and thus wasted whatever resources they had available. The economy of the Empire was a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed élite exempt from taxation. With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire
April 28, 2010 @ 10:12 AM
There are two Americas for
There are two Americas for people in AZ
1) the one where you don’t get carded by the police
2) the one where you do
AZ has never been shy about treating people of different colors differently. The law doesn’t surprise me but the illegals are not the cause of the US’s biggest problems. Crappy education, white collar greed (white guys in suits ripping off everyone) are much bigger issues but the rank and file simply don’t get it. So the pols hang illegal immigration and abortion to get you to vote against your interests while companies (run by who and governed by pols) ship jobs overseas and over the border.
Wake up
April 28, 2010 @ 10:36 AM
There are parts of it I like.
There are parts of it I like. On balance though, it’s a terrible law.
As written, it could cause an unreasonable amount of economic harm to legal immigrants and natural born citizens of Mexican descent. My friend, who was born in Mexico and married an American man and became a citizen, basically now has to carry a passport to go to ARIZONA. Good immigration laws protect the rights of citizens first. Going after illegals can only be done as a secondary priority.
All that said, here’s the part I LIKE:
“_ Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.”
You know how to solve the illegal immigration problem in this country? Target those who hire illegals. This includes all you who hire people of questionable legality to mow your lawns and clean your homes. Target employers with tough fines and random checks. Employers are expected to be able to provide SS Numbers and tax info for all employees.
Honestly, this bill is like treating a bacterial infection and fever by putting an ice bag on your head. Yeah, it may cool your head off, but it doesn’t really address the actual issue, employers.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:05 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:My
[quote=poorgradstudent]My friend, who was born in Mexico and married an American man and became a citizen, basically now has to carry a passport to go to ARIZONA.[/quote]
Do you really believe that, or is that just hyperbole? Don’t you think your friend would be just fine with a drivers license? Heck I bet even w/o a drivers license on her, she could verbally give her address or SSN and would be just fine.
It probably would never even get to that point though.
Let’s be honest: your friend will probably NEVER even be asked. Cops are pretty smart about picking up cues. They will likely know instantly by looking at her or just conversing briefly that she is a citizen.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:13 PM
KSMountain
[quote=KSMountain][quote=poorgradstudent]My friend, who was born in Mexico and married an American man and became a citizen, basically now has to carry a passport to go to ARIZONA.[/quote]
Do you really believe that, or is that just hyperbole? Don’t you think your friend would be just fine with a drivers license? Heck I bet even w/o a drivers license on her, she could verbally give her address or SSN and would be just fine.
It probably would never even get to that point though.
Let’s be honest: your friend will probably NEVER even be asked. Cops are pretty smart about picking up cues. They will likely know instantly by looking at her or just conversing briefly that she is a citizen.[/quote]
Quite correct.
April 28, 2010 @ 11:26 AM
So this is interesting. How
So this is interesting. How do police figure out who is “suspiciously illegal”?
April 28, 2010 @ 4:38 PM
I think it is funny that this
I think it is funny that this is so divisive. Racism being thrown around. Fascism??? On the other side we have the 70% of AZ populace who are in favor of this. Seems similar to the CA prop 187 which won with the same type numbers. I read all of your comments and agree with a lot of what you all say. There is no panacea. All things must be done. E-verify, clamp down on the border (Hard-UCG said), bust the employers, and unfortunately because the Fed’s have dropped the ball for so long, the states must make their laws to protect themselves.
I hope though that sooner rather than later that this 600lb gorilla (or maybe a burro) in the room is talked about and the tough issues are settled. The Dem’s want voters we know that. The repub’s want the cheap labor (and no unions), I get it. But everybody cannot keep paying for these problems. I guarantee Obama comes to the rescue this year with amnesty as a way to save social security. Just looking to the future to see where we are going and you heard it here first, maybe not first but I think I was first. Prepare for the debate on that one.
April 28, 2010 @ 5:19 PM
PlnrBoy wrote:I guarantee
[quote=PlnrBoy]I guarantee Obama comes to the rescue this year with amnesty as a way to save social security.[/quote]
I heard as much from Robert Reich on a radio editorial he did on NPR. His argument was that Social Security is broke because there are more old people than young people, and first world nations don’t produce young people in the amounts that third world nations do. His solution was to open the immigration floodgates and let millions and millions of young people from third world countries come here legally. They enter the workforce, pay taxes, and save social security for all the old retired first worlders.
I bet that’s what we’ll see coming down the pipes soon. Not sure if it will be “amnesty” but definitely an increase in immigration numbers sold as a fix for Social Security.
April 28, 2010 @ 7:52 PM
I think you are correct, but
I think you are correct, but fixing one problem with another problem might create more problems down the line.
April 28, 2010 @ 8:14 PM
Absolutely Aecetia. But
Absolutely Aecetia. But politicians have a tendency to not support real solutions that may jeopardize their career.
April 28, 2010 @ 8:51 PM
This reminds me of Prop 187
This reminds me of Prop 187 as well. The problem I had with 187 is that it mandated teachers to seek out the illegal students and report them. The teachers job is to teach, and so dumping this on teachers was certainly not right IMO.
The AZ law is similar by dumping the problem on police. The police are supposed to “protect” and they shouldn’t be out searching for illegals to report.
I think the reason that Prop 187 passed overwhelmingly is because people were angry about illegals, and were grabbing at any straws to stop the problem. It is the same today. They are still angry, nothing has been done in 20 years, so any measure seems like it is a move in the right direction.
As 187, it will likely be deemed unconstitutional and if not, it will be ineffective and taking up our officers’ time arresting illegals. Of course, perhaps it is a back door so that the TPTB can hire more police….
Stockstrader: Interesting post. Matt_SD: also interesting posts. We know what we see and experience, and one can call it racism (and it very well may be) but we know who we work with. It does shape our beliefs.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:00 AM
PlnrBoy wrote:I guarantee
[quote=PlnrBoy]I guarantee Obama comes to the rescue this year with amnesty as a way to save social security. Just looking to the future to see where we are going and you heard it here first, maybe not first but I think I was first. Prepare for the debate on that one.[/quote]
If Obama wants to get reelected, he would be smart to stay away from this hot potato. Or at least let the Republicans propose a bill first so that they can’t make political hay out of opposing a Democratic sponsored bill.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:16 AM
PlnrBoy wrote:On the other
[quote=PlnrBoy]On the other side we have the 70% of AZ populace who are in favor of this. Seems similar to the CA prop 187 which won with the same type numbers. [/quote]
Prop 187 was a godsend for Democrats. It drove social conservative Latinos (Catholics with good “family values”) into the arms of the Democrats. It turned California pretty solidly blue.
Pete Wilson though he won a big victory with Prop 187 but it undermined his administration and legacy. It might have cost him the presidency.
This AZ law will solidify Latino support of the Democrats for the another generation.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:59 PM
heck ya, good law, not
heck ya, good law, not inhumane. CA needs this law even worse.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:29 AM
This thread is a good thing.
This thread is a good thing. With all the yelling and headline seaking, actually talking about this is a very good thing in my opinion. That is one of the things that keeps me coming back to the pigg. It may get loud and stupid, but atleast it doesnt get quiet, that is when I get really scared.
I am torn on this issue. I am dating an immigrant, litterally born in a grass roofed hut. She immigrated legally, went to school in a REALLY seedy neighborhood, went to college with no help, and has made a total success of herself. It is one of things I find most attractive about her. Irronically many of her ‘yellow’ immigrant bretherin are smoking mad about the whole classification of the issue. They feel cheated, becuase apparently the laws and regulations of this land only apply to those born far away from it. If not, then it is ok, no biggie. Special treatment for those who can demand it seems to be the rule of the decade.
My big problem with the ‘solution’ of ammenesty is that it isnt a solution. I want to know how the next round will be any different than the first. ‘We’ll let in the people who have been here a long time, but not the new commers’, didnt work out so well cause we are right back where we started from. I want a real solution, not another ‘kick the can 15 years down the road’ solution. Going after buisnesses sounds great and all, but it requires funding and manpower. You can bet that will not be a popular devision in the police force. First thing cut in a budget cut will be that one. And what is the punishment of picking up a little illegal labor? $500 fine? What did it cost to hire the cop and run the operation that caught it? $50k?
here is an article that does a good job summing up the past ‘solution’.(irronically from AZ)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1008amnesty-intro.html
I also disagree with the notion that there are jobs people wont do, and that is why we need immigrants. I feel there are jobs people wont do, FOR THAT WAGE. Id pick tomatoes for $200/hr. I have very good friends who pick tomatoes for far less than that now. Thing is, they pick those tomatoes/lettuce/produce, and then take them back to the lab for analysis. It is the analysis they get paid for. But ive been in the fields, ive seen what they do, and I feel I could do it, for the right price. $7/hr is not the right price.
And this comes back to why I think the Federal government hasnt really done anything about this issue. The rewards/costs are not evenly distributed. Most taxes illigal immigrants pay are sales taxes or federal, SS and medicade and such. Most benifits they get are state/local based, health care and police/fire and such. Plus the cheap labor provided to the economy helps keep inflation down. Federal/national benifits, with state/local costs. No wonder states are rebelling at a time like this.
Having said all that, I am blonde hair and blue eyed and have been profiled. No way you can tell me that being stopped 4 times in one night, never getting a ticket or anything, catching 3 cops lying to my face about why they pulled me over wasnt profiling. (4th just didnt say) Old HS friend of mine is a sherrif now back home, and he talks all the time about how kids today ‘need to learn their lesson’. They had a mini-rash of DUI deaths and were out to ‘protect’ me, cause everyone knows that the 18 year old in the truck is a drunk driver. I ended up begging the last one to call my parents after he threatened to ‘check up on me’. Begging. Cause then he could explain to my parents what he was doing, and what the other 3 cops had been doing, and WTF was going on. Only time in my life I have seen a cop run back to his squad car to get away.
(BTW, that was during a first date for me. Great night that was! Thanks for letting me take you out, hope you liked meeting all those cops!)
I understand the anger and frustration that comes with this kinda behavior. I can see why opponents of this bill will automatically assume that every cop out there will start driving by the soccer fields and looking for guys names Jose. I think it is funny that they assume it only happens to them, but it is such a not funny topic it has no humor.
So I am torn. Anything that opens the door to the behavior the police are being accused of commiting in the future makes me remember that night, fuming. But just sticking our heads in the sand doesnt work either.
Problem is, this is a problem with no good solutions.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:18 AM
Nice post DWCAP. Sums things
Nice post DWCAP. Sums things up nicely.
On another note, our very own Duncan Hunter wants to deport legal US Citizens: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/28/rep-hunter-deport-us-born-children-illegal-aliens/
Let us remind him of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
Apparently he believes that rights should be hereditary rather than inalienable.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:35 AM
The 14th amendment was never
The 14th amendment was never intended to give ‘anchor babies’ citizenship.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:48 AM
meadandale wrote:The 14th
[quote=meadandale]The 14th amendment was never intended to give ‘anchor babies’ citizenship.[/quote]
Then put forth an amendment to repeal the 14th amendment. As sd_matt so eloquently put above: “I am stating how it currently works. If you want to argue it then that’s your prerogative Brian Junior.”
April 29, 2010 @ 9:13 AM
I spoke with a border patrol
I spoke with a border patrol agent a while back and he said “if the illegals that they are chasing make it to an industrial park or residential neighborhhod then they have to stop chasing them”. Whether this is because the border patrol doesn’t want to be seen as permeating our neighborhoods or some little loop hole in the law I don’t know. It is precisely because of policies like this though that I believe Arizona felt compelled to pass their enforcement code. I remember when i first found out, law enforcement could not arrest illegals for being here illegally, I was flabbergasted. Currently there are 31 countries that are listed as dangerous to travel to, 2 of them are not in Africa or the Middle-east, 1 of those 2 countries is Mexico.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:30 AM
afx114 wrote:On another note,
[quote=afx114]On another note, our very own Duncan Hunter wants to deport legal US Citizens: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/28/rep-hunter-deport-us-born-children-illegal-aliens/
Let us remind him of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
Apparently he believes that rights should be hereditary rather than inalienable.[/quote]
I believe Duncan Hunter went too far suggesting ‘deporting’ US citizens, however, you can legally be effectively deported if you are a minor if both parents are deported. Just separation of family is NOT considered ‘undue hardship’.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:37 AM
Is America the only country
Is America the only country on earth where enforcing its law to protect its borders and deporting aliens are considered evil?
This notion is so rediculous that it surppasses the point of being commical in my eyes as someone who grew up in another country.
I fear this stupidity will eventually bring America down. Unfortunately I think this decaying process is already well underway.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:44 AM
nocommonsense wrote:Is
[quote=nocommonsense]Is America the only country on earth where enforcing its law to protect its borders and deporting aliens are considered evil?
This notion is so rediculous that it surppasses the point of being commical in my eyes as someone who grew up in another country.
I fear this stupidity will eventually bring America down. Unfortunately I think this decaying process is already well underway.[/quote]
And ironically, all of the European countries that we seem so eager to emulate don’t have birthright citizenship (14th amendment) like we do and have much stronger border and immigration enforcement.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:35 PM
Ahhhh, time to resort to a
Ahhhh, time to resort to a time-tested model. These folks should be transported far far away to a hostile and forbidding place. Some of the more remote areas of Afghanistan come to mind. It’s a land of opportunity, and they shouldn’t have much problem in subjugating the locals.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:58 PM
Casca wrote:Ahhhh, time to
[quote=Casca]Ahhhh, time to resort to a time-tested model. These folks should be transported far far away to a hostile and forbidding place. Some of the more remote areas of Afghanistan come to mind. It’s a land of opportunity, and they shouldn’t have much problem in subjugating the locals.[/quote]
Maybe you’re talking about the Indian Removal Act that forcibly moved the Cherokees from Georgia to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears.
What tested model are you referring to?
April 29, 2010 @ 1:47 PM
Some nurse just called into
Some nurse just called into the talk show I am listening to and was talking about how illegals come in all the time pregnant. She said she sees it over and over and they sit down on the bed and say “guess what, I’m pregnant” with a smile on their face and the next sentence is “Can you go get me an application for Cash Aid”. She also has to learn Spanish.
We need more immigration laws, that is a fact.
I have a friend that is in the process right now, she is from Brazil, she has an education, white collar professional. Has payed 15k in fees.
She applauds AZ, and hopes more states will follow. The US is the only place that illegal immigrants walk down the street in a rally and demand their rights..
We are going to PC ourselves to death, afraid someone’s feelings get hurt.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:59 PM
ibjames wrote:
I have a
[quote=ibjames]
I have a friend that is in the process right now, she is from Brazil, she has an education, white collar professional. Has payed 15k in fees.
[/quote]
If she’s from Brazil and has no relatives in America to sponsor her, she has only a few legal solutions.
1) Get a job with an employer that will sponsor her. The employer may require that she pays the legals fees for a Green Card application.
2) Get married to a citizen.
3) Remain as a foreign student and pay foreign tuition fees. But then she can’t work.
4) Political asylum is unlikely for someone from Brazil.
5) Go back home and wait in line for an immigrant visa.
If it’s not any of the above she’s likely wasting her money in legal fees.
April 29, 2010 @ 2:19 PM
briansd1 wrote:ibjames
[quote=briansd1][quote=ibjames]
I have a friend that is in the process right now, she is from Brazil, she has an education, white collar professional. Has payed 15k in fees.
[/quote]
If she’s from Brazil and has no relatives in America to sponsor her, she has only a few legal solutions.
1) Get a job with an employer that will sponsor her. The employer may require that she pays the legals fees for a Green Card application.
2) Get married to a citizen.
3) Remain as a foreign student and pay foreign tuition fees. But then she can’t work.
4) Political asylum is unlikely for someone from Brazil.
5) Go back home and wait in line for an immigrant visa.
If it’s not any of the above she’s likely wasting her money in legal fees.[/quote]
As white collar professional she is likely 1)
Employment based immigrants are generally more hostile towards illegals than citizens. Attempts to speed up the process for EB’s are silently sabotaged by the Hispanic caucus and the consequences for EB’s are very real and personal.
The immigration issue is complex and there is no good will to get it resolved. It is also very profitable for attorneys, politicos and Ag and other low-skill labor-intensive businesses. There can be no amnesty with ‘anchor babies’ and ‘chain migration’ in place.
And citing Mexican rules is silly since no one here really wants to be Mexico, but those who hail Canadian, German, Japanese or UK health system as more just to be equally amicable towards implementing their immigration rules and procedures.
April 29, 2010 @ 2:36 PM
captcha wrote:those who hail
[quote=captcha]those who hail Canadian, German, Japanese or UK health system as more just to be equally amicable towards implementing their immigration rules and procedures.[/quote]
Can’t we pick and choose and implement the best?
BTW, immigration rules and procedures are different from constitutionally defined citizenship.
To stop chain migration, we’d have change the law to limit family reunification quotas and increase merit (income or profession) based immigration.
Stopping chain migration would mean that citizens would have to wait decades to sponsor their foreign parents or children (just like siblings now have to wait decades).
To stop anchor babies, we’d have to forcibly prevent foreigners from having babies on US soil. Or we’d have to change the constitution.
April 29, 2010 @ 3:23 PM
briansd1 wrote:captcha
[quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]those who hail Canadian, German, Japanese or UK health system as more just to be equally amicable towards implementing their immigration rules and procedures.[/quote]
Can’t we pick and choose and implement the best?
[/quote]
Sure. Pick any and implement it.
[quote=briansd1]BTW, immigration rules and procedures are different from constitutionally defined citizenship.
To stop chain migration, we’d have change the law to limit family reunification quotas and increase merit (income or profession) based immigration.
Stopping chain migration would mean that citizens would have to wait decades to sponsor their foreign parents or children (just like siblings now have to wait decades).
To stop anchor babies, we’d have to forcibly prevent foreigners from having babies on US soil. Or we’d have to change the constitution.[/quote]
Right. Which is why I say another amnesty cannot happen. You want to legalize 11MM unskilled illegals who will bring in their 11MM parents, 22MM children and put tens of millions more in family-based line? With 20% unemployment in Michigan and 12% unemployment in California? Who will feed and provide health care for all those people?
There is just no way that happens. It did not happen with Bush as a president and Democratic majority. It will never happen.
April 29, 2010 @ 4:10 PM
captcha wrote:
There is just
[quote=captcha]
There is just no way that happens. It did not happen with Bush as a president and Democratic majority. It will never happen.[/quote]
Never say never.
I’ll take some political and economic stars to get aligned for amnesty to happen.
I think that it will happen.
Remember that the unauthorized immigrants who are here already are having citizen children, those children in a couple decades will have children of their own; so eventually, they will be legalized through family reunification. So why not legalize them now and make them part of the economy and society?
We many not like it, but that’s the way it is.
April 29, 2010 @ 4:25 PM
briansd1 wrote:captcha
[quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]
There is just no way that happens. It did not happen with Bush as a president and Democratic majority. It will never happen.[/quote]
Never say never.
I’ll take some political and economic stars to get aligned for amnesty to happen.
I think that it will happen.
Remember that the unauthorized immigrants who are here already are having citizen children, those children in a couple decades will have children of their own; so eventually, they will be legalized through family reunification. So why not legalize them now and make them part of the economy and society?
We many not like it, but that’s the way it is.[/quote]
DREAM act was too sensitive issue in 2007. That one is an easy one to swallow and the times were good. It will be easier to get states to secede than to get another amnesty.
April 29, 2010 @ 2:08 PM
ibjames wrote: they sit down
[quote=ibjames] they sit down on the bed and say “guess what, I’m pregnant” with a smile on their face and the next sentence is “Can you go get me an application for Cash Aid”. [/quote]
haha, that’s pretty good. And 18 years from now, the then adults will be able to sponsor their parents.
But having babies in America is nothing new. Wealthy Chinese, Taiwanese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, Israelis, etc… fly here and have babies too.
Don’t we have the best health care in the world?
And if you want your children to go to an American university eventually, then why not make them Americans by birth?
I suppose that we want rich folks be American citizens, so that’s not a problem.
April 29, 2010 @ 2:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:ibjames wrote:
[quote=briansd1][quote=ibjames] they sit down on the bed and say “guess what, I’m pregnant” with a smile on their face and the next sentence is “Can you go get me an application for Cash Aid”. [/quote]
haha, that’s pretty good. And 18 years from now, the then adults will be able to sponsor their parents.
But having babies in America is nothing new. Wealthy Chinese, Taiwanese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, Israelis, etc… fly here and have babies too.
Don’t we have the best health care in the world?
And if you want your children to go to an American university eventually, then why not make them Americans by birth?
I suppose that we want rich folks be American citizens, so that’s not a problem.[/quote]
That’s not how it works.
There is no specific regulations prohibiting pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S., but the entry is allowed or denied at the discretion of the admitting CBP officer.
If the officer determines that you have insufficient funds to cover your possible medical expenses you will be denied entry (even with a valid visitor’s visa).
Coming to the U.S. for the purpose of child birth is not a valid reason for travel.
Edit: I don’t see a problem with trying to attract the best and brightest, as opposed to worst and dimmest. I’m noticing that it is getting harder, though.
April 29, 2010 @ 2:45 PM
captcha wrote:
That’s not how
[quote=captcha]
That’s not how it works.
There is no specific regulations prohibiting pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S., but the entry is allowed or denied at the discretion of the admitting CBP officer.
If the officer determines that you have insufficient funds to cover your possible medical expenses you will be denied entry (even with a valid visitor’s visa).
Coming to the U.S. for the purpose of child birth is not a valid reason for travel.
Edit: I don’t see a problem with trying to attract the best and brightest, as opposed to worst and dimmest. I’m noticing that it is getting harder, though.[/quote]
I never said anything to the contrary. Who’s going to say that they’re coming to America to give birth?
A Mexican with a border crossing card could easily say that she’s coming for shopping which could be true. Then she has the baby at Father Joe’s in Barrio Logan.
An Israeli could be coming here for business. Then she has a baby at Cedars-Sinai while here.
April 29, 2010 @ 3:11 PM
briansd1 wrote:captcha
[quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]
That’s not how it works.
There is no specific regulations prohibiting pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S., but the entry is allowed or denied at the discretion of the admitting CBP officer.
If the officer determines that you have insufficient funds to cover your possible medical expenses you will be denied entry (even with a valid visitor’s visa).
Coming to the U.S. for the purpose of child birth is not a valid reason for travel.
Edit: I don’t see a problem with trying to attract the best and brightest, as opposed to worst and dimmest. I’m noticing that it is getting harder, though.[/quote]
I never said anything to the contrary. Who’s going to say that they’re coming to America to give birth?
A Mexican with a border crossing card could easily say that she’s coming for shopping which could be true. Then she has the baby at Father Joe’s in Barrio Logan.
An Israeli could be coming here for business. Then she has a baby at Cedars-Sinai while here.[/quote]
Did you read everything or just the last sentence? It is the Customs and Border Protection officer’s job to establish that the person entering the country has sufficient funds to cover possible medical expenses.
I seriously doubt that many are let in by CBP officers while in labor – having a baby is not as easy as doing #2. I suspect that they break the rules by overstaying or crossing illegally.
The imaginary Israeli, while possibility, is less frequent and less likely to happen – for starter, airlines won’t let you board beyond 35 weeks of pregnancy. Also, CBP at the airports are not known for being mellow. People with valid visa’s and from visa waiver countries frequently feel as being harassed at their port of entry, not welcomed. Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you can cover your medical expenses you won’t be let in.
April 29, 2010 @ 3:56 PM
captcha wrote:People with
[quote=captcha]People with valid visa’s and from visa waiver countries frequently feel as being harassed at their port of entry, not welcomed. Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you can cover your medical expenses you won’t be let in.[/quote]
captcha, I travel all the time, and when you enter the USA, the CBP just pose a few questions. I’ve observed the tourists entering while waiting for luggage and while waiting in line (at LAX, past the immigration control are the carousels to wait for luggage. From there you can see the immigration booths and the people getting processed). Foreigners give a thumb print and get a picture taken and might be ask a couple questions. The process is about 3 minutes.
Most tourists get a 6 month stay.
At the Mexico border, everyday, people with border passes are just waved through. It would be easy to just come, stay few weeks and have a baby, then just walk back across the border.
I’m not saying that foreign women having babies in America is a rampant problem. It’s not. But if a woman wants to do it; it’s not hard, especially if she has money.
April 29, 2010 @ 4:20 PM
briansd1 wrote:captcha
[quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]People with valid visa’s and from visa waiver countries frequently feel as being harassed at their port of entry, not welcomed. Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you can cover your medical expenses you won’t be let in.[/quote]
captcha, I travel all the time, and when you enter the USA, the CBP just pose a few questions. I’ve observed the tourists entering while waiting for luggage and while waiting in line (at LAX, past the immigration control are the carousels to wait for luggage. From there you can see the immigration booths and the people getting processed). Foreigners give a thumb print and get a picture taken and might be ask a couple questions. The process is about 3 minutes.
Most tourists get a 6 month stay.
[/quote]
Brian,
you are mistaken on more than one count. There are many forums on the Internet where people share their experience with CBP and consular officers. Many in English. IF you wish you can learn more easily.
A number of travelers is held for additional questioning, where they wait for hours and are not allowed to communicate with the outside world. If anyone is waiting for them the person waiting is given no information. Not even the acknowledgment that the traveler has landed alive. No interpreter is provided and the officers speak English and some Spanish. While it might seem routine for you, it is very stressful for the traveler.
If you are from a country covered by the visa waiver program you can stay no longer than 90 days (without a visa). More than once a person from a VWP country (all rich allies) was denied entry. In few instances it happened to high-profile caucasian Europeans.
If you do need visa you have additional stress of getting one. Again, easy to find stories of people being denied. When you are denied visa you are given no meaningful explanation and there is no appeal. You can be denied visa in spite of history of numerous short stays in the U.S.
There were stories in the local media about the U.S. becoming less popular destination among tourists, which is counter-intuitive since weak dollar makes it more affordable destination.
And I am talking as a western-european. You should talk to an Indian.
[quote=briansd1]At the Mexico border, everyday, people with border passes are just waved through. It would be easy to just come, stay few weeks and have a baby, then just walk back across the border.
I’m not saying that foreign women having babies in America is a rampant problem. It’s not. But if a woman wants to do it; it’s not hard, especially if she has money.[/quote]
April 29, 2010 @ 4:37 PM
captcha wrote:
A number of
[quote=captcha]
A number of travelers is held for additional questioning, where they wait for hours and are not allowed to communicate with the outside world. If anyone is waiting for them the person waiting is given no information. Not even the acknowledgment that the traveler has landed alive. No interpreter is provided and the officers speak English and some Spanish. While it might seem routine for you, it is very stressful for the traveler. [/quote]
True. I know a woman from England who was detained and sent back because she had previously overstayed. Overstaying was never a problem before 9/11 but after 9/11 they would ban visitors for 10 years for overstaying.
She was detained in a room with hot dogs and soft drinks. Then she was put on a plane back. The flight attendant kept her passport until they landed in London.
But if a woman really wants her child to be born an American citizen, she may even feel that a 10-year ban for overstaying is a good trade-off.
Of the millions of passengers who arrive very few are detained. It’s the airlines jobs to stop them before they even are allowed to board the plane in the country of origin; otherwise the airlines are responsible for flying them back (and that’s costly).
There is no way of knowing if a woman is pregnant. Europeans and Asians look thinner than Americans even when pregnant.
April 29, 2010 @ 7:19 PM
briansd1 wrote:
There is no
[quote=briansd1]
There is no way of knowing if a woman is pregnant. Europeans and Asians look thinner than Americans even when pregnant.[/quote]
True. Americans are typically the fattest in the room.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:14 PM
I haven’t read the whole
I haven’t read the whole thread. Did anyone bring up the idea of legal actions against landlords who rent to illegals? I am actually not anti-immigrant including “illegal”. Just makes me wonder why this doesn’t get brought up as a crucial “check point”.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:23 PM
Russell wrote: Did anyone
[quote=Russell] Did anyone bring up the idea of legal actions against landlords who rent to illegals? I am actually not anti-immigrant including “illegal”.[/quote]
I think that there was an ordinance in San Diego County some years ago that was overturned.
But how would you enforce it?
If a tourist has a 6 month visa to USA, can you sign a 1 year lease? How would the landlord know?
How about a foreign student who comes here signs a 2 year lease but then drops out of school and overstays his student visa?
I believe outsourcing enforcement onto businesses and landlord is just non-workable.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:27 PM
Russell wrote:I haven’t read
[quote=Russell]I haven’t read the whole thread. Did anyone bring up the idea of legal actions against landlords who rent to illegals? I am actually not anti-immigrant including “illegal”. Just makes me wonder why this doesn’t get brought up as a crucial “check point”.[/quote]
Escondido tried to implement exactly that in 2006, there was public outcry, the city immediately got sued by ACLU, spent $300,000 on lawyers, and ended up dropping the ordinance.
To this day, Escondido is considered “hostile” to illegals (which is ironic, considering that it’s probably home to one of the biggest concentrations of illegals in the county), mostly because of that failed attempt, another failed attempt to impose restrictions on curbside parking, and periodic random traffic checkpoints.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:29 PM
This article correctly
This article correctly concludes that Arizona’s new law is Constitutional and balanced:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/29/reaction_to_immigration_law_worse_than_law_itself_105347.html
It corrects a lot of the wrong assumptions about the law made by the elitist media and ignorant, misinformed Pigglets.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:58 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I’m not
[quote=briansd1]
I’m not saying that foreign women having babies in America is a rampant problem. It’s not. But if a woman wants to do it; it’s not hard, especially if she has money.[/quote]
Brian,
You might want to check with local hospitals to verify that it’s “not rampant.”
When we were having our first baby, one of the nurses said that we were the only insured family on the floor, and all the rooms were full. She said most of the other mothers were illegal immigrants. I don’t know how she determined it, but she was (a legal) Mexican, so she probably knew how to differentiate between legal and illegal residents.
She said it was a very big problem at that hospital, and said that illegal immigration was one of the primary reasons the hospital had financial problems.
April 29, 2010 @ 4:04 PM
This is very difficult, 99%
This is very difficult, 99% of time an immigration officer will not allow someone with a tourist visa who is visibly pregnant. Its not as easy as you suggest for someone from another country to come here legally and give birth to their child while on a tourist visa
April 29, 2010 @ 4:23 PM
andymajumder wrote:This is
[quote=andymajumder]This is very difficult, 99% of time an immigration officer will not allow someone with a tourist visa who is visibly pregnant. [/quote]
What is visibly pregnant? Does fat qualify?
Everyday, I see visibly pregnant women who are simply fat.
If you have 5 or 6 months, you can do it, easily.
Alternatively, a women could cross the border, not yet pregnant, have sex, overstay, have the baby, then walk back. Nobody would be the wiser.
I’m not condoning this in any way; I’m not even claiming that it’s a huge problem that we even need to address.
I don’t think that poor people are that smart and calculating. I believe that rich folks are much more so.
It’s just an observation on the possibilities.
April 29, 2010 @ 5:02 PM
andymajumder wrote:This is
[quote=andymajumder]This is very difficult, 99% of time an immigration officer will not allow someone with a tourist visa who is visibly pregnant. Its not as easy as you suggest for someone from another country to come here legally and give birth to their child while on a tourist visa[/quote]
Although you may be correct, my OB/GYN was telling me how he had several couples who do no live here who were contacting him because he would be the one deliverying their babies here in the US. He said their rationale was that then the kids would be US citizens. I believe these parents were wealthy Europeans.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:59 PM
I wrote that BO would offer
I wrote that BO would offer amnesty to save social security. I still believe he will. He will get the hispanic vote, he will get a large over the hill vote, and he already has the bleeding heart vote. thos independant and one issue voters will then go his way in 2012, that is why he is mad becuase this brings it to the forefront now and not in a year or two when he wanted to suggest it. He may be right, it maybe the only way to save Social security for the boomers. Who else will pay for it?
April 29, 2010 @ 8:44 PM
PlnrBoy wrote:I wrote that BO
[quote=PlnrBoy]I wrote that BO would offer amnesty to save social security. I still believe he will.
[/quote]
Bill Clinton said so.
[quote=PlnrBoy]
He will get the hispanic vote, he will get a large over the hill vote, and he already has the bleeding heart vote. thos independant and one issue voters will then go his way in 2012, that is why he is mad becuase this brings it to the forefront now and not in a year or two when he wanted to suggest it. He may be right, it maybe the only way to save Social security for the boomers. Who else will pay for it?[/quote]
Why would BO get the senior vote? They already get social security. They’ll be dead before SS runs out of money.
Why would independents vote for BO over immigration reform? I think that independents are generally anti-immigration. They are pissed enough with H1B work visas already.
I actually believe that the general population is not for immigration reform, which in my mind includes amnesty.
The general population doesn’t understand the issues. They are only concerned with their jobs and families and they see new immigrants as deteriorating their way of life — only another annoying foreign radio station to wade through, except when they need yard work and house cleaning.
It will take real leadership to achieve real reform. Or eventually, the events will dictate change. In that respect, immigration is like debt, spending and financial reform.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:07 PM
briansd1 wrote:
The general
[quote=briansd1]
The general population doesn’t understand the issues. They are only concerned with their jobs and families and they see new immigrants as deteriorating their way of life — only another annoying foreign radio station to wade through, except when they need yard work and house cleaning.
It will take real leadership to achieve real reform. Or eventually, the events will dictate change. In that respect, immigration is like debt, spending and financial reform.[/quote]
You’re making the assumption that YOU understand the issues better than “the general population.” What makes you so convinced your understanding is superior to those who oppose illegal immigration? Has it ever occurred to you that THEY might understand it better than you do?
I’ve lived here all my life, and while we’ve always had illegal immigrants in California, their population has grown tremendously over the past couple of decades. Ask anyone who’s been here awhile if they think it’s better now than it was then.
Like others have already mentioned, teenagers, less educated adults, seniors, etc. were all doing these jobs before, and they’re perfectly capable of doing them again. I’d much rather pay more for my groceries or domestic help if it meant that these workers (legal immigrants and U.S. citizens) could live a better life, and if we could avoid all the problems that come with illegal immigration.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to our country. If you have any such evidence, please share it.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:33 PM
When I left Michigan 15 years
When I left Michigan 15 years ago, all the landscaping at the apartment complexes and office complexes was done by Caucasian, citizen Michiganders. These were usually males in their 20’s or so. Same with busboys in restaurants; one of my college classmates worked in the dishroom of a local restaurant (he was a Jewish kid from back east).
The people doing these jobs all seemed to be decently well-fed, working-class, and appeared to make enough to live in decent apartments (albeit, rent is much cheaper in Michigan!)
The argument is that “these illegals do work that Americans won’t do.” I think with the exception of backbreaking tomato-picking agricultural work, this is BS.
The truth is, Americans *will* do these jobs, *if* you pay them a wage for it they can live on. However if you pay them $2/hr like these employers do the poor Mexicans/Oaxacans/Guatemalans/etc that do it here in CA, the American citizens will say “no thanks”. Because they don’t want to live on a mattress in a room with 5 other people, in an apartment with 10 people in it.
Then there’s the factor, mentioned by others above, that these illegal immigrants are literally stealing bread out of the mouths of legal immigrants who went through the process and did everything they were supposed to. One of my most enlightening conversations was with a Hispanic guy about Prop 187; who fully supported it and expressed great anger at illegals.
April 29, 2010 @ 11:02 PM
Nobody ever mentions the
Nobody ever mentions the nation building component of illegal immigration. The offspring of illegal immigrants seems disproportionately represented in this line of work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/us/texas-town-pays-high-human-cost-for-iraqi-war.html?pagewanted=1
For nation building purposes, which understandably comes at some initial cost, Mexicans are cheap and very productive( especially for doing hazardous work and other heavy lifting) compared to other possibilities.Does anyone ever consider how much they would cost if we brought them here “legally”?
Sure the numbers get uncomfortable(especially during recessions) and the politicians incessantly tap dance about the topic for political reasons, but it is or has been, a deliberate immigration policy. Amnesty is the most correct thing to do and that it is not offered and we pretend these people are “illegal” is immoral.
April 29, 2010 @ 11:32 PM
A little more ranting
A little more ranting here:
The idea that because an illegal might compete for work during a 2 or 3 year phase of your(or my) spoiled kids life or take your cousin place, the one who is going to garner a much higher spot in society almost immediately, is not very circumspect.On the other hand why let your wife’s grandma come in easily considering value added by comparison to someone who will scrape toxic chemicals and barnacles from the bottom of ships and do other like dirty work? Furthermore, Government and business know every one’s place in this and it has been applied to the quota of permissible “illegals” and how long it will take grandma to get here. As always people mostly see thing from the perspective only of their own set of intersests and in this case end up scapegoating the Mexicans.
April 30, 2010 @ 9:49 AM
Russell wrote:Amnesty is the
[quote=Russell]Amnesty is the most correct thing to do and that it is not offered and we pretend these people are “illegal” is immoral.[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree.
The simple facts are that immigrants are here already, whatever caused them to come here in the first place.
We could fix NAFTA, the drug wars or whatever else, but it won’t change the fact that unauthorized immigrants have been here for years.
We can do nothing and let time deal with things (through family reunification with citizen children and grand-children, marriage, etc…); or we can welcome those immigrants as full members of our society. It’s our choice.
April 30, 2010 @ 10:00 AM
The choice is simple.
If you
The choice is simple.
If you are for uncontrolled immigration, open the border immediately and give automatic right of residence to every person that steps across. Hundreds of people die each year crossing, countless families are torn apart because only one or two members can make the trip. Register everyone, enroll them in school, teach them to read and write English or Spanish (many are illiterate), and help them find work.
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
I think a lot of people like the current system because it provides a huge supply of desperate people willing to work in poor conditions for low pay. Many people on both sides of this debate have no issues with hiring undocumented maids or gardeners and paying them in cash.
Amnesty for those already here is probably a good short-term salve, but it is not a fix, it is not a solution.
April 30, 2010 @ 11:41 AM
I never understood why
I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. Many people come here on an H1B visa and although their employers CAN sponsor them for permanent residence it is by no means a guarantee that the employeer will sponsor them OR that they will get the permanent residence. This doesn’t stop people from coming here on an H1B visa. If you are on a H1B and you are laid off you have a very short time (1 week?) to tranfer to a different company. Is this fair – not really but these are the conditions that people accept when coming here.
As loathe as I am to allowing people who broke the rules and law to jump ahead of those who did not, I can see the pragmatic approach that deporting 11 million people is not practical. There are existing visa categories (H-2) for agricultural workers. Utilizing those or creating new categories would allow the people who are here illegally to ‘come out of the shadows’ but it doesn’t put them in line for permanent residence or citizenship. This type of system obviously would only work in concert with better verification of status on the employer side.
April 30, 2010 @ 12:36 PM
looking wrote:I never
[quote=looking]I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. [/quote]
You may not realize it, but if immigrants (legal or not) have sex, get married and/or have kids, they’re on a path to citizenship.
You’d be surprised at the social networks the undocumented have built. There are even comfort women for migrant workers.
May 2, 2010 @ 5:18 PM
briansd1 wrote:looking
[quote=briansd1][quote=looking]I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. [/quote]
You may not realize it, but if immigrants (legal or not) have sex, get married and/or have kids, they’re on a path to citizenship.
You’d be surprised at the social networks the undocumented have built. There are even comfort women for migrant workers.[/quote]
By “comfort women” are you referring to the young girls who a trafficked to the migrant camps?
May 2, 2010 @ 10:59 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:briansd1
[quote=cdesilva44][quote=briansd1][quote=looking]I never understood why legalizing illegal aliens has to lead to “a path to citizenship” for them. [/quote]
You may not realize it, but if immigrants (legal or not) have sex, get married and/or have kids, they’re on a path to citizenship.
You’d be surprised at the social networks the undocumented have built. There are even comfort women for migrant workers.[/quote]
By “comfort women” are you referring to the young girls who a trafficked to the migrant camps?[/quote]
Yep.
————
The articles here below describe one of the largest known child and youth sex trafficking cases in the United States to date. In one of several related cases, hundreds of Mexican girls between 7 and 18 were kidnapped or subjected to false romantic entrapment by organized criminal sex trafficking gangs. Victims were then brought to San Diego County, California. Over a 10 year period these girls were raped by hundreds of men per day in more than 2 dozen home based and agricultural camp based brothels.
http://www.libertadlatina.org/LatAm_US_San_Diego_Crisis_Index.htm
April 30, 2010 @ 2:35 PM
looking wrote:As loathe as I
[quote=looking]As loathe as I am to allowing people who broke the rules and law to jump ahead of those who did not, I can see the pragmatic approach that deporting 11 million people is not practical. There are existing visa categories (H-2) for agricultural workers. Utilizing those or creating new categories would allow the people who are here illegally to ‘come out of the shadows’ but it doesn’t put them in line for permanent residence or citizenship. This type of system obviously would only work in concert with better verification of status on the employer side.[/quote]
I’m not sure why people think we need to *deport* all the illegal immigrants. Just enforce laws WRT hiring: must provide proof of legal residency and use e-verify, and punish the employers rather severely (hefty fines and some jail time, with the possibility of forfeiting all personal/company assets) if they are caught more than twice?. After we’ve done that, we have to take away any public education, healthcare, food stamps, etc. for illegal immigrants, and they will “deport” themselves.
As far as “anchor babies” are concerned, we need to ammend that law, OR we need to explain to the parents that they are free to be united with their children, but they will have to be “united” in their country of origin. Nobody is forcing families to live apart. The parents make that choice when they decide to have babies here.
April 30, 2010 @ 4:37 PM
CA renter wrote:looking
[quote=CA renter][quote=looking]As loathe as I am to allowing people who broke the rules and law to jump ahead of those who did not, I can see the pragmatic approach that deporting 11 million people is not practical. There are existing visa categories (H-2) for agricultural workers. Utilizing those or creating new categories would allow the people who are here illegally to ‘come out of the shadows’ but it doesn’t put them in line for permanent residence or citizenship. This type of system obviously would only work in concert with better verification of status on the employer side.[/quote]
I’m not sure why people think we need to *deport* all the illegal immigrants. Just enforce laws WRT hiring: must provide proof of legal residency and use e-verify, and punish the employers rather severely (hefty fines and some jail time, with the possibility of forfeiting all personal/company assets) if they are caught more than twice?. After we’ve done that, we have to take away any public education, healthcare, food stamps, etc. for illegal immigrants, and they will “deport” themselves.
As far as “anchor babies” are concerned, we need to ammend that law, OR we need to explain to the parents that they are free to be united with their children, but they will have to be “united” in their country of origin. Nobody is forcing families to live apart. The parents make that choice when they decide to have babies here.[/quote]
The problem is that immigrant advocates agrue stric employer enforcement will lead to hiring discrimination against darker immigrants and I agree with that concern.
I don’t know much about the E-verify system but if it is like any other government verification like the no-fly list then I am very very wairy of mistakes and hacking around the system.
Think about how often goverment make mistakes, how long after a business gets fined incorrectly a few times before it decides to quitely profile job applicants (even if it is later exonerated)?
I don’t think it is such a hypothetical either. I have darken skin (after being in the Sun a few hours) but am originally from East Asia. I had a neighbor tell her husband “He is ok, he is not Mexican, he is …” a few years after we moved in. Bare in mind this is coastal Encinitas, one of the county’s liberal bubbles.
I have thoughts on anchor babies but that is for another thread.
May 1, 2010 @ 8:34 AM
CA renter wrote:
As far as
[quote=CA renter]
As far as “anchor babies” are concerned, we need to ammend that law, OR we need to explain to the parents that they are free to be united with their children, but they will have to be “united” in their country of origin. Nobody is forcing families to live apart. The parents make that choice when they decide to have babies here.[/quote]
Right on the mark.
The anchor baby issue carries huge long term unintended consequences. Look at how it changes the character of cities. For the better?? Improve real estate values?
May 1, 2010 @ 5:08 PM
CA renter wrote:
……I’m
[quote=CA renter]
……I’m not sure why people think we need to *deport* all the illegal immigrants. Just enforce laws WRT hiring: must provide proof of legal residency and use e-verify, and punish the employers rather severely (hefty fines and some jail time, with the possibility of forfeiting all personal/company assets) if they are caught more than twice?. After we’ve done that, we have to take away any public education, healthcare, food stamps, etc. for illegal immigrants, and they will “deport” themselves…..[/quote]
Well said. But the coalition of interests in favor of more immigration, and who are OK with it being illegal, is very strong. It’s an odd combination – business owners who hire illegals, professional Democratic politicians who want future voting majorities, libertarians who oppose all immigration controls, people of Hispanic origin who want a more powerful role for their culture in the US, etc.
Workers who have to compete with immigrants, environmentalists who want a limited self-sustaining population, and those who want an Anglo culture to dominate, are all ranged on the other side. I think they are actually in the majority, but they have had much less political power, at least until now.
I think the recent swing against illegal immigration is due to the increased job competition during the recession. As soon as the recession is over, we will revert to unlimited illegal immigration.
Various high-profile crackdowns on small pockets of illegal immigration are being prepared now. These will be executed with maximum publicity. The idea is to give the public the impression that politicians are serious about enforcing immigration laws. When the public buys in enough, the next amnesty bill will be enacted, and the enforcement will die off again, so we can go back to unlimited illegal immigration.
It’s all pretty obvious, but it plays out as if no one knew what was really going on.
May 1, 2010 @ 10:13 PM
King George would be laughing
King George would be laughing his ass off right now were he alive.
Ya just don’t leave people to their own thing for a long time and then come back to try to enforce the law without any problems.
If those people were parading around with signs that said “So NOW you are going to enforce the law?” I might actually commend them.
But when they claim racism they can go f**k themselves.
Mexico would use us and then kick us out if they were rich. So…come to think of it…they can go f@@k themselves anyway.
May 1, 2010 @ 10:40 PM
In all other countries
In all other countries illegal immigrants will be deported. I don’t understand why this is not being enforced here.
May 2, 2010 @ 12:41 AM
kcal09 wrote:In all other
[quote=kcal09]In all other countries illegal immigrants will be deported. I don’t understand why this is not being enforced here.[/quote]
We do deport illegal aliens…
Wiki:
About 40% of illegal immigrants enter legally and then overstay.[6] About 31,000 people who are not American citizens are held in immigration detention on any given day,[65] including children, in over 200 detention centers, jails, and prisons nationwide. The United States government held more than 300,000 people in immigration detention in 2007 while deciding whether to deport them.[66]
Deportation
An individual’s deportation is determined in removal proceedings, administrative proceedings under United States immigration law.[citation needed] Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) by an immigration judge.[citation needed] Deportations from the United States increased by more than 60 percent from 2003 to 2008, with Mexicans accounting for nearly two-thirds of those deported.[67]
May 2, 2010 @ 7:43 AM
If these folks at these
If these folks at these rally’s and sympathizers would direct their efforts to fixing their own country, they would be handsomely rewarded.
Mexico has beautiful coastlines, abundant oil resources, labor, undeveloped land, etc. But until the rampant corruption and drug cartels are eliminated, Mexico will always be a third world.
Why isn’t this the issue Mr. Protester? Have you no huevos? Throw out your existing government. Organize yourselves. The United States would help but you have to take the first steps. We don’t want to be an occupier, you know. Be proud of your heritage and do something to fix it.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Mex got their act together and they had to build a wall to keep Americans from emigrating to their land.
May 2, 2010 @ 10:40 AM
Hobie wrote:Wouldn’t it be
[quote=Hobie]Wouldn’t it be ironic if Mex got their act together and they had to build a wall to keep Americans from emigrating to their land.[/quote]
They already did that: http://www.theonion.com/video/mexico-builds-border-wall-to-keep-out-us-assholes,14349/
May 2, 2010 @ 4:08 PM
Hobie wrote:If these folks at
[quote=Hobie]If these folks at these rally’s and sympathizers would direct their efforts to fixing their own country, they would be handsomely rewarded.
Mexico has beautiful coastlines, abundant oil resources, labor, undeveloped land, etc. But until the rampant corruption and drug cartels are eliminated, Mexico will always be a third world.
Why isn’t this the issue Mr. Protester? Have you no huevos? Throw out your existing government. Organize yourselves. The United States would help but you have to take the first steps. We don’t want to be an occupier, you know. Be proud of your heritage and do something to fix it.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Mex got their act together and they had to build a wall to keep Americans from emigrating to their land.[/quote]
Agree 100%!
May 2, 2010 @ 5:11 PM
SB1070 has already been
SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.
May 2, 2010 @ 5:21 PM
paramount wrote:SB1070 has
[quote=paramount]SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.[/quote]
Throwing out a statement like that completely discredits any valid argument you may have.
May 2, 2010 @ 6:23 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:paramount
[quote=cdesilva44][quote=paramount]SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.[/quote]
Throwing out a statement like that completely discredits any valid argument you may have.[/quote]
Only to those fascists who wouldn’t agree with me anyway….
May 3, 2010 @ 10:13 PM
paramount wrote:cdesilva44
[quote=paramount][quote=cdesilva44][quote=paramount]SB1070 has already been watered down, even so it won’t take effect.
I now think of Arizona as East Germany.[/quote]
Throwing out a statement like that completely discredits any valid argument you may have.[/quote]
Only to those fascists who wouldn’t agree with me anyway….[/quote]
Fascist? That’s hilarious.
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to the US and she despises illegal immigration even more than I do. He family waited patiently for 19 years in order to get their greencards and come to this country. Once here, they were required by law to carry their greencards at all times. They support the law in Arizona 100%.
Her family are now US citizens who speak English and positively contribute to society. They are appalled by the illegals who protest openly on our streets and wave the Mexican flag. They revere their home culture, but are so thankful for the US and would never fly their nation’s flag in protest of the country that has given them so much.
I support LEGAL immigration 100%, but have great disdain for people who subvert the legal process and take advantage of our great nation. If that makes me a fascist in your eyes, then so be it.
May 3, 2010 @ 11:04 PM
Isn’t there a bigger
Isn’t there a bigger picture?
Over-population is hurting us but seriously – how effective can this be when you have people willing to risk their lives to cross the boarder.
Mexico needs to clean up their act. Why can’t a hard-working family man of Mexico provide for his family & live in peace down there???
They will find a way to enter regardless of this AZ law. Jose may just die his hair blond.
May 4, 2010 @ 3:54 PM
cdesilva44 wrote:
My wife is
[quote=cdesilva44]
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to the US and she despises illegal immigration even more than I do. He family waited patiently for 19 years in order to get their greencards and come to this country. [/quote]
Sounds like jealousy to me. Your wife’s family waited 19 years so they want people to pay the same dues? That’s not the way it works in life.
A PhD with extraordinary ability, a rock star, a famous entertainer, or a rich businessman, don’t have to wait at all.
Your wife is from the Philippines where there is a long wait. An immigrant from Luxembourg wouldn’t have to wait at all because nobody from there wants to come to America.
If it’s any consolation to your relatives, unauthorized immigrants who have been in this country since 1982 are still waiting in line. If there is an amnesty, it will be for people who have waited for years already.
An amnesty doesn’t mean that people who waited for immigrant visas overseas will have to wait longer.
Take it in stride and look at each issue independently. There’s no need to conflate issues which generate emotional reactions.
May 4, 2010 @ 9:52 PM
This well written Wall Street
This well written Wall Street Journal opinion by the Pima County Sheriff is worth a read. I found myself completely agreeing with his take.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222420517514084.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
May 5, 2010 @ 2:14 AM
garysears wrote:This well
[quote=garysears]This well written Wall Street Journal opinion by the Pima County Sheriff is worth a read. I found myself completely agreeing with his take.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222420517514084.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines%5B/quote%5D
Yes, that was perfectly reasonable.
May 5, 2010 @ 8:50 AM
briansd1 wrote:
Sounds like
[quote=briansd1]
Sounds like jealousy to me. Your wife’s family waited 19 years so they want people to pay the same dues? That’s not the way it works in life.
[/quote]
True. The frustration comes from the same place where ‘savvy’ renter’s frustration with bailout comes.
[quote=briansd1]
A PhD with extraordinary ability, a rock star, a famous entertainer, or a rich businessman, don’t have to wait at all.
Your wife is from the Philippines where there is a long wait. An immigrant from Luxembourg wouldn’t have to wait at all because nobody from there wants to come to America.
[/quote]
Based on this month’s numbers, a person from Luxemburg, 25 year old college-educated unmarried daughter of a U.S. citizen that applies for either employment (assuming there is a willing employer and her skills are in demand) or family-based immigrant’s visa will get that visa in six years.
[quote=briansd1]
If it’s any consolation to your relatives, unauthorized immigrants who have been in this country since 1982 are still waiting in line. If there is an amnesty, it will be for people who have waited for years already.
[/quote]
CIR2007 had the bar set much lower. As little as few months of illegal presence would qualify you.
[quote=briansd1]
An amnesty doesn’t mean that people who waited for immigrant visas overseas will have to wait longer.
[/quote]
The bureaucracy is unable to process the current applicants in timely manner, creating backlog after backlog where people otherwise eligible wait for months or even years on formal decision.
And 10+MM more people in the queue won’t affect the processing? Please….
[quote=briansd1]
Take it in stride and look at each issue independently. There’s no need to conflate issues which generate emotional reactions.[/quote]
There are few people on this board who project an image of knowledgeable person when they discuss things that I am not familiar with. But then the same people move on issues that I was forced to get acquainted with and I realize that the projected image does not always match the reality.
May 6, 2010 @ 2:31 PM
NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) —
NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) — Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can’t prove they’re in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona’s new immigration law indicated.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/29/Poll-Most-support-Arizona-immigration-law/UPI-55921272544207/
June 1, 2010 @ 12:18 PM
What’s good for the goose
What’s good for the goose apparently isn’t also what’s good for the gander:
“Activists Blast Mexico’s Immigration Law”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-05-25-mexico-migrants_N.htm?csp=obnetwork
I knew that Mexico’s treatment of Central American immigrants was horrible, but I’d forgotten about its immigration laws (essentially identical to Arizona’s new law) in all the hubub surrounding Arizona’s new law.
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.
June 1, 2010 @ 12:39 PM
davelj wrote:
Regardless of
[quote=davelj]
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.[/quote]
That’s true. But we are not Mexico.
Connie Mack, Republican of Florida put it well:
June 1, 2010 @ 1:07 PM
Brian,
You are not just a
Brian,
You are not just a minority on Piggington-
Poll: More Americans want Arizona-style anti-illegal immigration law for their state
“The Arizona immigration law has emerged as a major divide in the country, but the numbers are on the side of those supporting it,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/01/2010-06-01_poll_more_americans_want_arizonastyle_antiillegal_immigration_law_for_their_stat.html
June 1, 2010 @ 1:31 PM
briansd1 wrote:davelj
[quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.[/quote]
That’s true. But we are not Mexico.
[/quote]
That’s true, but perhaps in this respect we should be more like Mexico.
[quote=briansd1]
Connie Mack, Republican of Florida put it well:
[/quote]
“We are better than that.” Generic rhetorical flourishes like this drive me nuts. I don’t even know what this means. Define “better” in this context. Does “better” mean that we don’t require folks to carry proof of citizenship or does “better” mean that we don’t enforce our own immigration laws? One person’s “better” is another person’s “worse.” Whenever I see someone say something like, “We are better than that” my bullshit rhetoric detector immediately goes off.
June 1, 2010 @ 1:53 PM
davelj wrote:
That’s true,
[quote=davelj]
That’s true, but perhaps in this respect we should be more like Mexico.[/quote]
*Gasp*, you just said we should be like Mexico!
We don’t need no stinkin’ lessons from furiners… We know how to do things better. 😉
[quote=davelj]
“We are better than that.” Generic rhetorical flourishes like this drive me nuts. [/quote]
By itself, “we are better than that” is meaningless.
Connie Mack did made a few good conservative points first before ending by “we are better than that.”
June 1, 2010 @ 2:11 PM
I think Mexico probably
I think Mexico probably learned their lesson on immigration back in the 1830s when those pesky American immigrants were pouring into what was then known as Tejas.
Pot, meet kettle.
June 1, 2010 @ 2:17 PM
afx114 wrote:
Pot, meet
[quote=afx114]
Pot, meet kettle.[/quote]
Viva la Reconquista! 😉
June 1, 2010 @ 2:21 PM
briansd1 wrote:davelj
[quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
That’s true, but perhaps in this respect we should be more like Mexico.[/quote]
*Gasp*, you just said we should be like Mexico!
We don’t need no stinkin’ lessons from furiners… We know how to do things better. 😉
[quote=davelj]
“We are better than that.” Generic rhetorical flourishes like this drive me nuts. [/quote]
By itself, “we are better than that” is meaningless.
Connie Mack did made a few good conservative points first before ending by “we are better than that.”[/quote]
I read Mack’s pitch prior to my previous post and was unconvinced… the addition of “We are better than that” sealed his argument’s fate in my view.
Virtually everyone (I’m guessing over 95%) over the age of 16 in the US carries a driver’s license without much complaint. How difficult is it to have everyone in this group carry a US Passport Card? I carry a US Passport Card with me at all times. It’s right next to my driver’s license. And I’m happy to show it to any official that feels they should see it. I travel to Mexico a lot and I have an FM3 Visa which I keep with me at all times. I would EXPECT to be thrown in the clink if I were asked for my ID in Mexico and didn’t have both my US Passport Card and my FM3. It’s Mexico, after all. Not my country of citizenship. I should be expected to have such documents on my person at all times (unless I had a REALLY good excuse – like they were stolen) that prove I’m there legally. So I just don’t see what the big deal is.
June 1, 2010 @ 2:57 PM
BTW, who’s boycotting Absolut
BTW, who’s boycotting Absolut Vodka and Miller Beer? There’s always InBev-Anheuser, which is now Belgian.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/02/absolut-reconquista/
[quote=davelj]So I just don’t see what the big deal is.[/quote]
3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that.
2) I don’t believe the AZ will cause people to go back to their home countries. They will move to other states, if forced.
3) I personally support immigrants and a path to legalization. I would hate for people whose lives are hard now to be on the run and to suffer even more hardship. That won’t make me feel better. Yeah, call me a bleeding heart liberal.
June 1, 2010 @ 3:15 PM
briansd1 wrote:
3 main
[quote=briansd1]
3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that. [/quote]
Again, I have no problem with this. Perhaps we are a great country in SPITE of the fact that “we don’t do that.” There are two ways of looking at it.
[quote=briansd1]
2) I don’t believe the AZ will cause people to go back to their home countries. They will move to other states, if forced. [/quote]
Sounds like most Arizonans will view this as a victory. I doubt they’re concerned with these other states. So, from their standpoint…
[quote=briansd1]
3) I personally support immigrants and a path to legalization. I would hate for people whose lives are hard now to be on the run and to suffer even more hardship. That won’t make me feel better. Yeah, call me a bleeding heart liberal.[/quote]
I agree with your first sentence. In fact, I have helped two folks immigrate to the US – LEGALLY. And I’ll be working on number 3 later this year. Again, LEGALLY.
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.
June 1, 2010 @ 8:17 PM
davelj wrote:
Personally, I
[quote=davelj]
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.[/quote]
So I take it you’re not supporting the AZ law now.
All else being equal, the AZ by itself doesn’t solve anything, except arguably for Arizona.
The immigrants will still be in USA and will move to other states. And new unauthorized immigrants will still continue to enter, but not settle in AZ.
This AZ law, by itself, doesn’t address the national immigration problem. But it does make life harder for people whose lives are miserable already.
This law will be costly to for AZ implement and only serves to make supporters feel good while millions of immigrants live in fear.
June 1, 2010 @ 8:50 PM
Something that would help
Something that would help Mexico solve some of her problems would be to legalize pot in all states. If we were were to grow and tax what we smoke it would deprive the cartels of much of their cash. This would help give Mexico somewhat more of a chance to fight it’s corruption.
The problem with many people is that they never think in terms of helping Mexico solve her own problems. Well…this in conjunction with stiffer border enforcement.
Of course thinking like that would deprive one party of cheap labor for its factories and the other of it’s future voting block.
We can’t let right and wrong get in the way of that now can we?
And the U.S. should take ownership of it’s own drug problem just as Mexico shouldn’t send it’s children to be educated here.
June 1, 2010 @ 8:57 PM
briansd1 wrote:davelj
[quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.[/quote]
So I take it you’re not supporting the AZ law now.
All else being equal, the AZ by itself doesn’t solve anything, except arguably for Arizona.
[/quote]
Brian,
How can you argue with a states right to decide the method in which they are going to enforce the laws which effect their citizens when conducting business or personal matters in that state? That is in fact why there is a state government in the first place, to solve the states problems regardless of how other states operate, legislate or act.
“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.”
This immigration is nothing more than an “if by whiskey argument”. California asserts its state’s right to decriminalize and legalize medical pot. But Arizona criminalizes illegal presence in the country and everyone is up in arms.
June 2, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
briansd1 wrote:davelj
[quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Personally, I would support Arizona’s law – or something like it – IN CONJUNCTION WITH a huge increase in the INS’s budget so they could process more applications in a timelier manner. Again, I’m pro-immigration. But it should be done legally. Period.[/quote]
So I take it you’re not supporting the AZ law now.
All else being equal, the AZ by itself doesn’t solve anything, except arguably for Arizona.
The immigrants will still be in USA and will move to other states. And new unauthorized immigrants will still continue to enter, but not settle in AZ.
This AZ law, by itself, doesn’t address the national immigration problem. But it does make life harder for people whose lives are miserable already.
This law will be costly to for AZ implement and only serves to make supporters feel good while millions of immigrants live in fear.[/quote]
I don’t live in Arizona so what I think about this law doesn’t matter. If I DID live in AZ I might support it (I don’t know all of the details, frankly). Generally, we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country. And I don’t think the solution is to (1) ignore it, or (2) continue to have amnesty programs. Neither of these will solve the problem. I like the idea of dramatically expanding the capabilities of the INS to allow for more LEGAL immigrants (and raising the fees so that, effectively, those who want to immigrate are funding their own efforts). And I like the idea of requiring US citizens over the age of 16 to have a US Passport Card on their person. This doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t mean you go to jail if you don’t have one on you, but it means a few calls (or strokes of the computer keyboard) have to be made to verify that you’re a citizen.
June 3, 2010 @ 2:38 PM
davelj wrote:I like the idea
[quote=davelj]I like the idea of dramatically expanding the capabilities of the INS to allow for more LEGAL immigrants (and raising the fees so that, effectively, those who want to immigrate are funding their own efforts).[/quote]
Yes. Make it really easy and fast to do it legally. Perhaps unlimited immigration from any North/Central/South American country. But legal. With a number. We have to know who you are. Does that still make me racist? I just said UNLIMITED immigration from all of N/C/S America! I make this proposal on the basis of geography, not race. Just make it legal. I’ve had an SSN since I was like 6, why shouldn’t others have one too (a non-stolen one).
[quote=davelj]
And I like the idea of requiring US citizens over the age of 16 to have a US Passport Card on their person. This doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t mean you go to jail if you don’t have one on you, but it means a few calls (or strokes of the computer keyboard) have to be made to verify that you’re a citizen.[/quote]
I agree it will be stupidly easy to clear up any misunderstandings if you are in fact legit to be here but don’t have “papers” on you. Cops have radios and cop cars have computers. Let’s be honest.
But I dunno, sometimes I go to the beach or other walks without a wallet. Not all clothes even have a convenient pocket (e.g. running shorts). I don’t think I’d like for that to be even technically illegal.
I *think* the way the AZ law is written is that only non-citizens have to carry ID. That seems kind of reasonable. When you (as a U.S. citizen) are in Europe you damn skippy have your passport on you or somewhere nearby. Even if you’re white. And you don’t complain that that requirement is due to “racism”. It’s about being legal when you’re visiting someone else’s country.
I do support that employers must check the SSN or other ID number against some database. That is ridiculously simple. And don’t give me any poop about “the risk of false positives”. I personally think that is disingenuous B.S. But let’s say there is a 1 in 10000 error rate. Have money (perhaps from immmigration fees) set aside to pay for sufficient infrastructure that false positives are very easily and quickly resolvable (e.g. <24 hours) so that neither employers or employees are impacted.
June 3, 2010 @ 5:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:3 main reasons
[quote=briansd1]3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that.[/quote]
This is my main reason for opposing it. I’m frankly not convinced US citizens won’t be detained for various reasons. I have friends whose parents came here legally from India in the ’60s who half-joke about avoiding Arizona to avoid being pulled over for being brown. And as I’ve stated elsewhere, a lot of Puerto Ricans are not very happy about this kind of law.
Like a lot of Arizona sheriffs, I also worry about the strain it will put on local law enforcement resources. I’m curious how much people on this board would be willing to see their taxes go up in exchange for increased immigration enforcement.
I’m sympathetic to the overall goal of reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the US, especially those engaged in criminal behavior. Again, as I’ve said before, the housing bubble collapse proved that if you take away the jobs, you fix the problem. Thousands if not millions of illegals fled the US over the past couple of years as the housing market collapsed. Really, you could target 4-6 industries, go after the employers, and fix at least half the immigrant problem.
June 3, 2010 @ 6:48 PM
poorgradstudent
[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=briansd1]3 main reasons why I oppose the AZ law:
1) Firstly and most importantly, the big deal is that American citizens will be asked “papers please”. I believe we are a great country because we don’t do that.[/quote]
This is my main reason for opposing it. I’m frankly not convinced US citizens won’t be detained for various reasons. I have friends whose parents came here legally from India in the ’60s who half-joke about avoiding Arizona to avoid being pulled over for being brown.[/quote]
I’m a white male. Sorry. Some years back in Colorado I got my car stuck in the snow in below zero weather. This was probably quite correlated with the fact that I’m originally from San Diego… After about 15 minutes I was quite relieved to see a Sheriff’s cruiser pull up behind me. He offered to push or pull me out. I gladly accepted. But first, guess what?
“Can I see your drivers license please?”
Then he took it back to the cruiser and ran it through the computer!
He scrutinized me, a white male, thoroughly before even pushing me out of the snow in sub-zero weather. This was in 1988…
What I’m saying is what others have said above on this same blog page – being asked for ID is nothing new for anyone!
poorgradstudent: this is your “main reason for opposing it”? You think citizens are going to be “detained for various reasons”? What (specifically) do you mean by “detention”?
Can you lay out a plausible abuse scenario here? Keep in mind AZ is not going to be anxious to get themselves into false arrest, lawsuit or civil rights violation territory.
You must be talking about a citizen without a drivers license or any other form of ID, right? Your friends don’t have drivers licenses? Even if they didn’t have ID with them, the officer has to have reasonable suspicion the people are not in the country legally before going any further. I’m sure your friends would give off many cues that an officer would instinctly process to conclude that they were U.S. born. He could probably even make a good guess as to where they grew up. And if in some likely event he or she were still suspicious, don’t you think your friends could get the officer beyond “reasonable suspicion” in just a few seconds of conversation?
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?
June 3, 2010 @ 8:04 PM
KSMountain wrote:
Can you
[quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.
June 5, 2010 @ 7:10 AM
briansd1 wrote:KSMountain
[quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?
June 6, 2010 @ 2:15 PM
meadandale wrote:briansd1
[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
I was thinking of the same thing, cept with that local woman who was arrested for purse snaching/theft because she looked like the woman in the photo. Then, a few days later, they find out it isnt her. Does that mean we stop enforing laws about theft because they may arrest and detain someone who is innocent?
There is no such thing as perfection outside of the classrooms in higher academia. If that is our standard, then we are screwed and should stop enforcing any and all laws because someone may be negativly impacted by it and in reality be innocent of whatever charge.
June 6, 2010 @ 2:50 PM
DWCAP wrote:meadandale
[quote=DWCAP][quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
I was thinking of the same thing, cept with that local woman who was arrested for purse snaching/theft because she looked like the woman in the photo. Then, a few days later, they find out it isnt her. Does that mean we stop enforing laws about theft because they may arrest and detain someone who is innocent?
There is no such thing as perfection outside of the classrooms in higher academia. If that is our standard, then we are screwed and should stop enforcing any and all laws because someone may be negativly impacted by it and in reality be innocent of whatever charge.[/quote]
DW: Excellent post and spot on. I like your mention of academia as well. Most of the nonsense we now confront as a society, whether its the intellectual fascism of Political Correctness, or the stupidity of Gender and Ethnic Politics, or the impassioned cries about the “unfairness” of America, spring from our institutions of “higher learning”.
June 6, 2010 @ 9:10 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Most of the nonsense we now confront as a society, whether its the intellectual fascism of Political Correctness, or the stupidity of Gender and Ethnic Politics, or the impassioned cries about the “unfairness” of America, spring from our institutions of “higher learning”.[/quote]
I hope you’re not clamoring for your kids to get into the top school, lest they be co-opted as well.
June 6, 2010 @ 10:21 PM
“Never speak disrespectfully
“Never speak disrespectfully of Society. Only people who can’t get into it do that”.
Wilde, Oscar
June 9, 2010 @ 12:00 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=DWCAP][quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
I was thinking of the same thing, cept with that local woman who was arrested for purse snaching/theft because she looked like the woman in the photo. Then, a few days later, they find out it isnt her. Does that mean we stop enforing laws about theft because they may arrest and detain someone who is innocent?
There is no such thing as perfection outside of the classrooms in higher academia. If that is our standard, then we are screwed and should stop enforcing any and all laws because someone may be negativly impacted by it and in reality be innocent of whatever charge.[/quote]
DW: Excellent post and spot on. I like your mention of academia as well. Most of the nonsense we now confront as a society, whether its the intellectual fascism of Political Correctness, or the stupidity of Gender and Ethnic Politics, or the impassioned cries about the “unfairness” of America, spring from our institutions of “higher learning”.[/quote]
Sorry guys, but I don’t see it the same way. In the case of murder or theft, a crime is established, allowing police latitude to appropriately question encountered suspects consistent with the “reasonable suspicion” threshold. SB 1070 verbiage of “lawful contact” or even the amended version of “lawful stop, detention or arrest” are unacceptably vague, subject to broad interpretation, and consequently amenable to abuse. Most American are against illegal immigration and amnesty including myself. However, the Libertarian notion against govt infringement upon the rights of US citizens (inc those with brown skin) is extremely seductive and a cornerstone of this great nation. Perhaps it is institutionalized political correctness resulting from higher learning, but my conservative side can draw parallels to the flaws of such laws as the Patriot act and warrantless wiretapping, which many oppose across the political spectrum.
This may be a stretch corollary, but consider the gross error in judgment of Al-Qaeda thinking flying planes into building can somehow damage this great country. The exact opposite happened, as the country united, with patriotism blossoming everywhere. The one weakness discovered through serendipity was that it is possible to indirectly attack this country from within by simply playing on the fears of the leadership (i.e warrantless wiretapping). This is our Achilles Heel.
I also oppose mandatory ID to show proof of citizenship. With all our flaws, we are distinguished from other countries for the very reason that we don’t have to carry IDs. The drivers license example is a poor analogy because driving is a privilege, a voluntary act requiring registration and training. The dmv classifies a car as a deadly weapon similar to a firearm. The same applies to showing ID to purchase liquor. These are self initiated voluntary actions, whereas lawful contact is initiated by the officer forcing the citizen to engage.
June 9, 2010 @ 10:15 AM
Cabal, that was very well
Cabal, that was very well put. I admire and respect your very consistent conservative stance.
June 9, 2010 @ 10:41 AM
I think I agree with Cabal
I think I agree with Cabal that “lawful contact” would permit abuse. That is no longer the text of the law though.
Cabal, can we agree that it is ok to investigate citizenship in the case of “lawful arrest”? Because I believe that’s already the policy in CA, right?
Perhaps even “detention”, if it has a specific legal meaning, would be ok too, right?
I admit “lawful stop” sounds a bit vague. Does that only apply to motor vehicles? If so, check the ID and if no license, investigate further. What about passengers though?…
If “lawful stop” might apply to pedestrians or bystanders, then I now agree that may be too vague and abusable too.
Would making these adjustments alleviate KIBU’s concerns? Well, it seems to me yes and no. You might have the concern of police harrassment alleviated, but the concern about racism would of course not be addressed.
I think it’s important to keep in mind though that perpetrators of racism are not confined to a particular race, political party, or nationality.
For example, wasn’t the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda race-based?
June 9, 2010 @ 10:55 AM
cabal wrote:
I also oppose
[quote=cabal]
I also oppose mandatory ID to show proof of citizenship. With all our flaws, we are distinguished from other countries for the very reason that we don’t have to carry IDs.[/quote]
Not really. Plenty of countries where national ID either does not exist or it is non-compulsory.
[quote=cabal]The drivers license example is a poor analogy because driving is a privilege, a voluntary act requiring registration and training. The dmv classifies a car as a deadly weapon similar to a firearm. The same applies to showing ID to purchase liquor. These are self initiated voluntary actions, whereas lawful contact is initiated by the officer forcing the citizen to engage.[/quote]
It is hard to function with no ID. You can’t drive, you can’t fly, you can’t open a bank account, you can’t buy tobacco or liquor, you can’t get a job, you can’t cash a check, you can’t rent an apartment, you can’t buy a house. At one point or another people gave up some of the freedom, like the freedom to drive a vehicle without a proper license, to balance the consequences of the abuse.
June 9, 2010 @ 11:00 AM
cabal wrote: Perhaps it is
[quote=cabal] Perhaps it is institutionalized political correctness resulting from higher learning, but my conservative side can draw parallels to the flaws of such laws as the Patriot act and warrantless wiretapping, which many oppose across the political spectrum.
[/quote]
Cabal: I’d use your quote above to draw a distinction between conservatism and libertarianism. Quite a few posters here use political terms that they’re wholly unfamiliar with, or that they’ve twisted the meaning of, including Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, etc.
I would blame extremists from both poles, Left and Right, for the incursions into, and gradual destruction of, our civil liberties. Whether its wireless wiretapping and Patriot I/II (the Right) or Political Correctness/Gender Politics/Politics of Ethnicity (the Left), both sides are equally culpable. And before someone responds that Political Correctness hasn’t done irreparable harm, look no further than the complete and total unwillingness to refer to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, as a terrorist, or President Obama’s avoidance of same when calling Islamic Jihadists “individual extremists”. We are now terrified to say or do anything that might potentially give offense, and all in the name of Political Correctness. Those who control the language, control the culture.
This might read as tangential to the issue at hand, but I think its actually central. Whether its the right of free speech or freedom of movement, we now find ourselves inhibited and, to a great extent, cowed. It should also be said, however, that, when it comes to freedoms and liberties, they do apply to citizens. Not excusing any bad behavior on the part of law enforcement regarding non-citizens, but all of this goes back to the fact that we have a completely unworkable immigration system and it needs to change.
June 9, 2010 @ 12:29 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Whether its wireless wiretapping and Patriot I/II (the Right) or Political Correctness/Gender Politics/Politics of Ethnicity (the Left), both sides are equally culpable. [/quote]
Equating “political correctness” to the Patriot Act is quite a stretch.
For one, the Patriot Act is federal law with teeth. The Patriot Act was a full legal assault on civil liberties by the right.
“Political correctness”, whatever that is, simply reflects the social standards of the day.
There has always been “political correctness”. Social mores change organically over time. At one point it was not “socially acceptable” for women to wear mini-skirts. Does that mean that women were cowed into subservience? Some people would say yes.
At one point, kids could make fun of other obese kids and of the “chinks” on the playground. Now, it’s no longer acceptable behavior. “Political correctness” changes over time, on its own.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] We are now terrified to say or do anything that might potentially give offense, and all in the name of Political Correctness. Those who control the language, control the culture.[/quote]
i know that my grandmother (may she rest in peace) would say that we are now much freer to say things that we couldn’t say before.
June 9, 2010 @ 1:08 PM
If the right enacted the law
If the right enacted the law why does the left continue to use it? I agree with Allan. This is the slow erosion of personal privacy under the guise of protection from terrorism. Terrorism can be defined any way you want to. Communists and Fascists, two sides of the same coin and both an anethema to personal liberty.
June 9, 2010 @ 2:39 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:
I agree with
[quote=Zeitgeist]
I agree with Allan. This is the slow erosion of personal privacy under the guise of protection from terrorism. [/quote]
That we can all agree on.
June 9, 2010 @ 3:59 PM
Here is what is going on with
Here is what is going on with the law in Arizona:
“A spokesman for Gov. Jan Brewer says he also heard reports of undocumented Hispanics leaving the state.
‘If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment,’ Paul Senseman said.”
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/09/Law-driving-Hispanics-from-Arizona/UPI-14071276109382/
Unfortunately they will probably arrive in California shortly.
June 9, 2010 @ 4:06 PM
Veritas wrote:Here is what is
[quote=Veritas]Here is what is going on with the law in Arizona:
“A spokesman for Gov. Jan Brewer says he also heard reports of undocumented Hispanics leaving the state.
‘If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment,’ Paul Senseman said.”
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/09/Law-driving-Hispanics-from-Arizona/UPI-14071276109382/
Unfortunately they will probably arrive in California shortly.[/quote]
The undocumented Hispanics coming to California must why Californians on Piggington supported the AZ law. 😉
If I remember well, davelj had it right the most. From an Arizona perspective, the law might (just might) make sense. From a California perspective, the law is just plain wrong.
June 9, 2010 @ 4:14 PM
That will not help CA.
That will not help CA. unemployment or the budget. FYI- Whitman came out against illegal immigrants. We will see what happens.
June 9, 2010 @ 9:42 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would blame extremists from both poles, Left and Right, for the incursions into, and gradual destruction of, our civil liberties. Whether its wireless wiretapping and Patriot I/II (the Right) or Political Correctness/Gender Politics/Politics of Ethnicity (the Left), both sides are equally culpable. And before someone responds that Political Correctness hasn’t done irreparable harm, look no further than the complete and total unwillingness to refer to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, as a terrorist, or President Obama’s avoidance of same when calling Islamic Jihadists “individual extremists”. We are now terrified to say or do anything that might potentially give offense, and all in the name of Political Correctness. Those who control the language, control the culture.
This might read as tangential to the issue at hand, but I think its actually central. Whether its the right of free speech or freedom of movement, we now find ourselves inhibited and, to a great extent, cowed. It should also be said, however, that, when it comes to freedoms and liberties, they do apply to citizens. Not excusing any bad behavior on the part of law enforcement regarding non-citizens, but all of this goes back to the fact that we have a completely unworkable immigration system and it needs to change.[/quote]
Allan – I agree, but would note the following differences. Incursions from the right are usually motivated by fear or economic gain. Incursions from the left typically result from overcorrection of past inequities. Incursions from everywhere else develop from apathy. Debating which one is the lesser evil is pointless. What is relevant and disappointing, is the unwillingness of our elected leaders to address issues for fear of retaliation from special interests and their own one-dimensional constituency. All one has to do is to exhibit courage, be truthful, and understand that true leadership can transcend these factors, as well as the bonds of political correctness. The people are perceptive and hunger for inspiration and a sense of accountability.
The disparity in quality between our Founding Fathers and the politicians of today is beyond measure. You have to ask yourself wtf, is there something in the water, or are they all working in Wall Street writing complicated trading programs. And no, Bo, Bush I/II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter combined do not even come close. Thomas Jefferson has more talent in his a$$hole than these guys have in their entire body.
June 9, 2010 @ 10:01 PM
cabal wrote:
The disparity in
[quote=cabal]
The disparity in quality between our Founding Fathers and the politicians of today is beyond measure. You have to ask yourself wtf, is there something in the water, or are they all working in Wall Street writing complicated trading programs. And no, Bo, Bush I/II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter combined do not even come close. Thomas Jefferson has more talent in his a$$hole than these guys have in their entire body.[/quote]
Cabal: And if our leaders are incompetent, venal and corrupt, well, what does that say about us?
“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Lord Acton. Truer now than ever.
June 21, 2010 @ 5:41 PM
Continuing along the line of
Continuing along the line of corruption:
President Obama is refusing to secure the border until Congress reaches a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said at a recent town hall meeting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/21/kyl-obama-wont-secure-border-lawmakers-immigration-package/
This did not work with Reagan’s amnesty and it will not work now. The Feds are refusing to protect the State from drug gangs, smugglers and illegal aliens.
June 21, 2010 @ 5:55 PM
Zeitgeist wrote: The Feds are
[quote=Zeitgeist] The Feds are refusing to protect the State from drug gangs, smugglers and illegal aliens.[/quote]
The only folks who can protect us against drug gangs are ourselves – by legalizing drugs. The Mexican drug cartels are just being good, hard-nosed capitalists in satisfying our insatiable demand for drugs, yes?
June 21, 2010 @ 5:58 PM
So you are advocating putting
So you are advocating putting cocaine back in coke?
June 21, 2010 @ 6:21 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:So you are
[quote=Zeitgeist]So you are advocating putting cocaine back in coke?[/quote]
If that’s what the people want… who am I to deny it to them? That’s the free market, right?
June 21, 2010 @ 9:34 PM
The FDA would be testing it
The FDA would be testing it for years, but there should be no trouble rounding up people for the trials. They need to go back to cane sugar though. I think it beats the high fructose stuff they sell today,
June 22, 2010 @ 9:20 AM
cabal wrote:Thomas Jefferson
[quote=cabal]Thomas Jefferson has more talent in his a$$hole than these guys have in their entire body.[/quote]
It is said that he was able to fart the melody from Mozart’s “Piano Concerto #1”.
June 22, 2010 @ 9:43 AM
CONCHO wrote:cabal
[quote=CONCHO][quote=cabal]Thomas Jefferson has more talent in his a$$hole than these guys have in their entire body.[/quote]
It is said that he was able to fart the melody from Mozart’s “Piano Concerto #1”.[/quote]
While simultaneously composing doggerel in iambic pentameter.
June 22, 2010 @ 10:14 AM
cabal wrote:
Sorry guys, but
[quote=cabal]
Sorry guys, but I don’t see it the same way. In the case of murder or theft, a crime is established, allowing police latitude to appropriately question encountered suspects consistent with the “reasonable suspicion” threshold. SB 1070 verbiage of “lawful contact” or even the amended version of “lawful stop, detention or arrest” are unacceptably vague, subject to broad interpretation, and consequently amenable to abuse.[/quote]
Perhaps you can tell me alittle more about your views here. I view it along the same lines as if you get stopped for speeding, and they find out you are wanted for theft. They will arrest you, and while you are innocent until proven guilty, they will still detain you until you have your day in court. And as far as I know, it is a crime to be in this country illegally.
And I dont see much room in “lawful stop, detention or arrest”. If the defence can show that it was profiling and not in accorance with estabolished procedures, then the case will be tossed and the police open to lawsuits and centure.
What do you disagree with?
June 6, 2010 @ 3:07 PM
meadandale wrote:briansd1
[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]
Can you paint a plausible nightmare scenario of a citizen detention? How commonplace do you think your scenario might be in comparison with other forms of abusive police behavior that already exist at some non-zero level?[/quote]
I can see American citizens, children of Hispanic immigrants getting arrested and deported because of mistakes. It’s happened before. It’s not an uncommon mistake.[/quote]
We shouldn’t arrest people for murder. Cause, you know, every now and then we’ll arrest the wrong person…and that’s bad, mmmkay?[/quote]
Mead: What’s interesting to note, other than the tortured gyrations of illogic from Brian and his ilk, is the hypocrisy inherent to most of their posts.
On the one hand, incrementalism, as practiced by Obama, is perfectly acceptable and even if, say, healthcare isn’t perfect, well, we can fix it or improve it later. This law, on the other hand, is apparently not only immoral, but so wrong it should be killed out of hand.
Never mind that the US Government has completely dropped the ball and Arizona is exercising its rights as a state to address the problem, let’s also overlook the fact that a large majority of people in this country, not just Arizona, support the law.
June 3, 2010 @ 8:16 PM
KSMountain wrote:Can you lay
[quote=KSMountain]Can you lay out a plausible abuse scenario here? Keep in mind AZ is not going to be anxious to get themselves into false arrest, lawsuit or civil rights violation territory.
You must be talking about a citizen without a drivers license or any other form of ID, right? Your friends don’t have drivers licenses? Even if they didn’t have ID with them, the officer has to have reasonable suspicion the people are not in the country legally before going any further.[/quote]
Why yes, thanks for asking.
“Plausible” (i.e. real) examples:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2010/05/27/us-citizen-detained-by-immigration-authorities-for-looking-mexican/
June 4, 2010 @ 12:02 AM
Well your friends would
Well your friends would probably not be suspected of car theft. It’s quite a distance from your original concern of “my friends will be pulled over for being brown” to this example.
Here’s a link to the source article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/deportation-nightmare-edu_n_588788.html
I admit the Puerto Rico ID situation sounds like a mess. It’s not something I was aware of. It further makes clear the need for tamper-resistant documents.
Note in this case it was the feds, ICE, that held Mr. Carabello. It was not IL state authorities.
I think you’ve indentfied a special case here that would not often occur. But I grant this particular kind of situaton is unacceptable.
I don’t think it was “abuse”, per se. It was an accident, due to a confluence of circumstances, that was corrected after 3 days.
It does suck though, no doubt. Not sure how to handle this case, but also not sure that it justifies throwing out (or mischaracterizing the likely consequences of) the AZ law.
June 4, 2010 @ 12:34 AM
The Boston Terriers refused
The Boston Terriers refused to wear the baseball hats.
June 4, 2010 @ 12:28 PM
KSMountain-
Exactly. US
KSMountain-
Exactly. US Citizens are required to carry DL. You can be detained for any reason law enforcement sees fit, driving or not.
While it is not illegal to not carry ID when not operating a motor vehicle, law enforcement can still detain individual at discretion. Like many, I can relay experiences known of.
The idea that people don’t want to live in a country where you can be stopped and asked for paper work is called Disneyland.
As for issue in Arizona, I have no opinion. Anyone that lives within major cities or bordering state cities knows the issues and what or how little has been done for decades. It’s a mess.
June 5, 2010 @ 12:32 AM
Didn’t want to contribute to
Didn’t want to contribute to this long thread, but anyway, consider this scenario.
A bunch of brown and suspect like persons walking along the Phoenix street in front of Mr. A’s home heading east (or west/north/south for that matter). They do look like illegals to Mr. A. So Mr. A calls 911 to talk to the police and tell them to come to get these illegals. Upon questioning, the police are told what Mr. A believes are attributes of these illegal suspects that match and request the police to come and get these suspects to protect the neighborhood.
My point is that if you are brown and you happen to walk with your friends on any streets in Arizona, with millions of legal binding patriotic Arizonians, you have a good chance to get such a 911 call and a possible police response.
Do you feel safe or welcome? Hell no. Do you enjoy being marginalized, well maybe it wasn’t meant to target you, but the result is the same. You feel like shit and yes, you feel like you are not part of america.
Anyway, I am not hispanic, chicano or mexican. I am just brown skin and just being honest how I feel and not asking anyone to give a shit about it. But perhaps, the image of what is America or American is not as ideal as we all want to believe.
June 5, 2010 @ 8:24 AM
(No subject)
June 3, 2010 @ 6:55 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:I’m
[quote=poorgradstudent]I’m curious how much people on this board would be willing to see their taxes go up in exchange for increased immigration enforcement.[/quote]
Might the expenses to the system (and supposedly then the taxes) actually go down if there were fewer illegal immigrants here (both criminal and law-abiding)?
I realize that’s a complex question that’s been the subject of many studies, and that the answer is not settled.
It seems to me though that it is at a minimum at least *possible* that expenses (even just law enforcement expenses) would go down.
Consider just anti-gang costs, as one example.
June 2, 2010 @ 3:09 PM
briansd1 wrote:davelj
[quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of Arizona’s new law, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to be complaining about it.[/quote]
That’s true. But we are not Mexico.
Connie Mack, Republican of Florida put it well:
[/quote]
What is this guy talking about?
1) No one is arguing FOR a program where cops can walk up to random people on the street and ask ‘where are your papers’. I know alot of people keep arguing AGAINST programs like that, and seem to confuse this with that, but I dont see that anywhere. I am pretty sure most Americans would be against laws like that, so it isnt really an issue.
2) We get asked to see our papers all the time! You wanna board a flight, lets see your papers. Wanna buy alchol, lets see your papers. Wanna buy cigerattes, we need to see papers. Make a CC purchase? Get a ticket speeding? Get a (legal)job? Rent a car? All of them need ‘your papers’.
Just getting ‘your papers’ requires ‘your papers’. You have to give your social security #, to be verified, along with your birthdate and legal name and a THUMB print to get your drivers license.
Hell, you wanna buy a gun, which is your constitutionally protected right? Gotta show your ID, twice. One a drivers license, the other some other state issued ID like a car regestration. Yep, you wanna exercise your constitutional rights, you gotta show your ‘papers’.
I dont understand this aversion to proving government issued documentation of who we are when we do it almost daily. If you are this strongly against ‘show me your papers’, then why are you not already up in arms about the daily invasions of our privacy we already have? If you look to be under 30 you will be carded buying alchol or Tobacco. Isnt that ageism? Is ageism somehow less agreegious than raceism? Is profiling one group and not another ok just becuase the majority of Americans dont fall into that group and wont be inconvienced by it?
Apparently we are not ‘better than that’.
What we need is a standardized ID card issued by the Federal Government to citizens through the state DMV after passing your driving tests. A different card can be issued to minors. The ID system (DaveLj mentioned) already in place is great place to start.
June 1, 2010 @ 2:44 PM
briansd1 wrote:cdesilva44
[quote=briansd1][quote=cdesilva44]
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to the US and she despises illegal immigration even more than I do. He family waited patiently for 19 years in order to get their greencards and come to this country. [/quote]
Sounds like jealousy to me. Your wife’s family waited 19 years so they want people to pay the same dues? That’s not the way it works in life.
A PhD with extraordinary ability, a rock star, a famous entertainer, or a rich businessman, don’t have to wait at all.
Your wife is from the Philippines where there is a long wait. An immigrant from Luxembourg wouldn’t have to wait at all because nobody from there wants to come to America.
If it’s any consolation to your relatives, unauthorized immigrants who have been in this country since 1982 are still waiting in line. If there is an amnesty, it will be for people who have waited for years already.
An amnesty doesn’t mean that people who waited for immigrant visas overseas will have to wait longer.
Take it in stride and look at each issue independently. There’s no need to conflate issues which generate emotional reactions.[/quote]
wow dude, jealousy?
maybe its more like anger at the blatant unfairness of cutting in line.
one line, for everybody. period. anything else shows your own favoritism/racism.
also, there is a huge difference between waiting for legalization inside the country and waiting outside the country. how can you be “waiting in line” to be in america if you are already in america?
June 1, 2010 @ 2:57 PM
jason330i wrote:
one line,
[quote=jason330i]
one line, for everybody. period. anything else shows your own favoritism/racism.
[/quote]
There is currently not just one line. There are many lines, each on of which move faster or slower.
Husband and wives and fiancees have priority.
Parents and minor children have priority.
Different countries of origin have priority, etc…
April 30, 2010 @ 11:49 AM
I don’t know how I feel about
I don’t know how I feel about Arizona’s law, but… I carry around a US passport card all the time (it’s the size of a driver’s license). You have to have a driver’s license to drive, so almost everyone in this country over the age of 16 carries around a driver’s license without much complaint or trouble as it is. If I were living in Mexico, it wouldn’t bother me at all if I were occasionally asked by the police (or whomever) to provide a visa as proof of legal residence. And I would assume that it would happen to me more than others because I look like a gringo. Wouldn’t bother me at all. “Profile away!” in my case for all I care. I just wouldn’t care. But that’s just me. It sure seems like people in our modern society have very fragile sensibilities.
April 30, 2010 @ 11:58 AM
Provocative new video from
Provocative new video from MIA:
http://www.miauk.com/
Discuss.
April 30, 2010 @ 2:32 PM
afx114 wrote:Provocative new
[quote=afx114]Provocative new video from MIA:
http://www.miauk.com/
Discuss.[/quote]
NSFW
April 30, 2010 @ 12:07 PM
davelj wrote:I don’t know how
[quote=davelj]I don’t know how I feel about Arizona’s law, but… I carry around a US passport card all the time (it’s the size of a driver’s license). You have to have a driver’s license to drive, so almost everyone in this country over the age of 16 carries around a driver’s license without much complaint or trouble as it is. If I were living in Mexico, it wouldn’t bother me at all if I were occasionally asked by the police (or whomever) to provide a visa as proof of legal residence. And I would assume that it would happen to me more than others because I look like a gringo. Wouldn’t bother me at all. “Profile away!” in my case for all I care. I just wouldn’t care. But that’s just me. It sure seems like people in our modern society have very fragile sensibilities.[/quote]
Everytime I go to TJ they try to take a picture of me with a painted donkey on Revolution and then scurry me to the Coahuila . I guess it does depend on your sensibilities, but I hate racial profiling.
April 30, 2010 @ 12:54 PM
CONCHO wrote:The choice is
[quote=CONCHO]The choice is simple.
If you are for uncontrolled immigration, open the border immediately and give automatic right of residence to every person that steps across. Hundreds of people die each year crossing, countless families are torn apart because only one or two members can make the trip. Register everyone, enroll them in school, teach them to read and write English or Spanish (many are illiterate), and help them find work.
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
I think a lot of people like the current system because it provides a huge supply of desperate people willing to work in poor conditions for low pay. Many people on both sides of this debate have no issues with hiring undocumented maids or gardeners and paying them in cash.
Amnesty for those already here is probably a good short-term salve, but it is not a fix, it is not a solution.[/quote]
BS
What you do is stop the problem at the border. Build a fence and place adequate numbers of BP to stop the problem in it’s tracks.
Then just go after people and companies who employ illegal workers (a fairly small # I suspect).
Turning Arizona into more of a Police State than it already is not the answer.
And let’s be honest, racism DOES play a part in SB1070.
April 30, 2010 @ 1:22 PM
paramount, sorry you missed
paramount, sorry you missed this part of my post:
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
Again, I was simply saying that there are two choices:
1) Get rid of the border and let everyone across regardless of status
2) Beef up the border so that people can’t get across without proper paperwork, and if they somehow manage to then send them back home.
That’s it, end of story.
April 30, 2010 @ 5:21 PM
CONCHO wrote:paramount, sorry
[quote=CONCHO]paramount, sorry you missed this part of my post:
If you are not for this option, then enforcement of immmigration and border law is necessary.
Again, I was simply saying that there are two choices:
1) Get rid of the border and let everyone across regardless of status
2) Beef up the border so that people can’t get across without proper paperwork, and if they somehow manage to then send them back home.
That’s it, end of story.[/quote]
How about a third option.
Some border control (but not so much that we force people into the deserts, the cayotes accept some arrests but make their profit)
Some internal enforcement (but not so much that employers start profiling job applicants), We will deport a few “examples” Kind of like Chinese authorities confiscating and burning a few 100K CD/DVD to demonstrate how serious they are about media piracy.
Things are lax enough that people crossing the border will actually risk going home for holidays and less of them try to bring family over (I personaly know illegal immigrants who brought family over permanantly becuase it was so hard for them to go back and forth. I fact they never return to Mexico because returning is so hard)
I do suspect that once Pete Wilson let the ginie out of the bottle back in the mid 80s there is no returning “to the good old days”. Like no getting rid of organized crime after legalizing alchohol. I think that NAFTA and farm subsidies in this country decimating Mexican, Central American small farmers alos has permanantly changed things.
MadeInTaiwan
May 4, 2010 @ 10:24 PM
MadeInTaiwan wrote:I do
[quote=MadeInTaiwan]I do suspect that once Pete Wilson let the ginie out of the bottle back in the mid 80s there is no returning “to the good old days”. Like no getting rid of organized crime after legalizing alchohol. I think that NAFTA and farm subsidies in this country decimating Mexican, Central American small farmers alos has permanantly changed things.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but your analogy is strange. It was actually banning alcohol that created organized crime, the same way marijuana’s quasi-legal status funds drug cartels. Organized crime has been crashing and burning in the past couple decades, partially because no one is willing to go to jail for several decades for the family any more. You get pinched? Just rat out the guys above you on the chain and you’ll get a slap on the wrist.
I’m anti-corn subsidies for totally different reasons, mostly that the laws are written to try to benefit family farms but end up going to corporations and do little to increase public health.
April 29, 2010 @ 8:43 PM
More political emotional
More political emotional Kabuki. Remember that Elian Gonzalez was an illegal immigrant, oh sorry, *refugee from our enemy Castro*. Wonder if all those people who applaud the AZ law would want to keep him this time? Or his mom?
April 29, 2010 @ 8:57 PM
I am a legal imigrant, have
I am a legal imigrant, have green card and am brown. New law tells me, do not bother crossing into Arizona state Border or expect harrasment. I will stay out of Arizona and hope I will be able to manage with the rest of the 47 + states.
So ridiculous, half or more of the cops in Arizona are of Hispanic or Native American origin. They are not going to hassle you because of your skin color because of this law. This law just says that if you are driving a beat up truck with 10 guys in the back that have no papers and can’t speak any English, you’re gonna have some explaining to do.
Try hanging out in any foreign country in the world without producing papers on demand from the authorities and see how well you do. I’ve worked in Mexico and I had to have papers to do so.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:16 PM
CONCHO wrote:I am a legal
[quote=CONCHO]I am a legal imigrant, have green card and am brown. New law tells me, do not bother crossing into Arizona state Border or expect harrasment. I will stay out of Arizona and hope I will be able to manage with the rest of the 47 + states.
So ridiculous, half or more of the cops in Arizona are of Hispanic or Native American origin. They are not going to hassle you because of your skin color because of this law. This law just says that if you are driving a beat up truck with 10 guys in the back that have no papers and can’t speak any English, you’re gonna have some explaining to do.
Try hanging out in any foreign country in the world without producing papers on demand from the authorities and see how well you do. I’ve worked in Mexico and I had to have papers to do so.[/quote]
Yeah but nobody in an illegal immigrant community will ever call the cops again.
People come here because they don’t want to have to show papers everywhere they go.
I have traveled to over 40 countries in my life and the reason I still live here is the freedom to not be fucked with.
Our social services are shit compared to most of the western world.
However, our chances to grow and succeed are greater and I think Arizona just took a step away from that.
On the other side, it’s just AZ. Ergo nobody really gives that much of a shit (nor should they).
I have filled out I9’s many times while translating and looking at docs that I am certain were fakes. All those dudes were paying taxes on every dollar they made and not one filed for a refund (for any of the four jobs they had). I think that is part of the reason that the feds don’t consider this a big issue.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:57 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
However,
[quote=urbanrealtor]
However, our chances to grow and succeed are greater and I think Arizona just took a step away from that.
On the other side, it’s just AZ. Ergo nobody really gives that much of a shit (nor should they).
[/quote]
Your thinking is ass backwards. Unemployment amongst the poor is around 30%. As a result of the new law, illegal immigrants are already leaving Arizona (probably for California) because no one will take the risk of hiring them. This means there will be more jobs in Arizona for legal residents of Arizona who are currently unemployed. In turn, there will be less people in Arizona on welfare or unemployment.
I think Arizona just took a big step forward in helping it’s citizens.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:49 PM
IForget wrote:urbanrealtor
[quote=IForget][quote=urbanrealtor]
However, our chances to grow and succeed are greater and I think Arizona just took a step away from that.
On the other side, it’s just AZ. Ergo nobody really gives that much of a shit (nor should they).
[/quote]
Your thinking is ass backwards. Unemployment amongst the poor is around 30%. As a result of the new law, illegal immigrants are already leaving Arizona (probably for California) because no one will take the risk of hiring them. This means there will be more jobs in Arizona for legal residents of Arizona who are currently unemployed. In turn, there will be less people in Arizona on welfare or unemployment.
I think Arizona just took a big step forward in helping it’s citizens.[/quote]
And you base those assertions of emigration from AZ to CA on what?
Most illegals I have known are relatively resilient in the face of such downturns. They usually have multiple jobs.
If what you were saying were true, then we would see illegals heading south in large numbers.
We are currently not seeing that.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:56 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:
And you
[quote=urbanrealtor]
And you base those assertions of emigration from AZ to CA on what?
Most illegals I have known are relatively resilient in the face of such downturns. They usually have multiple jobs.
If what you were saying were true, then we would see illegals heading south in large numbers.
We are currently not seeing that.[/quote]
After a historic immigration wave, many Mexicans and other Latin Americans are preparing to return to their homelands amid the deepening recession here. Mexicans who reside in the U.S. sought Mexican citizenship for their U.S.-born children in record numbers last year.
Unemployment Hits Hispanics
The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008 compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier, according to the report by the Pew Hispanic Center. Read the report.
The recession is hitting Hispanic immigrants especially hard, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization. The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier. During the same period, the unemployment rate for all U.S. workers climbed to 6.5% from 4.6%.
“There is strong evidence that inflows to the U.S. from Mexico have diminished, and the economic distress is likely giving immigrants already here greater incentive to return home,” says Rakesh Kochhar, the Pew economist who prepared the report.
The number of people caught trying to sneak into the U.S. along the border with Mexico is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. While some of the drop-off is the result of stricter border enforcement, the weaker U.S. economy is likely the main deterrent. Border Patrol agents apprehended 705,000 people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in the 12 months that ended Sept. 30. That is down from 858,638 a year before and from 1.1 million two years earlier.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123446646016878579.html
April 29, 2010 @ 11:18 PM
CA renter wrote:urbanrealtor
[quote=CA renter][quote=urbanrealtor]
And you base those assertions of emigration from AZ to CA on what?
Most illegals I have known are relatively resilient in the face of such downturns. They usually have multiple jobs.
If what you were saying were true, then we would see illegals heading south in large numbers.
We are currently not seeing that.[/quote]
After a historic immigration wave, many Mexicans and other Latin Americans are preparing to return to their homelands amid the deepening recession here. Mexicans who reside in the U.S. sought Mexican citizenship for their U.S.-born children in record numbers last year.
Unemployment Hits Hispanics
The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008 compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier, according to the report by the Pew Hispanic Center. Read the report.
The recession is hitting Hispanic immigrants especially hard, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization. The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a year earlier. During the same period, the unemployment rate for all U.S. workers climbed to 6.5% from 4.6%.
“There is strong evidence that inflows to the U.S. from Mexico have diminished, and the economic distress is likely giving immigrants already here greater incentive to return home,” says Rakesh Kochhar, the Pew economist who prepared the report.
The number of people caught trying to sneak into the U.S. along the border with Mexico is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. While some of the drop-off is the result of stricter border enforcement, the weaker U.S. economy is likely the main deterrent. Border Patrol agents apprehended 705,000 people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in the 12 months that ended Sept. 30. That is down from 858,638 a year before and from 1.1 million two years earlier.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123446646016878579.html%5B/quote%5D
Okay.
But that article seems to address the decreased demand for initial crossing and the increased willingness for legal immigrants to go home.
The former is not surprising (for obvious reasons) and the latter is not surprising considering most legal immigrants do not risk much by leaving the US temporarily.
However, it does not appear to suggest that illegals are heading south (which was my point).
In fact, it states that there are assertions to the
contrary.
But, in all fairness metrics on this are hard to obtain and analyze. Most of my info is anecdotal.
But it is pervasive.
April 29, 2010 @ 11:13 PM
People come here because they
People come here because they don’t want to have to show papers everywhere they go.
Actually 90% of our immigrants from south of the border are coming here because we destroyed their country with NAFTA. Also, our appetite for illegal drugs has also f***ed their country up something awful and is contributing to this as well. Why does no one stop and think about why this is happening now? We have had a huge unprotected border with Mexico forever, but for some reason starting in the 1990s, people are having to leave their families and risk life and limb to come here. Oh yeah, NAFTA forced Mexico to accept our El Cheapo US-government subsidized agricultural products, thus wiping out their agriculture sector so that it could be taken over by ConAgra and a couple of other giant transnational concerns.
Whoops, sorry, I forgot this is a black and white issue. Either you’re a racist and for controlling the border or you’re a good person who’s against it. Since I’m a good person I guess I’ll be against it then. I fully support the elimination of all borders and the free movement of people everywhere.
April 29, 2010 @ 11:21 PM
CONCHO wrote:People come here
[quote=CONCHO]People come here because they don’t want to have to show papers everywhere they go.
Actually 90% of our immigrants from south of the border are coming here because we destroyed their country with NAFTA. Also, our appetite for illegal drugs has also f***ed their country up something awful and is contributing to this as well. Why does no one stop and think about why this is happening now? We have had a huge unprotected border with Mexico forever, but for some reason starting in the 1990s, people are having to leave their families and risk life and limb to come here. Oh yeah, NAFTA forced Mexico to accept our El Cheapo US-government subsidized agricultural products, thus wiping out their agriculture sector so that it could be taken over by ConAgra and a couple of other giant transnational concerns.
Whoops, sorry, I forgot this is a black and white issue. Either you’re a racist and for controlling the border or you’re a good person who’s against it. Since I’m a good person I guess I’ll be against it then. I fully support the elimination of all borders and the free movement of people everywhere.[/quote]
Since the thread was framed as a binary, yeah it is kind of black and white. (brown and white?)_
April 29, 2010 @ 11:25 PM
Are you saying that
Are you saying that US-government subsidized agricultural products are so cheap that it’s cheaper to grow stuff in the U.S. with our $8/hour minimum wage, than to do same south of the border where $1/hour is good money?
April 29, 2010 @ 11:38 PM
Hi Eugene, American
Hi Eugene, American agriculture is petroleum and machine-intensive. Very few people are involved, it is mostly machines and chemicals. Mexican agriculture, pre-NAFTA was labor-intensive, with lots of people doing the work. What NAFTA did in Mexico was similar to the change that happened here in the US in the 1930s. In your history books you’re taught that the Dust Bowl caused the great Western migration from the center of the USA, but in fact it was the Dust Bowl and the introduction of mechanized agriculture and petroleum-based fertilizer. Mexican agriculture is now much the same as American. Mexico agreed to NAFTA because we told them that their displaced farm workers would have jobs in the new maquiladoras. What we didn’t tell them was that those jobs would go away as soon as we could find somewhere cheaper to make those goods, now most of those jobs have gone to China.
To make a long story short, NAFTA forced the Mexican farmworkers off the land and made them unemployed. The smartest and most capable were able to find work for a few years in maquiladoras, and now most of those are closing down and moving operations to China. So they have no place to go but north. It is a tremendous human tragedy with no end in sight.
We are all going to end up as slaves if this continues.
April 29, 2010 @ 11:36 PM
I have to agree with Concho’s
I have to agree with Concho’s Nafta statements. If you read about Haiti, we did some destroying of their economy, too, to support our rice farmers and pig farmers. I am not my country right or wrong and I admit when we are wrong. In so many ways we embody the best and the worst of all cultures. IMO Arizona will not do much with this law, but they are getting a lot of press and it will force the hand of the Federal government which might have been their intention all along. Unfortunately ever since we broke up the Arellano Felix cartel we opened the floodgates for an all out gang war that the country seems unable to control. I wish Congress had been as interested in immigration and streamlining the system as they were in health care. Immigration is a much more pressing problem.
April 29, 2010 @ 11:39 PM
U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to
U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to Damage Mexico
The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.
Prepared in advance of critical trade talks next month, the report by Oxfam International argues that the subsidies given American corn farmers allow them to sell their grain at prices far below what it costs to produce. That has led to cheap American corn flooding the Mexican market and pushing the poorest Mexican farmers out of business, the report said.
”There is a direct link between government agricultural policies in the U.S. and rural misery in Mexico,” according to the report entitled, ”Dumping Without Borders: How U.S. agricultural policies are destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2916078
April 30, 2010 @ 12:34 AM
That sounds like just the
That sounds like just the kind of problem that would’ve been fixed by an exchange rate adjustment if it were real.
If the American agricultural output is too cheap, and that keeps poor Mexican farmers out of work … why, that’s easily fixed by natural free-market mechanisms: simply let the peso devalue and you’re done.
If the peso is devalued all the way to the point where there’s no current account deficit, and poor Mexican farmers are still out of work … that means that former farmers must find new jobs, because their former occupations no longer make sense in the global economy.
Mexico has too many people in agriculture, by modern standards: 14% (source: CIA factbook), as opposed to such post-industrial agri-countries like New Zealand (7%) or Netherlands (2%).
April 29, 2010 @ 11:25 PM
Oaxaca seceded from Mexico?
Oaxaca seceded from Mexico? Texas would be proud!
April 30, 2010 @ 6:58 AM
afx114 wrote:Oaxaca seceded
[quote=afx114]Oaxaca seceded from Mexico? Texas would be proud![/quote]
Yeah but have you ever heard a Oaxacan accent?
Its weirder than a Scotsman speaking Spanish.
April 30, 2010 @ 7:52 AM
Do any of you pro-amnesty,
Do any of you pro-amnesty, anti-American zealots support illegal immigrants with your own money? Or do you just want to force me to do it with my tax dollars?
April 30, 2010 @ 9:20 AM
IForget wrote:Do any of you
[quote=IForget]Do any of you pro-amnesty, anti-American zealots support illegal immigrants with your own money? Or do you just want to force me to do it with my tax dollars?[/quote]
Name names, please. Are you sure pro-amnesty is anti-American? Or is it all about what you perceive happening to your pocket book?… I thought so. To me it is American to be honest. What do you think it means?
April 30, 2010 @ 9:39 AM
IForget wrote:Do any of you
[quote=IForget]Do any of you pro-amnesty, anti-American zealots support illegal immigrants with your own money? Or do you just want to force me to do it with my tax dollars?[/quote]
I am a proud American (who pays a lot in taxes) and considering that most illegals I have met (which are many) pay taxes, I don’t think your whiny complaints really make any sense.
Also, I don’t don’t really understand the label of zealot. It seems like you just say that to anyone who disagrees with you.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:21 PM
Nobody from Mexico should be
Nobody from Mexico should be complaining about this law. Mexicans may be the worst abusers of migrants in the world. They also have very tough laws that make getting visas equivalent to H1B or citizenship after marriage very difficult.
From the AI report issued yesterday about Mexico:
Kidnappings of migrants, mainly for ransom, reached new heights in 2009, with the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) reporting that nearly 10,000 were abducted over six months and almost half of interviewed victims saying that public officials were involved in their kidnapping.
An estimated six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence, allegedly prompting some people smugglers to demand that women receive contraceptive injections ahead of the journey, to avoid them falling pregnant as a result of rape.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/widespread-abuse-migrants-mexico-human-rights-crisis-2010-04-27
April 29, 2010 @ 9:30 PM
bubble: I don’t really care
bubble: I don’t really care what Mexican laws are, this is the United States of America not Mexico.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:52 PM
paramount wrote:bubble: I
[quote=paramount]bubble: I don’t really care what Mexican laws are, this is the United States of America not Mexico.[/quote]
Exactly. And we have laws against illegal immigrants. If you don’t like those laws, go live in Mexico.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:00 PM
IForget wrote:paramount
[quote=IForget][quote=paramount]bubble: I don’t really care what Mexican laws are, this is the United States of America not Mexico.[/quote]
Exactly. And we have laws against illegal immigrants. If you don’t like those laws, go live in Mexico.[/quote]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
BTW we also have a Constitution you dick head.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:01 PM
paramount wrote:
IForget:
[quote=paramount]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
We also have a Constitution you dick head.[/quote]
We sure do. And the Arizona law was carefully designed to not run afoul of that Constitution.
If you don’t like the new Arizona law, you should try convincing people that it is bad through logical arguments as opposed to juvenile Internet gangsterism.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:26 PM
IForget wrote:paramount
[quote=IForget][quote=paramount]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
We also have a Constitution you dick head.[/quote]
We sure do. And the Arizona law was carefully designed to not run afoul of that Constitution.
If you don’t like the new Arizona law, you should try convincing people that it is bad through logical arguments as opposed to juvenile Internet gangsterism.[/quote]
You are the moron resorting to internet antagonism you stupid troll – telling me if I don’t like something to move to Mexico. Screw you jerk.
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else. The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.
Arizona is a state of right wing extremists. Arizona is as red as the red in the Nazi Swastika flag.
SB1070 is nothing more than a form of Apartheid, plain and simple.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:44 PM
paramount wrote:
You are the
[quote=paramount]
You are the moron resorting to internet antagonism you stupid troll – telling me if I don’t like something to move to Mexico. Screw you jerk.
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else.
[/quote]
My goodness. You truly are clueless about civics. SB1070 has already been passed and is in fact a law on the books in Arizona. It will surely be challenged in the courts, but, unlike most every other immigration bill, it was actually drafted to withstand a Constitutional challenge. Most other immigration bills will intentionally include language that the drafters know will cause the bill to be declared unconstitutional (example: prohibiting illegal immigrants from renting apartments)
[quote=paramount]
The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.
Arizona is a state of right wing extremists. Arizona is as red as the red in the Nazi Swastika flag.
SB1070 is nothing more than a form of Apartheid, plain and simple.[/quote]
The rest of what you say is just ridiculous hyperbole. The bill merely gives Arizona police officers the right to do what the federales can already do.
You should be rejoicing though. Arizona’s loss of illegal immigrants will likely be California’s gain. Soon life in California will be indistinguishable from life in Mexico. We are all looking forward with anticipation to that day.
April 29, 2010 @ 10:48 PM
paramount wrote:
SB1070 will
[quote=paramount]
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else. The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.[/quote]
Would you be more comfortable if that law required peace officers to enquire ALL people about their immigration status, as opposed just those “where reasonable suspicion exists”? Would that be less Nazi?
April 29, 2010 @ 10:51 PM
paramount wrote:IForget
[quote=paramount][quote=IForget][quote=paramount]
IForget: Please send me a PM and I’ll tell you where to go and it isn’t hell.
We also have a Constitution you dick head.[/quote]
We sure do. And the Arizona law was carefully designed to not run afoul of that Constitution.
If you don’t like the new Arizona law, you should try convincing people that it is bad through logical arguments as opposed to juvenile Internet gangsterism.[/quote]
You are the moron resorting to internet antagonism you stupid troll – telling me if I don’t like something to move to Mexico. Screw you jerk.
SB1070 will never become law because it is clearly a violation of the constitution – and as much about racism as anything else. The only way to enforce this law is through racial profiling, clearly a violation.
Arizona is a state of right wing extremists. Arizona is as red as the red in the Nazi Swastika flag.
SB1070 is nothing more than a form of Apartheid, plain and simple.[/quote]
You two are adorable.
April 30, 2010 @ 6:10 PM
Well I’ve boycotted All
Well I’ve boycotted All Things Arizona for at least two years now. This just adds to the reasons why.
May 1, 2010 @ 9:46 AM
For any U.S. Citizen who
For any U.S. Citizen who feels like he needs to carry a proof of U.S. Citizenship but does not want to lug around birth certificate or a passport book, there is a driver license like card issued by U.S. State department.
—————————————————-
Purpose
The new wallet-size U.S. Passport Card is a travel document that can be used to enter the United States from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda at land border crossings or sea ports-of-entry. Note that it cannot be used for international air travel. The passport card is more convenient and less expensive than a passport book.
Validity and Cost
The U.S. Passport Card has the same period of validity as the U.S. Passport Book: 10 years for an adult and 5 years for minors under age 16. The card costs $45 for a first-time adult passport applicant and $35 for all minor applicants under age 16, regardless of whether they are previous passport book or card holders. Adults who already have a fully valid passport book may apply for the card as a passport renewal by mail for a cost of only $20.
How to Apply
U.S. citizens, whether or not they have a passport book, may apply for a passport card. Note that passport cards cannot be shipped using overnight delivery. All passport cards will be returned using First Class Mail.
If you currently have or previously had a U.S. passport book, you might be able to apply for a passport card by mail. Note that in this scenario you will use a passport renewal form (DS-82) even if you’re applying for your first passport card.
If you have never had a passport book, or you do not meet the requirements to apply by mail using Form DS-82, you may apply for a passport card in person using Form DS-11.
Security
To increase speed, efficiency, and security at U.S. land and sea border crossings, the passport card contains a vicinity-read radio frequency identification (RFID) chip. This chip points to a stored record in secure government databases. There is no personal information written to the RFID chip itself.
With RFID technology, Customs and Border Protection inspectors will be able to access photographs and other biographical information stored in secure government databases as the traveler approaches an inspection station.
The passport card uses state-of-the-art security features to prevent against the possibility of counterfeiting and forgery. In addition, a protective, RFID-blocking sleeve is provided with each passport card to protect against unauthorized reading or tracking of the card when it is not in use.
History
We began production of the U.S. Passport Card on July 14, 2008, and to date have issued over 1 million cards. Processing times are similar to those of a passport book.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3926.html
May 1, 2010 @ 1:09 PM
What about babies where one
What about babies where one parent is American and one is from another country? What citizenship should that child have?
And, if the law were to become that children born in the US to non-US citizens are not US citizens, can you imagine the resulting smorgasboard of free slap-n-tickle to American males (from foreign-born females)?
Bet that would cause the failure of many an American marriage…
May 1, 2010 @ 2:26 PM
Borders are so passe
Borders are so passe
May 1, 2010 @ 2:50 PM
svelte wrote:What about
[quote=svelte]What about babies where one parent is American and one is from another country? What citizenship should that child have?
And, if the law were to become that children born in the US to non-US citizens are not US citizens, can you imagine the resulting smorgasboard of free slap-n-tickle to American males (from foreign-born females)?
Bet that would cause the failure of many an American marriage…[/quote]
IMHO, if a child is born to an American citizen (even if the other parent is not a citizen), then the child should be a U.S. citizen. A DNA test should be required.
We already have plenty of peole who marry a U.S. citizen to gain citizenship. From the stories I hear, it’s still a difficult process because they try to thoroughly verify that the couple is “legitimately” married.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:35 AM
CA renter wrote:IMHO, if a
[quote=CA renter]IMHO, if a child is born to an American citizen (even if the other parent is not a citizen), then the child should be a U.S. citizen. A DNA test should be required.[/quote]
A DNA test? The presumption in all cases that I know of is that the husband of a married couple is the father of the child. Besides, in this day and age, due to in vitro fertilization and other techniques, the parents may or may not be biologically related to the child but it doesn’t make them any less their child.
I also personally don’t know of any country that denies citizenship to children of citizens even if one parent is not a citizen.
May 2, 2010 @ 10:04 AM
looking wrote: ….in this
[quote=looking] ….in this day and age, due to in vitro fertilization and other techniques, the parents may or may not be biologically related to the child but it doesn’t make them any less their child….[/quote]
Exception… rule… What CA Renter suggested works for 99% of cases.
May 1, 2010 @ 4:38 PM
The simple fact, is that we
The simple fact, is that we do not have enough money to solve the third worlds problems. Those here illegally should be deported. That includes white Europeans and Canadians before you start with the racist BS. And yes, if it takes ID’s and I have to be stopped and asked to show ID from time to time to prove I belong here, then that is the price we have to pay to secure our borders.
An immigrant is a person who has gone through the immigration process and immigrated. We are talking about people who have illegally entered our country and are breaking our laws. Until recently these people were referred to as illegal aliens …
The real shame is that I love the Mexican and South American people and hate to be put in the position of pay up or you are a racist. I am also horrified when I hear the press bantering about how they are willing to do the jobs that White, Asian or Black Americans will not, as though they are second class people. That kind of statement is truly racist.
What we need to be doing is helping their economies grow and prosper, not killing ours.
May 4, 2010 @ 6:11 AM
I don’t understand the
I don’t understand the confusion on this new law. Great care has been taken to ensure that people are NOT randomly stopped or checked for I.D. Only in the course of normal police work would it be discovered if someone is here illegaly.
If you think about it, it’s a brilliant crime deturent. Realize that many illegals cross the border with the intent to commit a crime because they know that they will get exceptional health care in prison. I for one am tired of seeing my tax dollars squandered on inmate health care.
Wake up people
June 1, 2010 @ 2:19 PM
‘We didn’t cross the border,
‘We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us’
June 1, 2010 @ 3:10 PM
here is my comprehensive
here is my comprehensive immigration reform plan, get your stones ready:
1. do whatever it takes to stop the flow of illegal immigration at all borders and ports. by all means, militarize our borders.
2. enlist an independent group to measure the number of illegal crossings.
3. demonstrate for a minimum of 3 consecutive years that illegal crossing have been reduced by 95%.
4. during this min 3yr period, illegals are still illegal. deportations, employer verifications, etc. will continue.
5. for every year the number of illegal crossings have not been reduced 95%, another year will be added to the demonstration period.
6. once the 3 consecutive years have been demonstrated, the remaining illegals will pay fines, back of the line, etc. and get a permanent visa.
7. there has to be a consequence for sneaking in the country, no citizenship.
8. directly correlate the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country with the number of illegal immigrants entering. so if 100 illegals enter from china, then that’s 100 less legal immigrants from china allowed.
so eventually everyone gets what they want.
stupid idea?
June 1, 2010 @ 7:47 PM
jason330i wrote:here is my
[/quote]
[quote=jason330i]here is my comprehensive immigration reform plan, get your stones ready:
6. once the 3 consecutive years have been demonstrated, the remaining illegals will pay fines, back of the line, etc. and get a permanent visa.
Here’s my problem with the back of line concept.
If back of the line is the solution, does everybody that wants to come in, get to come in and go to the back of the line?
Think about it. There are people waiting, outside of our country, for years. If you say those that have come here illegally get to stay while they wait for the back of the line, then the fair thing is for anybody that wants in to be allowed in while they wait. That’s just no good, IMHO.
Bust the employers, deport the illegals and increase legal immigration.
In fact, let the illegals know they get ‘amnesty’ of three months to get out, then if they’re caught after that, they can’t even apply for 10 years.
June 2, 2010 @ 6:57 AM
no_such_reality
[/quote]
[quote=no_such_reality][quote=jason330i]here is my comprehensive immigration reform plan, get your stones ready:
6. once the 3 consecutive years have been demonstrated, the remaining illegals will pay fines, back of the line, etc. and get a permanent visa.
Here’s my problem with the back of line concept.
If back of the line is the solution, does everybody that wants to come in, get to come in and go to the back of the line?
Think about it. There are people waiting, outside of our country, for years. If you say those that have come here illegally get to stay while they wait for the back of the line, then the fair thing is for anybody that wants in to be allowed in while they wait. That’s just no good, IMHO.
[/quote]
understood and you are right. i tried to make the same point earlier.
but this is part of my compromise. something that needs to get done to get the pro-amnesty crowd to buy in.
also wanted to add this:
9. as part of my immigration plan, since we are giving millions of permanent visas, we must have zero tolerance for illegal immigration from now on. this includes changing the 14th amendment so that in order to be a citizen, you must be born in the usa (or territory) and must be born to at least one us citizen parent.
June 2, 2010 @ 8:11 AM
Does “zero tolerance for
Does “zero tolerance for illegal immigration” also mean deportation of employers who hire illegals? Just curious.
June 2, 2010 @ 9:23 AM
afx114 wrote:Does “zero
[quote=afx114]Does “zero tolerance for illegal immigration” also mean deportation of employers who hire illegals? Just curious.[/quote]
no, just take their money and jail time.
don’t like my plan?
June 2, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
Cheap Labor
Supply
Cheap Labor
Supply
Demand
Money does not recognize borders and you will never be able to legislate it away or put a wall up to stop it.
The ongoing collapse of global imbalances will take care of the problem, eventually, and bring a whole bunch of new ones. Between now and then this issue will bring out the worst in people as we try to fix symptoms
June 2, 2010 @ 1:02 PM
Arraya wrote:Cheap
[quote=Arraya]Cheap Labor
Supply
Demand
Money does not recognize borders and you will never be able to legislate it away or put a wall up to stop it.
The ongoing collapse of global imbalances will take care of the problem, eventually, and bring a whole bunch of new ones. Between now and then this issue will bring out the worst in people as we try to fix symptoms[/quote]
I think you summed it up pretty well.
We now live in a globalized economy and we need easy legal movement of labor. And as Arraya pointed out, if legal means are not available, money doesn’t care about borders.
I was just talking to an Italian guy who works for Procter and Gamble in Cincinnati. He’s worked all over the world on branding for them. P&G is not a high-tech company, but they employ talent from around the world.
The multinationals are not just American companies, they are global companies.
June 2, 2010 @ 1:59 PM
Securing the border
[img_assist|nid=13392|title=Securing the border|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=300]
June 2, 2010 @ 2:10 PM
Aecetia wrote:Securing the
[quote=Aecetia][img_assist|nid=13392|title=Securing the border|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=300][/quote]
That’s a lot of Chupacabras !
June 3, 2010 @ 6:32 PM
Russell wrote:Aecetia
[quote=Russell][quote=Aecetia][img_assist|nid=13392|title=Securing the border|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=300][/quote]
That’s a lot of Chupacabras ![/quote]
Ha! Love it!
Unfortunately, Beagles are British. 🙂
June 1, 2010 @ 8:16 PM
jason330i wrote:
8. directly
[quote=jason330i]
8. directly correlate the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country with the number of illegal immigrants entering. so if 100 illegals enter from china, then that’s 100 less legal immigrants from china allowed.
so eventually everyone gets what they want.
stupid idea?[/quote]
This idea is pure in logic as well as well as intent which is why the government will never even consider it.
June 2, 2010 @ 9:26 AM
Jim Jones wrote:jason330i
[quote=Jim Jones][quote=jason330i]
8. directly correlate the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country with the number of illegal immigrants entering. so if 100 illegals enter from china, then that’s 100 less legal immigrants from china allowed.
so eventually everyone gets what they want.
stupid idea?[/quote]
This idea is pure in logic as well as well as intent which is why the government will never even consider it.[/quote]
That’s an interesting concept but that would mean basing laws and policy on statistics, not actual census count.
June 3, 2010 @ 10:12 AM
Jason330:
You’re a genius and
Jason330:
You’re a genius and I mean it! Too bad we all know the politicians will NEVER do anything similar to what you proposed, which actually makes sense.
June 3, 2010 @ 1:31 PM
I agree, brilliant idea flu.
I agree, brilliant idea flu.
June 2, 2010 @ 6:28 PM
Current Federal requires that
Current Federal requires that all green card holders, and visitors with a visa, have the card or visa in their posession at all times.
The “papers” requirement for legal immigrants is not new. The problem is that we have 12 to 20 million illegals without any sort of “papers”. Our ignoring the problem until it becomes untenable in the border states it whats at issue. No one trusts the government to come up with a non-political solution – hispanics vote 3 to 1 democratic.
June 3, 2010 @ 9:26 AM
Actually, I think the
Actually, I think the approach to solving illegal immigration is all wrong and won’t be effective in it’s current state, because the risk to reward of being here illegally is still skewed to reward.
If the a state really wants to solve the illegal immigration issue, they need a tactic that specifically de-incentivize (no such word, I know) coming here…It it all boils down to economics and money.
Here’s an idea of what a state could do…On all goods/services purchased in the state, add a 15% sales tax surcharge to everything.
At the end of the year, when you file your state taxes, you can apply for a rebate on that 15% sales tax surcharge. Folks that would be eligible for this rebate would be
1)Anyone with a SSN or with a valid visa# for the dates of the receipt.
2)Anyone with a valid traveling visa and copy of passport showing entry/exit date. Only receipts dated for those travel dates would be eligible.
As side benefits,
1)The state would be getting a deferred loan from people
2)The state could pay an low interest rate on the rebate (lower rate than bonds)…At least it might force consuming americans to save a bit (they get a nice check at the end of the year)
3)It would create an economic hardship on anyone who wasn’t authorized to be here. And if someone did manage to use someone else’s SSN, at least they would have to be paying taxes, since the only way to get it back is to file a state tax return..
4)It would create more government jobs, because this system would be very involved to create (technology) and administer(people fufilling the rebates).
5)The state would still come out ahead, because I’m sure several people would forget to keep the receipts to everything they purchase. (How many people forget to turn in their rebate claim form on time)?
No need for more border patrols, building walls,etc.
June 3, 2010 @ 8:13 PM
flu wrote:Actually, I think
[quote=flu]Actually, I think the approach to solving illegal immigration is all wrong and won’t be effective in it’s current state, because the risk to reward of being here illegally is still skewed to reward.
If the a state really wants to solve the illegal immigration issue, they need a tactic that specifically de-incentivize (no such word, I know) coming here…It it all boils down to economics and money.
Here’s an idea of what a state could do…On all goods/services purchased in the state, add a 15% sales tax surcharge to everything.
At the end of the year, when you file your state taxes, you can apply for a rebate on that 15% sales tax surcharge. Folks that would be eligible for this rebate would be
1)Anyone with a SSN or with a valid visa# for the dates of the receipt.
2)Anyone with a valid traveling visa and copy of passport showing entry/exit date. Only receipts dated for those travel dates would be eligible.
As side benefits,
1)The state would be getting a deferred loan from people
2)The state could pay an low interest rate on the rebate (lower rate than bonds)…At least it might force consuming americans to save a bit (they get a nice check at the end of the year)
3)It would create an economic hardship on anyone who wasn’t authorized to be here. And if someone did manage to use someone else’s SSN, at least they would have to be paying taxes, since the only way to get it back is to file a state tax return..
4)It would create more government jobs, because this system would be very involved to create (technology) and administer(people fufilling the rebates).
5)The state would still come out ahead, because I’m sure several people would forget to keep the receipts to everything they purchase. (How many people forget to turn in their rebate claim form on time)?
No need for more border patrols, building walls,etc.[/quote]
Brilliant ideal, indeed, flu. 😉
I wonder what the retailers and small business people would think of such a law. Sales would drop like a rock.
What would you do about about unauthorized immigrants already here? Make them pay the surcharge forever? I’m sure they won’t mind; and in a cash economy there are plenty of ways around it.
How about shopping on Amazon?
June 6, 2010 @ 6:27 PM
I thought I would post this
I thought I would post this article for comparison to our current immigration situation. When the UN and other world bodies criticize this country, I wonder how ethically and logically they can remain silent on situation as the one written below.
In Arizona they are just attempting to verify that individuals are legally in the country. In Egypt they are using RACE specifically discriminate against a visible minority in the country who have already attained legal citizenship.
Egypt to strip men married to Israelis of citizenship
CAIRO (AFP) – A Cairo court on Saturday upheld a ruling to strip Egyptian men married to Israeli women of their citizenship in a case that has highlighted national sentiment towards Israel.
Judge Mohammed al-Husseini, sitting on the Supreme Administrative Court, said the interior ministry must ask the cabinet to take the necessary steps to strip Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.
The court said that each case should be considered separately, in a ruling that cannot be appealed.
The ruling reflects Egyptian sentiment towards Israel, more than 30 years after Egypt signed an unpopular peace deal with the Jewish state.
Before reading the verdict, Husseini said the case would not apply to Egyptian men married to Arab Israeli women.
“The case for (Egyptian) men married to Israeli Arab women is different to those married to Israeli women of Jewish origin because (Israeli Arabs) have lived under Israeli occupation,” Husseini told the court.
“The court’s decision is taking into account Egypt’s national security,” the judge said.
Lawyer Nabil al-Wahsh said he originally brought the case to court in order to prevent the creation of a generation “disloyal to Egypt and the Arab world.”
Children of such marriages “should not be allowed to perform their military service,” he said.
The number of Egyptian men married to Israeli women is thought to be around 30,000, according to Wahsh. Only 10 percent of them are married to Arab Israelis.
“This ruling is for the benefit of Egypt, a nation of leadership, history and civilisation,” Wahsh said. “It is for the protection of Egypt and Egypt’s youth and its national security.”
“The decision comes as Israel continues its assault on those who love peace. The latest example is the aggression against the aid boat which was heading towards the blockaded Gaza Strip,” he added.
On Monday, Israeli naval commandos raided a humanitarian flotilla carrying aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip, in a bungled operation that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead and scores injured.
A lower court ruled last year that the interior minister must look into the cases of Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, in order to “take the necessary steps to strip them of their nationality.”
The interior and foreign ministries had appealed the case, saying it was for parliament to decide on such matters.
Thousands of Egyptians, particularly a large number who lived in Iraq and returned after the 1990 Gulf War over Kuwait, moved to Israel in search of work and married Israeli women.
In 1979, Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with Israel.
June 6, 2010 @ 7:01 PM
Jim Jones wrote:I thought I
[quote=Jim Jones]I thought I would post this article for comparison to our current immigration situation. When the UN and other world bodies criticize this country, I wonder how ethically and logically they can remain silent on situation as the one written below.
In Arizona they are just attempting to verify that individuals are legally in the country. In Egypt they are using RACE specifically discriminate against a visible minority in the country who have already attained legal citizenship.
[/quote]
Jim: The UN is utterly bereft of any moral standing whatsoever. Granted, its not nearly as bad as it was during the 1960s and 1970s, when it was nearly fully co-opted by the USSR and its satellites and cronies, but it is still pretty bad.
While its various transgressions are too numerous to list here, one can simply point to its conduct during Rwanda, or the Balkans (specifically, Srebenica, when a 400 member UNPROFOR contingent sat and watched as 8,000 Bosniaks were slaughtered), or Somalia to get a sense of what the UN is all about.
No, the hypocrisy is on full display daily, as all of those European and Middle Eastern nations that so cheered Obama’s election have turned around and gone back to business as usual. For them, and for several posters on this board, the US and her allies are responsible for nearly all of the ills in the world.
June 6, 2010 @ 7:34 PM
Hypocrisy and selective
Hypocrisy and selective outrage make the world go round. And self-deception is an evolutionary developed trait. We’re some fucked up monkeys. What are ya gonna do
June 6, 2010 @ 7:41 PM
Another thought-provoking
Another thought-provoking thread instigated by SuperBri. It doesn’t surprise me that some want him banned. Lesser intellects attempted to censure Einstein in his day, too.
June 6, 2010 @ 8:34 PM
Arraya wrote:Hypocrisy and
[quote=Arraya]Hypocrisy and selective outrage make the world go round. And self-deception is an evolutionary developed trait. We’re some fucked up monkeys. What are ya gonna do[/quote]
Arraya: Break out the Emma Goldman and try again? Speaking of anarchists, flu epidemics and Wilsonian ideals, add Dennis Lehane’s “The Given Day” to your reading list. Lehane is the author of “Shutter Island” and “Mystic River”, and “Day” is set during 1918 in Boston. Very interesting read, especially given what was going in on the world at the end of WWI. Reading the parts about Bolsheviki, anarchists and Emma Goldman, I thought of you and had to chuckle.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, right?
June 6, 2010 @ 10:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jim Jones]I thought I would post this article for comparison to our current immigration situation. When the UN and other world bodies criticize this country, I wonder how ethically and logically they can remain silent on situation as the one written below.
In Arizona they are just attempting to verify that individuals are legally in the country. In Egypt they are using RACE specifically discriminate against a visible minority in the country who have already attained legal citizenship.
[/quote]
Jim: The UN is utterly bereft of any moral standing whatsoever. Granted, its not nearly as bad as it was during the 1960s and 1970s, when it was nearly fully co-opted by the USSR and its satellites and cronies, but it is still pretty bad.
While its various transgressions are too numerous to list here, one can simply point to its conduct during Rwanda, or the Balkans (specifically, Srebenica, when a 400 member UNPROFOR contingent sat and watched as 8,000 Bosniaks were slaughtered), or Somalia to get a sense of what the UN is all about.[/quote]
Funny thing about those deaths in the Srebrenica Massacre and the fact that the Dutch stood by and watched it happen. I worked with a bunch of European NGO’s during the Bush era who used to beat me over the head with his administrations foreign policy choices. When I brought this topic up to a Dutch NGO they would always reply “but the Dutch military was on a “limited mandate” and could not respond without approval from the security council”. They often would not socialize with me after my remarks nor would they ever again bring up US foreign policy. Gotta love those who are willing to write academic papers and diplomatic communiques from their safe tenured cloistered offices, but refuse to stand beside their fellow man and fight in their darkest hour especially those who would wear their nations military uniform.
This post is not a defense of Bush’s foreign policy so please do not ask me to justify his choices.
June 6, 2010 @ 11:04 PM
Jim: Working in the Force
Jim: Working in the Force Protection business, I have plenty of interesting conversations on security outside of the U.S. One of the most interesting conversations I recently had was with a French engineer, who had been a major in the French Army prior to his retirement.
We were discussing policy versus reality and he made a rather astute observation on the European view of America and that is this: While the Europeans openly deride the U.S. for our lack of culture, vulgarity and immaturity, we’re the first people they turn to in times of crisis. He said for the French especially, it was grating to have fallen so far in terms of relative importance, and that they enjoyed tweaking our noses as a result.
One of the other things I routinely hear is, “But America…”, meaning that, if/when the shit hits the fan, America will be there. There are several huge differences between academics/policy makers and policy executioners. Just ask any soldier.
June 7, 2010 @ 11:27 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] There are several huge differences between academics/policy makers and policy executioners. Just ask any soldier.[/quote]
This sounds like pure and simple pragmatism.
I’m not seeing high morals or principles on the part of conservatives when it comes to immigration policy, much less execution.
Talking about high morals and immigration, look to the Catholic Church for guidance. The compassionate thing to do is to reject the AZ immigration law and legalize the immigrants who have been living here, in limbo, for years.
June 7, 2010 @ 11:47 AM
briansd1 wrote:Allan from
[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] There are several huge differences between academics/policy makers and policy executioners. Just ask any soldier.[/quote]
This sounds like pure and simple pragmatism.
I’m not seeing high morals or principles on the part of conservatives when it comes to immigration policy, much less execution.
Talking about high morals and immigration, look to the Catholic Church for guidance. The compassionate thing to do is to reject the AZ immigration law and legalize the immigrants who have been living here, in limbo, for years.[/quote]
If you are being sarcastic on the part of the Church then you are correct.
June 7, 2010 @ 11:51 AM
Just in case you aren’t being
Just in case you aren’t being sarcastic….the Church just wants more churchgoers.
Institutions rarely act out of pure morality….at least not after they have achieved influence.
June 7, 2010 @ 9:13 AM
Jim Jones wrote:
Funny thing
[quote=Jim Jones]
Funny thing about those deaths in the Srebrenica Massacre and the fact that the Dutch stood by and watched it happen. I worked with a bunch of European NGO’s during the Bush era who used to beat me over the head with his administrations foreign policy choices. When I brought this topic up to a Dutch NGO they would always reply “but the Dutch military was on a “limited mandate” and could not respond without approval from the security council”. They often would not socialize with me after my remarks nor would they ever again bring up US foreign policy. Gotta love those who are willing to write academic papers and diplomatic communiques from their safe tenured cloistered offices, but refuse to stand beside their fellow man and fight in their darkest hour especially those who would wear their nations military uniform.
This post is not a defense of Bush’s foreign policy so please do not ask me to justify his choices.[/quote]
Funny thing about the Srebrenica business is that the Dutch government resigned over it and it is still a hot political issue in the Netherlands. The Dutch are blocking Serbia’s advancement to EU over it while resisting pressure from the rest of EU and the U.S. And all that for 400 lightly armed people assigned to observe not being able to stop the revenge of thousands of heavily armed Serbs.
Compare that to the local reaction to hundreds of thousands of ethnic killings in Irak since 2003 invasion. “We did something and half a million people got killed” was not really the focal point of any election campaign.
The 400 people strong Dutch contingent was lightly armed and confined to the base in the valley. It had a mandate not to enforce, but to observe a treaty and was appropriately equipped. You don’t understand why they did nothing (what?) after 10K+ Muslim fighters fled or surrendered. But you do understand how it’s OK to invade a country and watch hundreds of thousands of people getting killed as a direct result of your actions?
June 7, 2010 @ 9:31 AM
captcha wrote:Jim Jones
[quote=captcha][quote=Jim Jones]
Funny thing about those deaths in the Srebrenica Massacre and the fact that the Dutch stood by and watched it happen. I worked with a bunch of European NGO’s during the Bush era who used to beat me over the head with his administrations foreign policy choices. When I brought this topic up to a Dutch NGO they would always reply “but the Dutch military was on a “limited mandate” and could not respond without approval from the security council”. They often would not socialize with me after my remarks nor would they ever again bring up US foreign policy. Gotta love those who are willing to write academic papers and diplomatic communiques from their safe tenured cloistered offices, but refuse to stand beside their fellow man and fight in their darkest hour especially those who would wear their nations military uniform.
This post is not a defense of Bush’s foreign policy so please do not ask me to justify his choices.[/quote]
Funny thing about the Srebrenica business is that the Dutch government resigned over it and it is still a hot political issue in the Netherlands. The Dutch are blocking Serbia’s advancement to EU over it while resisting pressure from the rest of EU and the U.S. And all that for 400 lightly armed people assigned to observe not being able to stop the revenge of thousands of heavily armed Serbs.
Compare that to the local reaction to hundreds of thousands of ethnic killings in Irak since 2003 invasion. “We did something and half a million people got killed” was not really the focal point of any election campaign.
The 400 people strong Dutch contingent was lightly armed and confined to the base in the valley. It had a mandate not to enforce, but to observe a treaty and was appropriately equipped. You don’t understand why they did nothing (what?) after 10K+ Muslim fighters fled or surrendered. But you do understand how it’s OK to invade a country and watch hundreds of thousands of people getting killed as a direct result of your actions?[/quote]
Captcha: Jim makes perfectly clear in his post that he was not in any way defending Bush’s actions or policies, but you throw the strawman out anyway. Where does he say that the Dutch were wrong and the Irak (sic) invasion was right? Answer: He doesn’t.
As to the Dutch contingent being “lightly armed”: What does this mean? That the Serbs who came in and butchered the Bosniaks were “heavily armed”? Most of the killing was done with infantry small arms, mainly AK-47s and light machine guns, with coup de grace shots coming from pistols. The weapons the Serbs had were no different than those carried by the Dutch and many Serb units were irregular or militia-type, meaning no organic heavy weapons at all. There are several excellent and well-researched articles on Srebrenica, you should read them. Even a token effort to intervene by the Dutch would have had some effect, and this is buttressed by numerous after-action reports and interviews from all involved.
Again, what any of Srebrenica has to do with Iraq is beyond me.
June 7, 2010 @ 11:09 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: Jim makes perfectly clear in his post that he was not in any way defending Bush’s actions or policies, but you throw the strawman out anyway. Where does he say that the Dutch were wrong and the Irak (sic) invasion was right? Answer: He doesn’t.
As to the Dutch contingent being “lightly armed”: What does this mean? That the Serbs who came in and butchered the Bosniaks were “heavily armed”? Most of the killing was done with infantry small arms, mainly AK-47s and light machine guns, with coup de grace shots coming from pistols. The weapons the Serbs had were no different than those carried by the Dutch and many Serb units were irregular or militia-type, meaning no organic heavy weapons at all. There are several excellent and well-researched articles on Srebrenica, you should read them. Even a token effort to intervene by the Dutch would have had some effect, and this is buttressed by numerous after-action reports and interviews from all involved.
Again, what any of Srebrenica has to do with Iraq is beyond me.[/quote]
Jim made the connection. Jim used the Srebrenica incident to quiet down the pesky Dutch NGO workers when they commented on the U.S. foreign policy and its implementation. I felt free to assume that the Dutch talked about Irak. So, I helped Jim put Srebrenica and Irak in perspective. If I were one of the Dutch workers I would take Jim’s comment as a sign of terminal ideological blindness and stop talking to him as well. He would then interpret that as a some kind of victory. I wish to help Jim understand the issue, that will help him in the future, if he decides to explain his and his country’s position, as opposed to shut someone’s mouth.
Re Srebrenica itself – while small arms were used to execute captured Muslim men the Bosnian Serbs had armored vehicles and heavy artillery at their disposal and they used it to break the resistance. The army of Bosnian Serbs was not irregular army. They had the equipment left by the Yugoslav Army, together with the Yugoslav Army officers born in Bosnia. Yugoslavia had mandatory draft and every male had at least 12 months of training, so we are not talking about a band of thugs as depicted by Hollywood movies (which actually makes their crime greater).
The army of Bosnian Serbs had 200+ tanks, 200+ armoured vehicles, tons of artillery pieces of various calibers, etc. Most of it in the Eastern Bosnia, towards Serbia, where Srebrenica is.
It took three years of arming and training the Muslim forces and involvement of NATO-supported Croatia to achieve balance in Bosnia.
There were few high-profile ‘irregular’ units in Bosnia on all three (or four, if you count anti-central government Muslims as a separate party) sides. But neither group participated in Srebrenica and all were better trained and equipped than their regular comrades and formally attached to regular structure. Bosnian Muslims had Arab fighters (Abu Hamza et al) and Bosnian Serbs had special forces from Serbia.
As with Brian’s perception of legal immigration, personal experience trumps few self-reinforcing articles.
June 7, 2010 @ 11:26 AM
captcha wrote:Allan from
[quote=captcha][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: Jim makes perfectly clear in his post that he was not in any way defending Bush’s actions or policies, but you throw the strawman out anyway. Where does he say that the Dutch were wrong and the Irak (sic) invasion was right? Answer: He doesn’t.
As to the Dutch contingent being “lightly armed”: What does this mean? That the Serbs who came in and butchered the Bosniaks were “heavily armed”? Most of the killing was done with infantry small arms, mainly AK-47s and light machine guns, with coup de grace shots coming from pistols. The weapons the Serbs had were no different than those carried by the Dutch and many Serb units were irregular or militia-type, meaning no organic heavy weapons at all. There are several excellent and well-researched articles on Srebrenica, you should read them. Even a token effort to intervene by the Dutch would have had some effect, and this is buttressed by numerous after-action reports and interviews from all involved.
Again, what any of Srebrenica has to do with Iraq is beyond me.[/quote]
Jim made the connection. Jim used the Srebrenica incident to quiet down the pesky Dutch NGO workers when they commented on the U.S. foreign policy and its implementation. I felt free to assume that the Dutch talked about Irak. So, I helped Jim put Srebrenica and Irak in perspective. If I were one of the Dutch workers I would take Jim’s comment as a sign of terminal ideological blindness and stop talking to him as well. He would then interpret that as a some kind of victory. I wish to help Jim understand the issue, that will help him in the future, if he decides to explain his and his country’s position, as opposed to shut someone’s mouth.
Re Srebrenica itself – while small arms were used to execute captured Muslim men the Bosnian Serbs had armored vehicles and heavy artillery at their disposal and they used it to break the resistance. The army of Bosnian Serbs was not irregular army. They had the equipment left by the Yugoslav Army, together with the Yugoslav Army officers born in Bosnia. Yugoslavia had mandatory draft and every male had at least 12 months of training, so we are not talking about a band of thugs as depicted by Hollywood movies (which actually makes their crime greater).
The army of Bosnian Serbs had 200+ tanks, 200+ armoured vehicles, tons of artillery pieces of various calibers, etc. Most of it in the Eastern Bosnia, towards Serbia, where Srebrenica is.
It took three years of arming and training the Muslim forces and involvement of NATO-supported Croatia to achieve balance in Bosnia.
There were few high-profile ‘irregular’ units in Bosnia on all three (or four, if you count anti-central government Muslims as a separate party) sides. But neither group participated in Srebrenica and all were better trained and equipped than their regular comrades and formally attached to regular structure. Bosnian Muslims had Arab fighters (Abu Hamza et al) and Bosnian Serbs had special forces from Serbia.
As with Brian’s perception of legal immigration, personal experience trumps few self-reinforcing articles.[/quote]
Captcha: Again, and you need to refer to articles other than the clearly biased UN UNPROFOR after-action reports, that clearly discuss the fact that the Dutch stood by while the massacre took place. That is without dispute, as is the fact that the Serbs themselves pointed out that even a token effort by the Dutch to stop them would have had an effect.
All of this is obscured by your mention of the numbers of tanks and tubes at the disposal of the Serbians. Those numbers are the TOTAL TO&E available to the Serbians and not the disposition of forces during the Srebrenica Massacre. According to US Army reporting, the disposition of forces DIRECTLY involved in Srebrenica was largely made up of soft vehicles (i.e. heavy trucks) and APCs (armored personnel carriers). You’re using the TOTAl number of Serbian tanks and tubes to somehow make the point that they were present at Srebrenica when, in fact, they were not. My information also comes from a friend of mine, who was with STABFOR and privy to NATO, UN, UK and US intel on the Balkans.
Your information on irregular forces is also incorrect, and all sides in the conflict fielded large numbers of lightly armed irregulars and militia-type forces. You use the term “high-profile” when describing them, but I candidly have no idea what “high-profile” irregular units are. Irregular, insurgent and militia-type units aren’t high- or low-profile, they are what they are.
As far as personal experience goes, I spent three years in Central America doing counterinsurgency work, so I do happen to have some personal experience in this regard.
June 7, 2010 @ 12:04 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: Again, and you need to refer to articles other than the clearly biased UN UNPROFOR after-action reports, that clearly discuss the fact that the Dutch stood by while the massacre took place. That is without dispute, as is the fact that the Serbs themselves pointed out that even a token effort by the Dutch to stop them would have had an effect.
All of this is obscured by your mention of the numbers of tanks and tubes at the disposal of the Serbians. Those numbers are the TOTAL TO&E available to the Serbians and not the disposition of forces during the Srebrenica Massacre. According to US Army reporting, the disposition of forces DIRECTLY involved in Srebrenica was largely made up of soft vehicles (i.e. heavy trucks) and APCs (armored personnel carriers). You’re using the TOTAl number of Serbian tanks and tubes to somehow make the point that they were present at Srebrenica when, in fact, they were not. My information also comes from a friend of mine, who was with STABFOR and privy to NATO, UN, UK and US intel on the Balkans.
[/quote]
I’ll try indirection – the force was sufficient to break the resistance of 10K+ Muslim fighters, who either fled or surrendered while protecting 20K+ civilians (those would be family members, not some random civilians).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Your information on irregular forces is also incorrect, and all sides in the conflict fielded large numbers of lightly armed irregulars and militia-type forces. You use the term “high-profile” when describing them, but I candidly have no idea what “high-profile” irregular units are. Irregular, insurgent and militia-type units aren’t high- or low-profile, they are what they are.
[/quote]
High-profile… e.g. those featured in mass-media, both local and global (as in CNN). ‘Tigers’ is one such high profile unit, usually described as ‘irregular’. Its members were actually Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia special forces who retained their position after the end of the war and who later assassinated Serbian prime-minister in 2003.
They were irregular in a sense that they were not under more than formal command of the Army chiefs, but they were not renegades or vigilantes. They were well trained, equipped and tightly controlled.
Or Abu Hamza Al-Masri’s group of mujahidins.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As far as personal experience goes, I spent three years in Central America doing counterinsurgency work, so I do happen to have some personal experience in this regard.[/quote]
Allan, I was not questioning your military credentials. You use that card a lot and I have no reason to believe that you are faking it.
What I meant is my experience of 17 years in Bosnia and another 10 in Serbia is what trumps your military expertise in this particular case. I KNOW what happened because I SAW it happening.
June 7, 2010 @ 12:41 PM
captcha wrote:
What I meant
[quote=captcha]
What I meant is my experience of 17 years in Bosnia and another 10 in Serbia is what trumps your military expertise in this particular case. I KNOW what happened because I SAW it happening.[/quote]
Captcha: I stand corrected and you have my apology. I wouldn’t for a second try to contradict this type of experience and I clearly WASN’T there and you were. Not meaning this as an excuse, but there are certain posters on the board that will take an article and/or a book and advance whole cloth arguments designed to stake out a partisan position. In this instance, that wasn’t what happened.
The main thrust of what both Jim and I were saying is that the UN lacks any sort of credibility, moral or otherwise, and that the Balkans are an excellent example of proving exactly that point. NATO clearly shares in this as well, and you may or may not be aware of the fact that NATO had targeting packages (for air strikes) that would have effectively destroyed 90% of the Serb armor/MBTs and APCs in theater, but didn’t use them.
I would also point out that the Rwandan genocide could have been averted, and a Canadian general, LtGen Romeo Dallaire, repeatedly warned of the impending slaughter, but was ignored (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/308542.stm). And, yes, America was complicit here, too.
I didn’t read Jim’s original post as him rebuffing a Dutch contention regarding Bush’s policies, but rather a retort pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Similar to the French accusing Bush of imperialism in Iraq while French paratroopers patrolled Cote D’Ivoire protecting French business interests.
You can accuse me of being parochial or even nationalistic when it comes to America, but I’ve seen way too much hypocrisy and self dealing when it comes to the UN and NATO (their participation in Afghanistan is an excellent example) and the expectation that America will always come riding to the rescue if the situation gets bad enough.
June 7, 2010 @ 4:34 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You can accuse me of being parochial or even nationalistic when it comes to America, but I’ve seen way too much hypocrisy and self dealing when it comes to the UN and NATO (their participation in Afghanistan is an excellent example) and the expectation that America will always come riding to the rescue if the situation gets bad enough.[/quote]
Nothing wrong with that, I guess. People around the world share the same patriotic feelings (not for the U.S., but their own countries). I have the ‘benefit’ of having lived in a country that had the same attributes as the next one, there was a flag, national anthem, prettiest beaches, glorious army, an idea worth dying for (democracy, liberté, égalité, fraternité, whatever, there is always something) and then seeing it fall apart and it makes me kind of numb to the concept.
People in need will get a loan from a loan-shark, say thank you and still don’t like it. Similarly, people will ask the U.S. for help and still not like it. The U.S. is sometimes perceived as the biggest guy on the playground who makes the rules as he sees fit and then breaks them when he does not like them anymore. The UN is somewhere perceived as a failing framework that the biggest guy ignores when he fails to bully it. The problem is I guess that things are rarely as simple as their projection onto 1-dimensional space.
But something is not right when entire historically allied nations are rooting for your failure and if you want to change that you probably need to understand their motives first. It can’t be just that they are envious – they weren’t ten or thirty years ago.
June 7, 2010 @ 5:02 PM
Captcha: As with anything
Captcha: As with anything else, ascribing everything to a single word like “envy” is obviously simplistic and naive. That being said, envy is a part of it, especially for a nation like France that, for a time, commanded far more influence than they do now.
I remember talking to my uncle Joe, who fought in Italy during WWII. The Italians and the French and the Dutch loved Americans and we were perceived as not only liberators, but on the side of the angels. Fast forward to Vietnam and Fulbright’s “Arrogance of Power” is on full display and America is not so much loved as feared.
I think we’ve now entered a new phase of American power, and that is one where we’ll do whatever it takes to keep the machine running and don’t particularly care about the consequences, so long as the outcome is positive. All that said, there is still an integral part of this country, namely the people, that keep us from sliding completely into the abyss.
I have a tendency to be biased and largely because my time in the military was spent in places where the doctrine of Gunboat Diplomacy still applied. So, I’ve seen us at our worst, but I’ve also seen us at our best. Like I’m fond of saying: Sometimes your choices aren’t Good and Bad, they’re Bad and Worse.
June 7, 2010 @ 9:22 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Captcha: As with anything else, ascribing everything to a single word like “envy” is obviously simplistic and naive. That being said, envy is a part of it, especially for a nation like France that, for a time, commanded far more influence than they do now.
I remember talking to my uncle Joe, who fought in Italy during WWII.
I remember talking to my uncle Joe, who fought in Italy during WWII. The Italians and the French and the Dutch loved Americans and we were perceived as not only liberators, but on the side of the angels. Fast forward to Vietnam and Fulbright’s “Arrogance of Power” is on full display and America is not so much loved as feared.
I think we’ve now entered a new phase of American power, and that is one where we’ll do whatever it takes to keep the machine running and don’t particularly care about the consequences, so long as the outcome is positive. [/quote]
So the French and Italians don’t love America so much anymore. There must be some good reasons.
But that’s besides the point. So the French are envious of us and our power? So what?
Why are certain Americans bothering with the French and turning into petulant teenagers resentful of the French’s feelings towards us?
I was told that those with the highest morals perform good deeds because they are the right things to do.
The argument is that we should do what we feel is right to do and not bother about the reactions of others.
Bush and his supported decided to go it alone. So why then be surprised and resentful of the reactions of those whose approval we didn’t even care about to be begin with?
Do friends favors if you really want to. But don’t do it then bitch about it when people don’t show enough appreciation. One “thank you” should be enough.
June 7, 2010 @ 7:41 PM
Allan from
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=captcha]
I didn’t read Jim’s original post as him rebuffing a Dutch contention regarding Bush’s policies, but rather a retort pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Similar to the French accusing Bush of imperialism in Iraq while French paratroopers patrolled Cote D’Ivoire protecting French business interests.
You can accuse me of being parochial or even nationalistic when it comes to America, but I’ve seen way too much hypocrisy and self dealing when it comes to the UN and NATO (their participation in Afghanistan is an excellent example) and the expectation that America will always come riding to the rescue if the situation gets bad enough.[/quote]
Allan,
Thank you for responding just as I would have. I agree with Captcha that by using the argument that I did it was to basically shut the individual up. That is a point I am openly willing to concede. But is was for a valid reason.
Each country is going to take a foreign policy trajectory which is in its own best interests in 99% of the circumstances. Right or wrong the Dutch decided to sit that one out. Right or wrong Bush went into Iraq. Either way I was not part of the planning or execution process for either event and met the requirements of my civic duty by voting in that election.
I was frankly tired of being thrown out there as an American who should be held responsible for my governments foreign policy choices all the time. When I was working with the NGO’s I had shared many of the same ideals for peace and prosperity for the people and the nation we were working in. The problem is that many of the NGO’s could only see the ideal world they could imagine living in and failed to recognize the reality of global realpolitik. My reference to the Dutch incident was a opportunity for the Dutch citizen to take a taste of the medicine he was dishing out. Most Europeans are never held to task in that regard as their governments choose to sit out the major crisis and instead criticize from the sidelines.
By the way how come the whole world and the UN is not up in arms over the sinking of the Korean corvette. It was a clear act of war by a nuclear rouge nation which is currently exporting globally destabilizing nuclear and missile technology to some of the worlds most repressive regimes in Myanmar, Syria and Iran. Again its in the national interest of many large players to sit this one out and let the chips fall where they may.
Also Allan and Captcha thank both of your for the stimulating and intellectually honest conversation that has not devolved somehow into blaming Hitler or arguing over Democrats and Republicans
June 7, 2010 @ 8:27 PM
Jim: My frustration stems
Jim: My frustration stems from people who have enjoyed all the benefits of being an American, including access to some of the best higher education in the world, and then turning around and adopting a “Hate America First” mentality. Not because they believe it, but because its what they were indoctrinated to believe, either through college/university, political affiliation, or both.
I don’t believe, nor have I ever claimed, that America is perfect. Far from it. However, its also interesting to note that when earthquakes or tsunamis or other natural disasters strike, its an American aircraft carrier pulling into the harbor and American money (donations) pouring in. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world, like the Saudis, preach piety and charity and help, but can’t ever be found when it comes to giving or to help. Yeah, I recognize that hypocrisy comes with the territory, but most of these Utopians are the worst offenders: Holding people to an impossible standard of conduct, while turning a blind eye to the transgressions of those that they favor.
One of the best definitions of fascism I came across says that fascism is the system of outlawing everything and then selectively enforcing the laws against those you don’t like.
Framing arguments in the Dem versus Repub or Right versus Left not only generally misses the point in question entirely, but it reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. Which is about a step away from the dreaded “Neener, neener” argument. Or, “I know you are, but what am I?”.
June 7, 2010 @ 9:33 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jim: My frustration stems from people who have enjoyed all the benefits of being an American, including access to some of the best higher education in the world, and then turning around and adopting a “Hate America First” mentality. Not because they believe it, but because its what they were indoctrinated to believe, either through college/university, political affiliation, or both.
[/quote]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Framing arguments in the Dem versus Repub or Right versus Left not only generally misses the point in question entirely, but it reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. Which is about a step away from the dreaded “Neener, neener” argument. Or, “I know you are, but what am I?”.[/quote]
If throwing “you hate America” at other Americans is not framing in a partisan manner, then I don’t know what is.
Saying “you hate America” implies “You hate American but I love America”. This casts the other party as evil whose opinions are wrong and not worth considering. This type of labeling is certainly not conducive to debate.
I’m sorry, but it’s one man one vote. Each American is equally entitled to his/her opinion; and equally entitled to influence the direction of our country.
June 22, 2010 @ 9:03 AM
U.S. Closes Park Land Along
U.S. Closes Park Land Along Mexican Border To Americans.
June 22, 2010 @ 12:16 PM
Mexican Gangs Maintain
Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona.
June 22, 2010 @ 12:27 PM
PHOENIX (AP) – Mexico is
PHOENIX (AP) – Mexico is asking a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional.
Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the law.
The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GGG1G00&show_article=1
July 20, 2010 @ 7:58 AM
Well Arizona has finally come
Well Arizona has finally come to its senses on one topic that caused me to start my one-man boycott:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/20/arizonas-freeway-speed-cameras-snap-their-last-speeders/
Now let’s see if the state can make a few more good decisions…then I’ll reconsider my position.
July 20, 2010 @ 9:32 AM
Amen to that. Those scameras
Amen to that. Those scameras are not about safety, just about revenue.
July 26, 2010 @ 4:10 PM
Immigrants start leaving
Immigrants start leaving Arizona:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_immigration_arizona
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.
July 27, 2010 @ 7:10 AM
davelj wrote:Immigrants start
[quote=davelj]Immigrants start leaving Arizona:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_immigration_arizona
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.[/quote]
Right or wrong, I have to admit…The law appears to be pretty effective at doing what it was designd to do.
July 27, 2010 @ 9:04 AM
flu wrote:davelj
[quote=flu][quote=davelj]Immigrants start leaving Arizona:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_immigration_arizona
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.[/quote]
Right or wrong, I have to admit…The law appears to be pretty effective at doing what it was designd to do.[/quote]
As was said before, the law appears to be effective for in chasing unauthorized immigrant out of Arizona… but SB1070 might turn out to be worse for California as the immigrants move her.
Why are Californians supporting the AZ law that might be detrimental to our state?
July 27, 2010 @ 11:42 AM
briansd1 wrote:flu
[quote=briansd1][quote=flu][quote=davelj]Immigrants start leaving Arizona:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_immigration_arizona
I find the “victimhood” a bit confusing. The illegals in this story make it sound like they’re being put upon because they’re not in the US legally. The solution, of course, is to enter the country legally… but that doesn’t seem to be an option within the realm of consideration.[/quote]
Right or wrong, I have to admit…The law appears to be pretty effective at doing what it was designd to do.[/quote]
As was said before, the law appears to be effective for in chasing unauthorized immigrant out of Arizona… but SB1070 might turn out to be worse for California as the immigrants move her.
Why are Californians supporting the AZ law that might be detrimental to our state?[/quote]
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.
July 27, 2010 @ 12:14 PM
flu wrote:
Maybe the correct
[quote=flu]
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.[/quote]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)
July 27, 2010 @ 1:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:flu
[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.[/quote]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)[/quote]
Access to public schools.
Access to public roads.
Access to public parks.
Access to public beaches.
Access to emergency room medical care (it might not apply in your view, but no hospital will take “Brian approves of it” as a form of payment).
July 27, 2010 @ 2:09 PM
captcha, access is not a
captcha, access is not a direct government benefit and it’s not welfare.
We don’t pay for emergency room care directly. The patients still gets billed for care (at much higher costs than insurance negotiated rates). When the patients don’t pay, then the hospital have bad debt expenses. It’s a cost of doing business, just like an oil gusher is a cost of doing business (cost to business and cost to society).
Remember that unauthorized immigrants contribute to our GDP. If we make them legal, they will contribute more to our economic growth.
[quote=CONCHO]
They might have to, I’m not sure there will be any other way. However if after the amnesty is declared the border as it stands today still exists, the problem won’t be fixed.
[/quote]
We know that almost all the unauthorized immigrants in this country will be made legal eventually.
So why not make them legal now so they contribute more?
What happens after the amnesty is for the politicians to work out.
We should not hold people hostage to the political stalemate. Future immigration is between the future immigrants and the politicians. It has nothing to with the immigrants in the country already.
July 27, 2010 @ 2:50 PM
briansd1 wrote:
So why not
[quote=briansd1]
So why not make them legal now so they contribute more?
[/quote]
Fine by me, as long as
1)Folks file taxes
2)Folks contribute more $$$ to the system them remove from the system ( i.e.: the majority will not be welfare recipients and/or needing government assistance
3)Folks that do need financial subsidies must apply participate in a lottery system..
July 27, 2010 @ 9:20 PM
As I’ve said before our
As I’ve said before our future economic growth depends on immigration.
Our economy is dynamic because of immigration.
Look at how Japan, which by being insular, is losing relevance and heft in the world. They are also on a slow but steady economic decline.
July 28, 2010 @ 12:44 AM
captcha wrote:briansd1
[quote=captcha][quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Maybe the correct answer is that California should do exactly what AZ is doing, or at least cut benefits to folks who aren’t paying taxes (because CA can’t afford it)….If every border state followed suit…problem solved.[/quote]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)[/quote]
Access to public schools.
Access to public roads.
Access to public parks.
Access to public beaches.
Access to emergency room medical care (it might not apply in your view, but no hospital will take “Brian approves of it” as a form of payment).[/quote]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course). Do thoes expenses not count, Brian?
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. Also, the schools that educate illegals and their children allocate a LOT more resources for these students than to students who are U.S. citizens. They get more federal money, too. I guess that doesn’t count in your book, brian?
edit: Just saw meadandale’s comment above. He’s absolutely right, but there are also many more costs associated with these illegal students (bilingual classes and all the personnel, documentation and administration expenses related to it; additional teachers, aides, and other resources that are supposed to help them catch up with their native peers, full-time nurses, phychiatrists, P.E. teachers, etc. because the school “qualifies” for these additional expenses because of the poverty of the students’ families, etc.). Trust me, when you add it all up, it’s a HUGE number.
July 28, 2010 @ 11:45 AM
I believe that SB 1070 will
I believe that SB 1070 will have national implications, just like Prop 187 had statewide implications for California.
Prop 187 was overturned and so will SB 1070.
July 28, 2010 @ 11:57 AM
CA renter wrote:
California
[quote=CA renter]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course). Do thoes expenses not count, Brian?
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. Also, the schools that educate illegals and their children allocate a LOT more resources for these students than to students who are U.S. citizens. They get more federal money, too. I guess that doesn’t count in your book, brian?
[/quote]
We can hardly say unauthorized immigrants in prison are receiving welfare services. I don’t see how SB 1070 solves the prison cost problem. SB 1070 might prove more costly to AZ by putting more people in jail.
As for the schools, since we already know that the unauthorized immigrants already here will stay here, and will eventually be made legal, we are better off educating them. We are investing in our future, a future that will include those children as productive adults.
I would rather the children go to school than wander the streets. It’s a humanitarian issue and also a pragmatic issue of educating future members of our society/economy.
As our society gets older, we will need to import workers. Better to import workers and integrate them little by little over the years, than to be faced with a sudden shortage and an economic shock.
July 28, 2010 @ 12:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:
We can hardly
[quote=briansd1]
We can hardly say unauthorized immigrants in prison are receiving welfare services. I don’t see how SB 1070 solves the prison cost problem. SB 1070 might prove more costly to AZ by putting more people in jail.
[/quote]
Far fewer illegals will be present leading to reduced number of arrested illegals.
[quote=briansd1]
As for the schools, since we already know that the unauthorized immigrants already here will stay here, and will eventually be made legal, we are better off educating them.
[/quote]
That’s your assumption, not a fact. Wealthy emancipated countries have history of successful removal of unauthorized visitors. As this wealthy country becomes more socialist by making more services available to people regardless of their income the pressure from the paying populus to restrict access to benefits will grow.
German citizens might have paid health care and higher education, but good luck to any illegal trying to enroll in such program. Illegals are put in camps (as always, I guess Germans like to put people in camps) and deported (unlike before).
[quote=briansd1]
We are investing in our future, a future that will include those children as productive adults.
I would rather the children go to school than wander the streets. It’s a humanitarian issue and also a pragmatic issue of educating future members of our society/economy.
As our society gets older, we will need to import workers. Better to import workers and integrate them little by little over the years, than to be faced with a sudden shortage and an economic shock.[/quote]
Even if that was the case it is better to import educated, healthy, vetted people with proven skill set and ability to acquire new skills (see example of modern western countries with celebrated health care systems, such as Canada or Germany) than uneducated law breakers.
I really don’t understand your motivation. Do you believe that illegals are ‘good people’ and deserve special treatment by virtue of being uneducated and exploited? If you want to help them why not focus on helping them return to their home countries? Just the money various attorneys will collect to litigate this non-issue would be enough to significantly improve lives of thousands of people in Latin America.
July 28, 2010 @ 12:55 PM
captcha wrote:
That’s your
[quote=captcha]
That’s your assumption, not a fact. Wealthy emancipated countries have history of successful removal of unauthorized visitors.
[/quote]
I don’t see anyone advocating mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants.
Until there is such removal plan, I’ll assume the immigrants will stay here indefinitely.
[quote=captcha]
German citizens might have paid health care and higher education, but good luck to any illegal trying to enroll in such program. Illegals are put in camps (as always, I guess Germans like to put people in camps) and deported (unlike before).
[/quote]
Do you want us to put people in camps and deport them by force?
Btw, I was told that higher education is FREE for foreign students in Germany. Health care is also free to legal immigrants in Germany. Not so in America.
[quote=captcha]
I really don’t understand your motivation. Do you believe that illegals are ‘good people’ and deserve special treatment by virtue of being uneducated and exploited? If you want to help them why not focus on helping them return to their home countries?
[/quote]
My motivation is humanitarian. I don’t see the point of kicking people while they are down.
I would be in favor of the government paying the plane tickets of people who want to go back home.
But people don’t want to go back home. They would rather live underground. These economic refugees may be uneducated now, but there is no reason why their children and grandchildren can’t become highly educated productive members of our society.
July 28, 2010 @ 3:17 PM
briansd1 wrote:
captcha
[quote=briansd1]
[quote=captcha]
German citizens might have paid health care and higher education, but good luck to any illegal trying to enroll in such program. Illegals are put in camps (as always, I guess Germans like to put people in camps) and deported (unlike before).
[/quote]
Do you want us to put people in camps and deport them by force?
Btw, I was told that higher education is FREE for foreign students in Germany. Health care is also free to legal immigrants in Germany. Not so in America.
[/quote]
Precisely my point. Eligible people consume benefits. Ineligible people are not promoted to eligible, they are removed from the country. Refugees from Bosnia were returned to Bosnia after spending 5+ years in Germany. Kosovo refugees were returned after 15+ years.
[quote=briansd1]
[quote=captcha]
I really don’t understand your motivation. Do you believe that illegals are ‘good people’ and deserve special treatment by virtue of being uneducated and exploited? If you want to help them why not focus on helping them return to their home countries?
[/quote]
My motivation is humanitarian. I don’t see the point of kicking people while they are down.
[/quote]
🙂
Unless they are deadbeats, in which case you want them kicked out as quickly as possible.
Sorry, you need to project your humanitarian side consistently if you want to make it more believable.
Why don’t we take a look at solutions implemented by countries generally recognized as more ‘humane’ than this county?
[quote=briansd1]
I would be in favor of the government paying the plane tickets of people who want to go back home.
But people don’t want to go back home. They would rather live underground.
[/quote]
I don’t want to obey certain laws either. What kind of argument is that?
[quote=briansd1]
These economic refugees may be uneducated now, but there is no reason why their children and grandchildren can’t become highly educated productive members of our society.[/quote]
Well, there is a reason why children of uneducated people on average do worse in school than children of people with more education.
Regardless, your argument is that amnesty is good for the country for a specific reason. I gave you an alternative to achieve the same goal. Do you really believe it is better for a country (any country) to import a ton of illiterate people vs. the same number of people with 15+ years of education? How many gang members do you think are born to uneducated vs. highly educated?
July 28, 2010 @ 4:14 PM
captcha wrote:
Regardless,
[quote=captcha]
Regardless, your argument is that amnesty is good for the country for a specific reason. I gave you an alternative to achieve the same goal. Do you really believe it is better for a country (any country) to import a ton of illiterate people vs. the same number of people with 15+ years of education? How many gang members do you think are born to uneducated vs. highly educated?[/quote]
Yes, amnesty is good because it integrates people into our society rather that leave them in limbo indefinitely. We are creating gang members by keeping people on the edge of society.
Unless there is an arrest-and-deport-by-force policy, amnesty is the best solution.
Amnesty for immigrants already here is not mutually exclusive from welcoming other immigrants who are highly educated. We can do both.
July 29, 2010 @ 1:52 PM
I just saw on the news that
I just saw on the news that the majority of counties in AZ are not using the AZ mandated e-verify system. It becomes hard to make the case that the feds exclusively dropped the ball on the undocumented worker problem if the AZ counties can’t even be bothered to make employers verify documentation for their employees.
Businesses are mandated to use the e-verify system or risk losing their business license. Less than 1/3 of the employers have even signed up, even though the law has been in place for 2 years. Most of the counties are not checking to see if employers are complying.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-employers-ignoring-e-verify.html
July 29, 2010 @ 2:12 PM
UCGal wrote:I just saw on the
[quote=UCGal]I just saw on the news that the majority of counties in AZ are not using the AZ mandated e-verify system. It becomes hard to make the case that the feds exclusively dropped the ball on the undocumented worker problem if the AZ counties can’t even be bothered to make employers verify documentation for their employees.
Businesses are mandated to use the e-verify system or risk losing their business license. Less than 1/3 of the employers have even signed up, even though the law has been in place for 2 years. Most of the counties are not checking to see if employers are complying.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-employers-ignoring-e-verify.html
[/quote]
Furthermore, the Obama administration has been enforcing immigration laws more vigorously than any administration before.
July 28, 2010 @ 3:27 PM
Just because nobody else has
Just because nobody else has addressed this yet….
[quote=CA renter]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course).
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. [/quote]
No, our prisons are not “full” of illegal immigrants. Nor do prisons and schools have a 30% or more illegal population.
A recent study showed the Ca prison system with 17% both documented AND undocumented aliens. And The public school system is estimated somewhere south of 10%. (Total undocumented population of CA is thought to be around 7%. Intuitively, the school population can’t possibly be more than four times that percentage.)
July 29, 2010 @ 2:56 PM
SK in CV wrote:Just because
[quote=SK in CV]Just because nobody else has addressed this yet….
[quote=CA renter]
California prisons are full of illegal immigrants who were arrested for various crimes (not being here illegally, of course).
The two greatest expenses for our state govt are schools and prisons — both of which have a very high (30% or more) illegal population. [/quote]
No, our prisons are not “full” of illegal immigrants. Nor do prisons and schools have a 30% or more illegal population.
A recent study showed the Ca prison system with 17% both documented AND undocumented aliens. And The public school system is estimated somewhere south of 10%. (Total undocumented population of CA is thought to be around 7%. Intuitively, the school population can’t possibly be more than four times that percentage.)[/quote]
Oh yes, our prisons are FULL of illegal immigrants and their “naturalized” children, as are our schools.
———-
California’s nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stricter immigration policies.
Educating the children of illegal immigrants is the largest cost, estimated at $7.7 billion each year, according to the report. Medical care for illegal immigrants and incarceration of those who have committed crimes are the next two largest expenses measured in the study, the author said.
Jack Martin, who wrote the report, said Thursday that the $9 billion figure does not include other expenses that are difficult to measure, such as special English instruction, school lunch programs, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal immigrant workers.
“It’s a bottom of the range number,” Martin said.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_5cedf831-9d5d-5335-af7e-2af6730a577c.html
—————
As Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:
“The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.”
Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: “Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That’s a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population.”
Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics – but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml
—————
• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these non-gang “Hollywood dealers,” as the city attorney calls them, but the gang injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And if a Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the street as a “border brother”) for his immigration status, or even notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (since early 2003, absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he would face severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the city’s sanctuary policy.
After their brief moment of truth in 1996, Los Angeles politicians have only grown more adamant in defense of Special Order 40. After learning that cops in the scandal-plagued Rampart Division had cooperated with the INS to try to uproot murderous gang members from the community, local politicians threw a fit, criticizing district commanders for even allowing INS agents into their station houses. In turn, the LAPD strictly disciplined the offending officers.
[More on this “policy of silence” later. -CAR]
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
———–
Criminal aliens also interpret the triage as indifference. John Mullaly a former NYPD homicide detective, estimates that 70 percent of the drug dealers and other criminals in Manhattan’s Washington Heights were illegal. Were Mullaly to threaten an illegal-alien thug in custody that his next stop would be El Salvador unless he cooperated, the criminal would just laugh, knowing that the INS would never show up. The message could not be clearer: this is a culture that can’t enforce its most basic law of entry. If policing’s broken-windows theory is correct, the failure to enforce one set of rules breeds overall contempt for the law.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
—————–
24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
29% (630,000) of the inmates in all state and federal prisons are illegal aliens—at a cost of $1.6 billion annually.
More than 53% of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
More than half of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.
More than 43% of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens.
More than 41% of all unemployment checks issued in the United States are to illegal aliens.
58% of all welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens.
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/05/illegal-immigration-statistics/
—————–
As to why the population of illegal (or “natualized” children of illegal immigrants) immigrants in the public school system can be much greater than that of the general population…
More than 380,000 “anchor babies” born in the United States in 2005 were to parents who are illegal aliens; making those 380,000 babies automatically U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayer.
More than 66% of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/05/illegal-immigration-statistics/
———————-
While these massive budget deficits cannot be attributed to any single source, the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.1
This enormous expenditure of the taxpayers’ hard-earned contributions does not, however, represent the total costs. Special programs for non-English speakers are an additional fiscal burden as well as a hindrance to the overall learning environment. A recent study found that dual language programs represent an additional expense of $290 to $879 per pupil depending on the size of the class.2 In addition, because these children of illegal aliens come from families that are most often living in poverty, there is also a major expenditure for them on supplemental feeding programs in the schools. Those ancillary expenditures have not been included in the calculations in this report.
http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_costs_of_educating_legal_illegals_fair.htm
——————–
A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state’s already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/06/20041206-102115-6766r/
—————
The story in the following link is something you’ll see often on the internet when researching the effects of illegal immigration on our school system. As a former teacher, I can confirm much of what is written here. It is not hyperbole.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/tomatoes.asp
—————
Some more good links about immigration in California:
http://www.cis.org/california-education
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/atissue/AI_406HJAI.pdf
————–
In 2005, the California K–12 school system was 48.5 percent Hispanic, compared with 30.9 percent white. By now it is above 50 percent Hispanic. Two-thirds of kindergarten students were Hispanic, most of them unable to speak English.
For a closer glimpse of what’s in store for California, look at the Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest in California and the second largest in the country. Of its roughly 700,000 students, almost three-quarters are Hispanic, 8.9 percent are white, and 11.2 percent are black. More than half of the Latino students (about 300,000) are “English learners” and, depending on whether you believe the district or independent scholars, anywhere between a third and a half drop out of high school, following significant attrition in middle school. A recent study by UC Santa Barbara’s California Dropout Research Project estimates that high-school dropouts in 2007 alone will cost the state $24.2 billion in future economic losses.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MWFhYjhiODFiOGZmNTc1ZTQxMzlkNjNkNjIzNDg2YWU=
—————
Now, about that “policy of silence” regarding immigration status…
Back when I worked for LAUSD in the mid-90s, it was a policy that nobody could question students or their parents about their immigration status. Because of this, statistics are difficult to find (this is intentional, as the *real* reason for the lack of accurate numbers is because they don’t want to give ammunition to those who oppose illegal immigration). That being said, it was “unofficially understood” at the time that about 40%-60% of the student population in LAUSD were either illegal immigrants or “anchor babies” — this, in the largest public school district in the state, and second largest in the nation. That was in the mid-90s, and the problems have only gotten worse since then.
Here is some more information about the (intentional) lack of accurate statistics. As of now, we have to rely mostly on whether or not prisoners and students/families self-identify as “illegal immigrants.” One thing I can guarantee is that the “official” numbers grossly understate what’s really going on. -CAR
—————
Developing credible estimates of the costs and revenues for illegal aliens
in California is difficult because limited data are available on this
population’s size, use of public services, and tax payments. This difficulty
is compounded by the lack of consensus among researchers on the
appropriate methodologies, assumptions, and data sources to use in
estimating costs and revenues associated with illegal aliens.
…Although we believe our
adjusted estimate is more reasonable, because of severe data limitations it
is by no means precise.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/he95022.pdf
——————-
But how many millions? The truth is that neither Bush nor anyone in his government can say exactly how many undocumented workers live in the United States
The Census Bureau does not ask about immigration status, and the federal government has not issued an estimate of the undocumented population for the past few years. That has left the issue open for debate in the private sector, where counts of the illegal population range from 7 million to 20 million.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3500074.html
—————-
Estimates of how many are here now vary from twelve million to thirty million. Nobody really knows for sure, since agencies that should be asking are not allowed to do so. It is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. It forbids welfare agencies to ask the legal status of recipients. The two federal agencies, (the IRS and Census Bureau), that might have somewhat accurate figures will not give them out, citing “privacy” issues. We are left to speculate that we might have twice the cited illegal population here, which would be about twenty-four million, or even three times the estimate, which would be thirty-six million.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/24535
—————
Okay, enough for now. Just needed to point out that illegal immigration should be our first priority when dealing with our deficits. Fix that problem first, then we can properly address reduced public services, reduced wages/benefits for public employees, and higher taxes.
Some extra info…
Education expenses comprise over 50% of the state’s general fund expenditures.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/documents/CHART-E.pdf
While I’ve read that education and corrections are the state’s largest expenditures, according to this summary, it’s education and health and human services that are the greatest (page 5). Since I have spent enough time on this, I’ll leave it up to you to do the research on the impact of illegal immigration on our HHS resources. 😉
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf
Whew!
July 29, 2010 @ 3:18 PM
CA renter wrote:
Oh yes, our
[quote=CA renter]
Oh yes, our prisons are FULL of illegal immigrants and their “naturalized” children, as are our schools.[/quote]
I don’t see how “illegal immigrants” are having “naturalized” children.
Those children are natural-born American citizens.
If you won’t pay to educate American children, I don’t want to pay to educate your kids either.
July 29, 2010 @ 3:22 PM
The children born to illegal
The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. 😉
July 29, 2010 @ 6:17 PM
CA renter wrote:The children
[quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
I hope you are teaching your home-schooled children to look things up and not just believe what you tell them. Children born in the US, regardless of their parents citizenship, are not naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens are those not born with (US) citizenship. Children of undocumented aliens are born US citizens, ergo, not naturalized.
And on your stats, they’re all over the board. (I chose lower ones, you chose to link to higher numbers. But none indicate that the schools or prisons are “full” of illegal aliens. If schools were full of illegal aliens, there would be no room (even using your inflated 30%) for the rest of the students.
(Some of the best non-partisan information on the effects of immigration can be found at http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp the Public Policy Institute of California)
July 29, 2010 @ 7:05 PM
You are correct. The
You are correct. The technical definition of a “naturalized citizen” would not include the “anchor babies” born here. I’ve seen them referred to as naturalized citizens, but never looked up the technical definition. Nonetheless, the law that allows children of illegal immigrants to have U.S. citizenship (whatever you want to call it) is a huge problem.
I didn’t see you link to anything that showed that illegal immigrants and their children comprise less than 10% of the student population in California’s public school system. Anyone who has had any experience with the school system (or prison system, or public healthcare system, etc.) would know how totally unrealisitic that number is.
July 29, 2010 @ 7:20 PM
To summarize, the point is
To summarize, the point is there are a LOT of illegals in the prison and school systems, and it costs us (taxpayers) BILLIONS of dollars.
July 30, 2010 @ 8:48 AM
mike92104 wrote:To summarize,
[quote=mike92104]To summarize, the point is there are a LOT of illegals in the prison and school systems, and it costs us (taxpayers) BILLIONS of dollars.[/quote]
But what is the solution? People complain but don’t offer solutions.
Not putting criminals in jail? Felons get deported after serving their sentences anyway.
Not allowing children to attend school?
My solution, amnesty, is certainly a solution to unlawful presence.
July 30, 2010 @ 10:21 PM
briansd1 wrote:mike92104
[quote=briansd1][quote=mike92104]To summarize, the point is there are a LOT of illegals in the prison and school systems, and it costs us (taxpayers) BILLIONS of dollars.[/quote]
But what is the solution? People complain but don’t offer solutions.
Not putting criminals in jail? Felons get deported after serving their sentences anyway.
Not allowing children to attend school?
My solution, amnesty, is certainly a solution to unlawful presence.[/quote]
1. More manpower on the border.
I grew up in El Paso, TX. When Sylvester Reyes was head of the Border Patrol in that area, he decided to put a man every 100 yds or so along the portion of the border that ran through the city. It had a massive effect on reducing the number of illegals crossing within the city.
2. Let the E-Verify program do what it was intended to.
I think it’s stupid not to use a very cheap, and easy way of putting pressure on business to stop hiring illegals.
3. Make “sanctuary cities” illegal.
Arizona already did this in the SB1070
4. Deny benefits.
Take away as much incentive to be here as possible.
5. Deport illegals already here.
If you’re worried about being kicked out, maybe you’ll be more willing to go through the proper steps to immigrate legally.
6. Make the immigration process easier.
I’ve mentioned this before. I think if it were easier for Mexicans to immigrate or work in this country legally they would do so, but this has to be implemented along with stricter enforcement when people immigrate illegally. I would go so far as to deny any and all state services to anyone caught in the country illegally for the rest of their lives. They essentially lose their opportunity to ever immigrate legally.
As far as amnesty is concerned, if it was a solution, we wouldn’t need to do it again. When we did that in the late 80’s, it didn’t have any effect on the amount of illegal immigration. If anything it encouraged more of it.
August 2, 2010 @ 2:56 PM
I agree with several of
I agree with several of Mikein92104 points – especially the e-verify one. Arizona employers should be using this, as required under AZ law. Unfortunately, the enforcement on the employers isn’t happening.
Manpower has been beefed up on the border under Obama – and the numbers of deportations have risen.
I have issues with terms like “anchor baby” being tossed around. It’s a myth. If an illegal immigrant has a child in the U.S. the child is a citizen but the parent is still illegal. The INS can and DOES deport the parent(s). The child can either stay in the U.S. with relatives/friends, or return with the family to the home country. The child retains their citizenship. The only advantage for the parents immigration prospects is that when the child reaches age 21, they can apply to sponsor their parents to enter the country legally. 21 years is a very long payoff time to have an “anchor baby”.
As far as changing the law… it would be a change to the constitution. A much harder process. I’m glad the constitution is hard to change. (I wish California’s constitution were as hard to change.)
August 2, 2010 @ 6:37 PM
UCGal wrote:I’m glad the
[quote=UCGal]I’m glad the constitution is hard to change. (I wish California’s constitution were as hard to change.)[/quote]
Agree. The whole initiative process is being abused, imo.
July 30, 2010 @ 6:03 PM
SK in CV wrote:CA renter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
I hope you are teaching your home-schooled children to look things up and not just believe what you tell them. Children born in the US, regardless of their parents citizenship, are not naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens are those not born with (US) citizenship. Children of undocumented aliens are born US citizens, ergo, not naturalized.
And on your stats, they’re all over the board. (I chose lower ones, you chose to link to higher numbers. But none indicate that the schools or prisons are “full” of illegal aliens. If schools were full of illegal aliens, there would be no room (even using your inflated 30%) for the rest of the students.
(Some of the best non-partisan information on the effects of immigration can be found at http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp the Public Policy Institute of California)[/quote]
For the record, I’ve always made it a point to not personally attack other posters. It’s inflamatory, degrades the level of discourse, doesn’t contribute anything to the debate, and usually makes the attacker look like a fool. While I usually refrain from responding to personal attacks, when you took it upon yourself to personally insult me and my family, you went over the line. My children are off-limits, and had nothing to do with the topic we were debating. My response to brian was only meant to address his assertion that he didn’t want to pay for my childrens’ education; it’s not fodder for your personal attacks.
Let’s address your points now, so that we can see who really has a grasp of the facts.
We’ll discuss your “enlightened” claim that schools and prisons are not overcrowded as a result of illegal immigration.
——————
The overcrowding crisis in American schools is directly attributable to high immigration
Without school-age immigrants and the children of immigrants, school enrollment would not have risen at all during the past decade.
One in every five students has an immigrant parent. One-quarter of these children were foreign-born themselves.
Immigration will account for 96 percent of the future increase in the school-age population over the next 50 years.
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research438f
——————
Even those who appear to favor illegal immigration admit to the overcrowding (they just want us to pay more for it). -CAR
Ending School Overcrowding in California: Building Quality Schools for All Children, a joint report from PolicyLink and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), illustrates California’s school overcrowding crisis, analyzes the state’s New Construction and Critically Overcrowded Schools programs, discusses structural barriers to addressing school overcrowding, and outlines policy recommendations for more equitable distribution of school construction funds.
http://policylink.info/Research/SchoolOvercrowding/
—————-
This is bad news for efforts to reduce classroom crowding across the U.S. Faced with an influx of students, more than one-third of schools are using portable classrooms and holding classes in temporary instructional space, such as cafeterias and gyms. In county after county, students eat lunch in staggered schedules starting as early as 10:30 to ease the strain on crowded cafeterias. Teachers say classes are too large to be managed effectively, and they can’t assist students who need extra help.
Based on figures from the U.S. Census BureauNoun 1. Census Bureau – the bureau of the Commerce Department responsible for taking the census; provides demographic information and analyses about the population of the United States
Bureau of the Census
….. Click the link for more information., the report concludes that if immigration continues at current rates, efforts to reduce class size and ease overcrowding will be doomed to failure.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Report:+School+Overcrowding+Due+to+Immigration%3B+Without+Immigration,…-a090834952
—————
May 31, 2008|Tony Barboza, Times Staff Writer
For the second time in a decade, the cash-strapped Santa Ana Unified School District is asking voters to approve a construction bond to fund improvements to its school buildings.
The $200-million bond, Measure G on Tuesday’s ballot, would make the district eligible for up to $120 million in state matching funds to ease overcrowding.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/31/local/me-sabond31
Santa Ana is greatly impacted by illegal immigration, BTW. -CAR
——————
Multi-track, year-round education, which began as a stopgap effort to cope with severe
overcrowding, has only exacerbated the inequities between and among California’s schools.
(See Duke Helfand, Year-Round Discontent at Hollywood High, L.A. Times, Nov. 20, 2000, at
A1 (although a multi-track calendar was introduced in LAUSD at a single school about 25 years
ago as “a temporary fix for overcrowding,” LAUSD now operates more multi-track schools than
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, and Houston combined).) Students who attend
schools operating on the multi-track, year-round calendar known as Concept 6 suffer several
clear disadvantages as compared to students at schools on traditional calendars: (1) overcrowded
and large schools…
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/30q9d8xn;jsessionid=69C0DF366500BA0C5E55BFEE63AEC2AC#page-1
—————–
Now, for prisons…
Lawyers for a group of California inmates have been fighting for 20 years for improved medical and mental health care. Courts have ruled that the level of care in overcrowded California prisons violates the Constitution. But efforts at reform have stalled or failed as California prison populations have ballooned to roughly twice the system’s design capacity.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0614/Supreme-Court-to-hear-California-prison-overcrowding-case
————–
January 13, 2010|By Michael Rothfeld
Reporting from Sacramento — A panel of three federal judges Tuesday approved a court-ordered plan submitted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce overcrowding in California prisons by 40,000 inmates within two years.
The judges ruled against the state in August in two lawsuits by inmates who argued that overcrowding was the main cause of inadequate medical and mental health care in the prisons.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/13/local/la-me-prisons13-2010jan13
———————-
CHINO – It’s nearing noon inside the central wing of the California Institution for Men, and it’s not hard to find evidence of how this has become Exhibit A in California’s prison crisis.
A gymnasium is a sea of bunk beds. The 213 inmates inside are quarantined on this day, the result of worries about a swine flu outbreak. In a room like this, there is nowhere for a virus to go but directly to another inmate never more than a foot or two away. The basketball hoops and theater stage are reminders that this decaying part of the prison was never meant to house prisoners.
Likewise, a “day room” once envisioned as a place for inmates to play cards or watch TV is stacked with bunk beds, 54 beds for 54 prisoners who have little room to stand. In one corner, there is a shower and a toilet. Large fans stir the fetid air.
“This is self-explanatory,” says an inmate perched on a top bunk. “We’re overcrowded.”
Read more: http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_13329362#ixzz0vDKo2Bv8
———-
January 2010
CALIFORNIA’S PRISON SYSTEM is failing at every level. The cost to taxpayers and public safety for this failure is staggering. More than 170,000 inmates are now being warehoused in facilities designed to accommodate 80,000 inmates. Coupled with severe staff shortages, this overcrowding is inordinately jeopardizing the safety of inmates and correctional officers, while straining prison resources and infrastructure to the breaking point.
http://www.ccpoa.org/issues/ccpoa_on_prison_reform
—————–
Now, for hospitals…
California’s emergency rooms have become the healthcare safety net and are the front lines of any public health emergency. Overcrowding in California’s emergency rooms is a real and continued threat to the health and safety of patients in need of care.
California is currently last in the nation when it comes to the number of emergency rooms available per capita, providing only six emergency rooms for every one million residents.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=yboqlvsj6b5m3e
———————-
In case you’re wondering why we have so few beds per person…
The Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare studied shortterm
general acute care hospitals that closed in California during the years 1995 to 2000.
We identified 23 closures, 11 of which took place at for-profit facilities. The vast
majority took place in urban areas, and they were most often in southern California.
Payer Mix
In a further effort to describe the closed hospitals, we also studied the mix of
discharges and revenues from government payers they reported. We found that, as a
group, the closed hospitals reliance on Medicare and MediCal patients and revenue did
not differ greatly from the state’s 1999 open general acute care (GAC) hospitals. This
fact is illustrated in Figure 6.
http://www.ag.ca.gov/charities/publications/nonprofithosp/report.pdf
—————–
A link to emergency room closures:
http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/no/closed/list/
—————
According to the California Healthcare Association CHA, 70 acute care hospitals closed in California between 1993 and 2003—a 13.33% drop in hospital capacity. During the same period, about 11,000 staffed hospital beds were lost (staffed beds are those which are both licensed and have the requisite staff available to care for patients). As the state’s population grew by 13.44% over that decade, acute care hospital bed capacity dropped by 14.24%.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3138cal_hosp_cuts.html
——————-
A total of 525 EDs (91%)
reported overcrowding as a problem. Emergency
departments serving populations less than 250,000
reported less overcrowding (87%) than those serving
larger populations (96%). Prevalences of overcrowding
were similar in academic, county, and
private EDs (Table 1).
http://www.saem.org/SAEMDNN/Portals/0/Committees/Crowd/CrowdDocs/AEMarticles/FrequentOvercrowdingAEM.pdf
—————–
The situation has
the potential for danger, as the ED staff becomes
overwhelmed with caring for critical or high-risk
patients who have no hospital bed while ambulances
continue to arrive with seriously ill or injured
patients. At this point many EDs must close
to all ambulance traffic in order to cope, resulting
in a public health dilemma. Another factor exacerbating
this issue is increasing ED volume. As the
population continues to increase, demand on emergency
services will grow accordingly. However,
more EDs are closing than are being built, and
there appears to be no incentive for expanding existing
EDs to cope with this increase in patient volume.
http://www.saem.org/SAEMDNN/Portals/0/Committees/Crowd/CrowdDocs/AEMarticles/FrequentOvercrowdingAEM.pdf
—————–
These findings are especially intriguing
given the main drivers of ED overcrowding.
Several studies and our own work point to
high hospital occupancy with shrunken inpatient
capacity (especially in critical care) and
impaired patient flow as the major determinants
of backups in the ED.3
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.w4.146v1.pdf
——————-
BTW, I certainly hope the “CV” in your username stands for Chula Vista and not Carmel Valley. There is nothing worse than hypocrites who insist on forcing illegal immigration on others, while not wishing to encouter the affects of this illegal immigration themselves. Unless your children attend schools that have a high illegal immigrant population, and your family uses hospitals/medical offices that are severely impacted by illegal immigrants, then you cannot criticize those who oppose illegal immigration. As long as you are not living among illegal immigrants, and directly affected by the consequences of illegal immigration in your daily life, then you are simply a hypocrite who likes to talk the talk, but refuses to walk the walk.
Additionally, for someone who thinks my children shouldn’t listen to what I say and should verify what I say by looking it up (not a bad exercise for anybody, BTW, as nobody can be trused to know everything 100% of the time — including yourself), you’ve provided absolutely no facts, no logic, and no citations to back up any of your claims. It’s all based on emotion. At least I present facts, logic, and citations.
July 30, 2010 @ 7:14 PM
CA renter wrote:
For the
[quote=CA renter]
For the record, I’ve always made it a point to not personally attack other posters. It’s inflamatory, degrades the level of discourse, doesn’t contribute anything to the debate, and usually makes the attacker look like a fool. While I usually refrain from responding to personal attacks, when you took it upon yourself to personally insult me and my family, you went over the line. My children are off-limits, and had nothing to do with the topic we were debating. My response to brian was only meant to address his assertion that he didn’t want to pay for my childrens’ education; it’s not fodder for your personal attacks. [/quote]
Chill dude. I didn’t insult your family. If you make a mistake, someone corrects you, and then you continue to assert you’re correct simply because you are, you might be insulted the 2nd time around.
[quote=CA renter]
Let’s address your points now, so that we can see who really has a grasp of the facts.
We’ll discuss your “enlightened” claim that schools and prisons are not overcrowded as a result of illegal immigration.
[/quote]
Talking to the wrong person. I never made that claim. (Nuance matters. The world is not black and white.)
And as far as what the CV stands for. Nice rant. I guess if i don’t deal with the evil that is brown people every day, I shouldn’t have any opinions. And if I do deal with them every day, I can cite any kind of racist screed I can find, as proof of the accuracy of my claims. Gotcha.
July 30, 2010 @ 8:17 PM
CAR obviously you are a
CAR obviously you are a horrible racist for your views on immigration. I am looking forward to the next meetup and we can all wear our hoods and chant together. Shame on you for your common sense, I mean racist views.
BTW I could not agree with you more so I guess I am a racist to correct?
July 31, 2010 @ 8:16 PM
SD Realtor wrote:CAR
[quote=SD Realtor]CAR obviously you are a horrible racist for your views on immigration. I am looking forward to the next meetup and we can all wear our hoods and chant together. Shame on you for your common sense, I mean racist views.
BTW I could not agree with you more so I guess I am a racist to correct?[/quote]
🙂
July 30, 2010 @ 10:37 PM
SK in CV wrote:
Chill dude. I
[quote=SK in CV]
Chill dude. I didn’t insult your family. If you make a mistake, someone corrects you, and then you continue to assert you’re correct simply because you are, you might be insulted the 2nd time around.[/quote]
I admitted immediately when I made a mistake about the technical definition of a “naturalized” citizen. I was clearly refering to the process (whatever it’s called) where children born to illegals are allowed to become U.S. citizens, not trying to define “naturalized,” even though I see how someone might have read it that way.
I’d like to know where you corrected me with respect to the actual substance of the debate, as I never saw this apparent “correction” of yours. You never did that, nor did you back up anything you’ve said (while I did).
[quote=SK in CV]Talking to the wrong person. I never made that claim. (Nuance matters. The world is not black and white.)
And as far as what the CV stands for. Nice rant. I guess if i don’t deal with the evil that is brown people every day, I shouldn’t have any opinions. And if I do deal with them every day, I can cite any kind of racist screed I can find, as proof of the accuracy of my claims. Gotcha.[/quote]
Right, because people who oppose illegal immigration because they are actually affected by the consequences of it are “racists” and “xenophobes” while those who buy their way into a lifestyle where their only interaction with illegals is when the cleaning lady and gardener come by once a week are somehow not “racist.” Gotcha.
Practice what you preach.
July 30, 2010 @ 11:32 PM
Actually my friend, no you
Actually my friend, no you didn’t admit it immediately when you made a mistake. Brian corrected you and you replied:
[quote]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how.[/quote]
(As to the rest of the “correction section”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. It seems you’re disputing a claim I never made)
As to your hypocrite charge. Eh. Laugable at best. It seems your argument is that anyone that isn’t directly affected by an issue has no right to an opinion on the issue, or their a hypocrite. I suggest you check the definition of hypocrite.
Followed by, if you live with illegal aliens, you can’t harbor racist attitudes and if you don’t live with them, you must be racist.
I’m glad you’re the one bringing logic to the discussion. It’s a great responsibility.
(Just as an aside, I’m quite sure that nowhere in this discussion have I claimed I was in favor of illegal immigration, or even opposed to enforcement of immigration laws. My comments have been more focused on unsubstantiated claims or exaggerations.)
July 31, 2010 @ 12:03 AM
While everyone’s entitled to
While everyone’s entitled to have an opinion, the opinions of those who have more experience and knowledge about a particular subject certainly carry more weight.
BTW, you still haven’t backed up any of your claims that oppose these supposed “exaggerations.” If you haven’t actually been in the trenches with it, and if you’ve never **lived in it** then you have no credibility when opposing someone who has.
July 31, 2010 @ 12:41 AM
SK,
We’re never going to see
SK,
We’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this because we come from different backgrounds and have obviously had different experiences with it.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Do yourself a favor and visit schools, hospitals, and prisons that are impacted by illegal immigration. Talk to people who work there and learn about what they are seeing and how they perceive it. Walk around neighborhoods with a large illegal immigrant population and decide for yourself if this is a step up from what it was before illegal immigrants took over the area (ask long-term residents, or look at old photos of the areas for some ideas). Talk to people in the public assistance offices and ask them about what they see and experience. Ask yourself if you **honestly** would prefer to live in these neighborhoods, and have your children attend these schools and use these hospitals. You can’t force upon others what you, yourself, are not willing to endure.
One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument. Know that this is a debate primarily about resource allocation. After that come the issues of culture (clashes in language, social mores & beliefs, and way of life, etc.).
Race plays very little part in this. If white Australians were coming here in the same numbers and had the same numbers WRT crime, social service expenditures, differences in cultural vaues, etc., and marched down our streets hoisting Australian flags as they *demanded* more concesssions from us, most Americans would be arguing just as loudly to shut them out.
I want to call a truce on this. Let’s just say we strongly disagree about illegal immigration, okay?
July 31, 2010 @ 9:36 AM
CA renter wrote:SK,
We’re
[quote=CA renter]SK,
We’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this because we come from different backgrounds and have obviously had different experiences with it.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Do yourself a favor and visit schools, hospitals, and prisons that are impacted by illegal immigration. Talk to people who work there and learn about what they are seeing and how they perceive it. Walk around neighborhoods with a large illegal immigrant population and decide for yourself if this is a step up from what it was before illegal immigrants took over the area (ask long-term residents, or look at old photos of the areas for some ideas). Talk to people in the public assistance offices and ask them about what they see and experience. Ask yourself if you **honestly** would prefer to live in these neighborhoods, and have your children attend these schools and use these hospitals. You can’t force upon others what you, yourself, are not willing to endure.
One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument. Know that this is a debate primarily about resource allocation. After that come the issues of culture (clashes in language, social mores & beliefs, and way of life, etc.).
Race plays very little part in this. If white Australians were coming here in the same numbers and had the same numbers WRT crime, social service expenditures, differences in cultural vaues, etc., and marched down our streets hoisting Australian flags as they *demanded* more concesssions from us, most Americans would be arguing just as loudly to shut them out.
I want to call a truce on this. Let’s just say we strongly disagree about illegal immigration, okay?[/quote]
You have no idea what my background is. Nor do i have any idea what yours is. Fact is, I’ve spent time among immigrants, both legal and undocumented for most of my life. My kids attended most of their public schooling with a significant population of immigrant students. My wife works in public health. Probably less than 1% of her patients are not on some form of public and private assistance. She hasn’t had a raise in probably 15 years. Many years right around now she has to defer her pay because the state has stopped issuing reimbursements because the there’s no more money in the budget. But if she didn’t treat them, no one would. So she waits until October to be paid.
As to the specifics of this part of your comment…
“One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument.”
Again with the exaggeration. I’ll repeat again, I haven’t claimed anywhere that I support illegal immigration. (I’m pretty sure no one has made that claim.) Nor have I called you racist. The only direct reference to racism was to an article you linked to. And thanks to the info provided by Arraya in the other thread, it seems the conclusion I drew from my cursory reading of that article is consistent with other opinions about that author’s work.
My argument is not for or against. My argument is for good faith discussion. There is no place in good faith discussion for exaggeration of the facts.
The prisons and schools are not “full of illegals”. According to a study a few years ago, there are roughly 2 million men incarcerated in this country. Almost half of them are black (and presumably, only a tiny percentage of these men are also in the US illegally.) California’s numbers may be slightly different, but regardless if almost 1/2 the prison population is NOT here illegally, it is impossible for the prisons to be full of a different population.
On the schools, you said 30%, again NOT full. In an article you cited, FAIR arrived at 15%. I said less than 10%. Which is more accurate? FAIR’s calculation included almost 600,000 US born children of undocumented immigrants. If those US citizen children were removed from their calculation, the percentage would be less than 10%.
You can argue that those children should not be citizens entitled to the same benefits that our children are entitled to. You can argue that the constitution should be changed. But you can’t argue in good faith that they’re not citizens under current law.
As to a truce on discussion, that would only be logical if one of us concedes that our arguments are based on ideological beliefs. I’ve spent most of my life avoiding ideologies of all kinds. They hinder progress.
July 31, 2010 @ 9:43 AM
CA renter wrote:
One thing
[quote=CA renter]
One thing that’s very important in this debate: when people who favor illegal immigration use words like racist, xenophobe, “racist screed,” etc. it makes them look like they have no legitimate argument. Know that this is a debate primarily about resource allocation. After that come the issues of culture (clashes in language, social mores & beliefs, and way of life, etc.).[/quote]
CA renter, nobody called you a racist.
I agree with SK in CV, Madeleine Pelner Cosman, the author of piece that Hobie linked to is clearly racist and biased. It shows in her piece.
Like SK in CV, nowhere did I say that I support illegal border crossing.
I support the immigrants who are ALREADY HERE. Big difference.
July 31, 2010 @ 10:50 AM
Drug incarcerations have gone
Drug incarcerations have gone up over 1000% since 1980 as well as funding for the “drug war”. During that time drugs have become much more plentiful, better quality and cheaper.
DEA employees have gone up from <1000 to almost 12,000.
The more and more energy, resources we put to it, the worse it gets. Stricter laws, more manpower, more $$, etc... It just did not work.
fwiw- Illegal Narcotics are the 3rd or 4th biggest industry in the world behind energy and weapons. Americans do the most illegal and legal drugs per capita in the world. Interestingly, most drug money winds up in US banks. But that is another discussion.
Once you understand why the war on drugs is a monumental failure, you can understand that whatever proposal to curb or stop illegal immigration will be a failure as well. Though, either will employ a lot of people. Through, the security apparatus or the illegal trade itself.
We took the perceived drug problem, built and multi-billion dollar industry around it, committed a huge amount of resources and it essentially exacerbated the problem.
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that when a root cause is not understood or addressed, that doing anything to combat a symptom will be futile.
I don't see it any different with the "war on illegal immigration". We won't stop it until the root cause is addressed and, ironically, the root cause is considered desirable.
I can definitely see this issue becoming a nightmare over the next few years, and yes, the racists and xenophobs will come out of the woodwork and support one side of the issue.
July 31, 2010 @ 11:11 AM
Good post Arraya on the root
Good post Arraya on the root cause of the problem.
But more on immigration, I hate the use of the term “illegal immigration” because there is no such thing.
Immigration is a basic human right and that has been happening since of beginning of human life.
Unauthorized entry is illegal but immigration is not illegal.
Unauthorized presence is not even illegal (but there are civil penalties).
July 31, 2010 @ 7:35 AM
CAR: You have done a terrific
CAR: You have done a terrific job of presenting and supporting your opinions. I was looking forward to a spirited discussion from SK and the rest about your front line issues.
Some of us here -in a blog format- place a lot of weight on nuances and details that pull the conversation away from the main issue. We are not arguing PhD dissertations and a little latitude is necessary to keep the topic alive and interesting. We don’t need contest for the final Gotcha, QED, etc.
I am disillusioned when someone drops the ‘racist’, ‘correct definitions’, ‘not an academic piece’,ect. line yet doesn’t follow up with a good response to the core issue. Seems like the easy way out if you are can’t develop an argument.
Keep on posting CAR a don’t let small people get under your skin.
July 31, 2010 @ 9:32 AM
SK in CV wrote:CA renter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
I hope you are teaching your home-schooled children to look things up and not just believe what you tell them. Children born in the US, regardless of their parents citizenship, are not naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens are those not born with (US) citizenship. Children of undocumented aliens are born US citizens, ergo, not naturalized.
And on your stats, they’re all over the board. (I chose lower ones, you chose to link to higher numbers. But none indicate that the schools or prisons are “full” of illegal aliens. If schools were full of illegal aliens, there would be no room (even using your inflated 30%) for the rest of the students.
(Some of the best non-partisan information on the effects of immigration can be found at http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp the Public Policy Institute of California)[/quote]
SK: Frankly, I think you owe CAR an apology regarding your home schooling comment.
Her intent was simply a little light humor and you took a personal shot at her. When she called you on it, you ducked.
July 29, 2010 @ 6:25 PM
CA renter wrote:The children
[quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
Don’t worry, you don’t pay for our kids’ education…we homeschool. ;)[/quote]
SK in CV already corrected the misinformation about “naturalized citizens”.
Either way, an American citizen is an American, regardless of whether that person was born with citizenship or acquired it later through naturalization.
As far as we know, there is only one class of citizenship, some citizens are not better or worse than others.
You seem to imply that some American children don’t deserve education.
July 30, 2010 @ 9:47 AM
CA renter wrote:The children
[quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong.
Any child born on the US soil is “natural born citizen” of the USA. He/she is no different from any other child born in USA to a US citizen. He/she can grow up to become the president, for example.
You may not like it, but that is what the constitution says and we have to accept it, (just like there are many folks who don’t like second amendment but have to accept it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_Clause
There are people who say that the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear when this amendment was passed. That is a fair point. However, until supreme court decides to rule on that point, it is still an accepted law of this land that they are US citizens.
July 30, 2010 @ 10:35 AM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:CA
[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong.
Any child born on the US soil is “natural born citizen” of the USA. He/she is no different from any other child born in USA to a US citizen. He/she can grow up to become the president, for example.
You may not like it, but that is what the constitution says and we have to accept it, (just like there are many folks who don’t like second amendment but have to accept it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_Clause
There are people who say that the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear when this amendment was passed. That is a fair point. However, until supreme court decides to rule on that point, it is still an accepted law of this land that they are US citizens.[/quote]
The only thing wrong there was that they are native citizens, not naturalized. However you completely ignor the rest, and most pertinant, part of the argument, which is that children born to illegal immigrants should no longer be given citizenship. Your discounting of the type of citizen they are does not play into the argument against them being able to obtain citizenship in the first place.
But you are correct on the very narrow point you are making.
July 30, 2010 @ 11:36 AM
I am saying that
[1] Any
I am saying that
[1] Any child born on US soil is US citizen – as per generally accepted law of this land.
[2] Laws of the land apply equally to everyone. Thus US citizen children of illegal immigrants have as much right over public schools and public benefits as US citizen kids of legal US citizens.
[3] For those who believe that such children born to illegal immigrants should not be US citizens, current law is not on your side – I emphasize this because, you all never fail to point out how the laws of this country have not been followed by illegal immigrants.
To do this by the book, you need to either amend constitution (here is a process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments) or you will need to get a favorable judgement from Supreme court on this point. (None of them will be easy.)
July 30, 2010 @ 12:23 PM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:
[3]
[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
[3] For those who believe that such children born to illegal immigrants should not be US citizens, current law is not on your side – I emphasize this because, you all never fail to point out how the laws of this country have not been followed by illegal immigrants.
[/quote]
I absolutely agree with you enron.
Those American citizen children did not violate any laws.
Why would anybody want to deny education and social benefits to American children who are eligible?
July 30, 2010 @ 1:18 PM
I agree, current law does not
I agree, current law does not support the notion that these children are in any way less entitled to the basic services of our government than any other citizen. But that doesnt mean the law is correct, only old.
July 30, 2010 @ 1:21 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Why would
[quote=briansd1]
Why would anybody want to deny education and social benefits to American children who are eligible?[/quote]
Perhaps to reduce the stimulus to immigrate illegally driving their parents? Same as the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to restrict the jobs?
BTW, I dont agree with the ‘no schooling’ argument. They are full US citizens with all rights and privlages of. If we want to reduce this problem, it should be done the right way and the law should be changed. It isnt easy, but little is anymore.
July 30, 2010 @ 3:14 PM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:CA
[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]The children born to illegal immigrants are considered “naturalized citizens,” that’s how. And it’s something that desperately needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong.
Any child born on the US soil is “natural born citizen” of the USA. He/she is no different from any other child born in USA to a US citizen. He/she can grow up to become the president, for example.
You may not like it, but that is what the constitution says and we have to accept it, (just like there are many folks who don’t like second amendment but have to accept it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_Clause
There are people who say that the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear when this amendment was passed. That is a fair point. However, until supreme court decides to rule on that point, it is still an accepted law of this land that they are US citizens.[/quote]
Enron,
Yes, I had already acknowledged in my post above that they are not considered “naturalized” citizens. I wasn’t arguing about the correct name, process, or type of citizenship granted to these anchor babies, I thought initially that brian was questioning the fact that babies born here are able to obtain citizenship. It’s easy to see how he misunderstood my point as I misunderstood his. I honestly don’t know the details about how one applies for, or regects, citizenship when a baby is born here. I was commenting about the fact that these anchor babies are a direct result of illegal immigration and are considered part of the burden of illegal immigration from the day they are born, as most of their births are paid for by taxpayers as well.
Still the point I was trying to make was that illegal immigration places a tremendous burden on our resources and on our society. It needs to be stopped, and any amount of name calling (racist, xenophobe, etc.) does not negate that fact.
July 30, 2010 @ 3:24 PM
I’m not sure if you can make
I’m not sure if you can make the claim that illegals are, in aggregate, a burden on the financial system. Reality is not that simple. Removing all illegals would be like taking an organ out of a body. Of course all humans are a stress on the worlds resource base, but as far as our financial system goes, they are very interconnected in the ebb and flow of things.
July 31, 2010 @ 8:12 AM
CA renter wrote: I thought
[quote=CA renter] I thought initially that brian was questioning the fact that babies born here are able to obtain citizenship.
It’s easy to see how he misunderstood my point as I misunderstood his. I honestly don’t know the details about how one applies for, or regects, citizenship when a baby is born here.
[/quote]
All babies born in this country are not “allowed to become U.S. citizens” nor to do they need to apply.
They ARE citizens.
[quote=CA renter]
I was commenting about the fact that these anchor babies are a direct result of illegal immigration and are considered part of the burden of illegal immigration from the day they are born, as most of their births are paid for by taxpayers as well.
[/quote]
We are all a burden, some more than others.
Smokers are a burden; fat people are burden; all children are a burden until they can pay for themselves.
July 27, 2010 @ 2:17 PM
briansd1 wrote:
What
[quote=briansd1]
What government benefits are we giving unauthorized immigrants? I can’t think of any.
(Emergency room medical care does not apply in my view)[/quote]
Free school breakfast and lunch programs, ESL instruction…I think that we spend A LOT of money giving benefits to illegal immigrants and their children.
Someone at one of the schools told me once that the (non working) parents of some of these kids go to school with the kids and end up eating with the children–the free meals that you and I are paying for.
July 26, 2010 @ 8:12 PM
I think the law made a
I think the law made a critical mistake in requiring police to “believe a person is in the US illegally” and not simply require ID from ALL persons, making the issue MOOT, as it would be applied fairly to ALL people regardless of color, sex or race. There are a lot of Europeans here illegally who are white, so I would definitely support the law more if it simply made it a requirement to provide ID on demand. Personally, I would not be opposed to being required to provide ID myself, just to make 100% sure no single group is targeted. Most of my friends would too.
July 26, 2010 @ 8:27 PM
So if you’re on you way to an
So if you’re on you way to an important business meeting and the cops detain you 20 minutes in 100 degree weather you don’t mind? If it happens 2x a week? 4th amendment? Gonna have to amend the constitution tothe cops can ATP you and check you out whenever the he’ll they feel like it.”
July 26, 2010 @ 9:52 PM
walterwhite wrote:So if
[quote=walterwhite]So if you’re on you way to an important business meeting and the cops detain you 20 minutes in 100 degree weather you don’t mind? If it happens 2x a week? 4th amendment? Gonna have to amend the constitution tothe cops can ATP you and check you out whenever the he’ll they feel like it.”[/quote]
??? The law simply says that they can check immigration status in the course of a normal investigation (traffic stop, etc…) It doesn’t say that they can just at will stop people and demand papers. Also, your example is silly as I have been pulled over by cops for traffic violations on the way to important meetings and detained for 10 minutes while they check me out. If I hadn’t provided ID they probably would have taken me to the pokey. It would be easy to verify that I am entitled to work there by asking for a passport or green card in addition to the DL. This is the way it works in 99% of the world. Get pulled over in France and don’t speak the language? They’re gonna want to see your passport, same in the UK or Italy.
July 26, 2010 @ 11:06 PM
i havent read the law. i
i havent read the law. i don’t know. you’re probably right. maybe it’ll all be fair. all i know is black people get stopped for being black. now brown people will get stopped for being brown. and white people will say, well, f it, I wouldn’t theoretically mind being stopped. if i were stopped. truly I don’t have any opinion about immigration or what the right thing to do is. I just don’t trust cops 100% on stops. they don’t always tel lthe truth. maybe from most people’s point of view it doesn’t matter.
July 27, 2010 @ 6:57 AM
I hear ya man, I don’t trust
I hear ya man, I don’t trust cops either. But if we have laws we should at least attempt to enforce them. At least in Arizona a lot of the cops have names like Gonzalez and Littlecloud, so I don’t know how much racial profing of Hispanics you’ll actually see. My guess is it will be more based on what kind of vehicle they’re driving and whether or not the driver speaks English. Still it’s profiling, and that’s not nice.
I don’t know what to do about this whole issue. We destroyed Mexico with NAFTA and now we are paying the price. When I was a kid there weren’t many people crossing the border but as soon as NAFTA destroyed Mexican agriculture it became a flood. And then when we gave most-favored nation trading status to China, that put a lot of the Mexican factories out of business which made the situation worse. We will probably just need to do a blanket amnesty at some point and deal with the results. We have to be honest and admit that 90+% of undocumented immigrants are refugees fleeing the damage done by our own policy of globalization.
As for me, I like living in the southwest and have always lived pretty close to the border, so I just keep practicing my Spanish. I figure I’m gonna need it a lot more as I get older! Hopefully they’ll still let me live here in 40 years ha ha.
July 27, 2010 @ 9:01 AM
CONCHO wrote: We will
[quote=CONCHO] We will probably just need to do a blanket amnesty at some point and deal with the results. We have to be honest and admit that 90+% of undocumented immigrants are refugees fleeing the damage done by our own policy of globalization.
As for me, I like living in the southwest and have always lived pretty close to the border, so I just keep practicing my Spanish. I figure I’m gonna need it a lot more as I get older! Hopefully they’ll still let me live here in 40 years ha ha.[/quote]
So why not give them amnesty now and integrate them into our economy. Give them a stake in our country and their citizen children will adapt better and become better citizens.
Time has a way of taking care of things. Give them legal status now (better) or give them legal status later (worse).
July 27, 2010 @ 9:11 AM
briansd1 wrote:
So why not
[quote=briansd1]
So why not give them amnesty now and integrate them into our economy. Give them a stake in our country and their citizen children will adapt better and become better citizens.
Time has a way of taking care of things. Give them legal status now (better) or give them legal status later (worse).[/quote]
They might have to, I’m not sure there will be any other way. However if after the amnesty is declared the border as it stands today still exists, the problem won’t be fixed. I think there are only two options post-amnesty.
1) Enforce existing immigration laws. Deport people here illegally.
2) Eliminate the border entirely. Anyone who is here can claim US citizenship. Green cards and visas no longer apply in US territory.
Anything between those two options will leave us where we are now, with criminals and drug dealers engaging in human trafficking, many unnecessary deaths and needless suffering in desert crossings, and poor working and living conditions for immigrant workers. Also the way the crossings are being done now is destroying delicate desert ecosystems and farms.
We can’t have it both ways. We can’t pretend to care about these people while allowing them to live in a system that exploits them and has them working in unsafe and illegal conditions for low pay and no benefits. We can’t pretend to care about them but look the other way as hundreds die in the desert and thousands are abused or robbed by drug dealing criminal coyotes.
I’m not sure that globalization makes sense if people aren’t also given complete freedom of movement as well. Notice that the big business types who push globalization never mention that part.
July 29, 2010 @ 3:48 PM
CONCHO wrote:We destroyed
[quote=CONCHO]We destroyed Mexico with NAFTA and now we are paying the price. When I was a kid there weren’t many people crossing the border but as soon as NAFTA destroyed Mexican agriculture it became a flood.[/quote]
The last amnesty I believe was in 1984 and was pre-NAFTA…
July 27, 2010 @ 11:37 AM
The notion of “reasonable
The notion of “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is “illegal” is not as ambigious as it may seem. Those of us who work for our Uncle Sam on the border have a whole bag of trick questions to determine a persons immigration status.
Some questions are very simple. Questions like “how did you get into the US?” or “where did you get your green card?’ or “where were you naturalized?” For the most part legal immigrants are very proud and knowlegable about the process. Illegals tend to have no knowledge about the legal entrance process at all. Creating reasonable suspicion.
Bubba on the border.
July 28, 2010 @ 12:11 PM
From the ruling …
“The
From the ruling …
“The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times”
“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
I am glad that the judge decided to precisely focus on the parts of this law that in my opinion are most unfair and discriminatory.
Somehow both pro and anti illiegal immigration groups ignored the large number of legal immigrants and legal aliens in this country and how this law basically puts all of them under suspicion too and makes them the subject for racial profiling.
July 28, 2010 @ 12:37 PM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:From
[quote=enron_by_the_sea]From the ruling …
“The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times”
“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
I am glad that the judge decided to precisely focus on the parts of this law that in my opinion are most unfair and discriminatory.
Somehow both pro and anti illiegal immigration groups ignored the large number of legal immigrants and legal aliens in this country and how this law basically puts all of them under suspicion too and makes them the subject for racial profiling.[/quote]
Interesting. It is already a legal requirement for Permanent Residents to carry their Permanent Resident Card with them at all times.
July 29, 2010 @ 9:09 PM
And since no one has
And since no one has addressed this yet:
Illegals and the US health care system.
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
Great article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons written by a medical lawyer discussing the medical costs and social implications of illegal immigration.
Simply hits the nail on the head. I am hopeful that SK is enlightened.
July 29, 2010 @ 9:55 PM
Enlightened how?
Enlightened how?
July 30, 2010 @ 7:10 AM
Good Morning SK. Enlightened
Good Morning SK. Enlightened as to the far reaching negative impacts of illegal immigration. Both in direct cost and social consequences.
Have you read the article? Thoughts?
July 30, 2010 @ 7:54 AM
Hobie wrote:Good Morning SK.
[quote=Hobie]Good Morning SK. Enlightened as to the far reaching negative impacts of illegal immigration. Both in direct cost and social consequences.
Have you read the article? Thoughts?[/quote]
I have read it. I’m not sure why you believe I need enlightenment. Nor how you think I can be enlightened by a fear mongering racist, his credentials notwithstanding. That article is not an acedemic piece, it is opinion, sprinkled with statistics. (Words and phtrases like “stealthy assualt”, and his listing and assailing of pro-immigration NGO’s are pretty good evidence of that. His inclusion of George Soros’ name in that list is telling.)
July 30, 2010 @ 8:34 AM
I also read the referenced
I also read the referenced article.
I don’t see why people keep on maligning American children. What does it matter who they are born to? They are American kids who need care. We need to provide it to them.
“stealthy assault” makes it sound like there’s a coordinated effort to attack America on the part of the immigrants, whom the author exhort us to “fight” against and not “surrender” to.
In reality, immigrants, unauthorized or otherwise, just want jobs and decent lives.
July 30, 2010 @ 3:08 PM
SK in CV wrote:
[quote=SK in CV] [/quote]
Regarding this piece, I included it for its brevity and backing up her opinions with facts. (98 citations in a 4 page article.)
If you take a step back and look beyond your personal feelings about the author I would like to hear some good reasons why we should subject all of our citizens to the health risks by not following the law which requires emigrants to pass a health exam before entering the country.
Since this is a new direction I have started a new thread under the same name.
July 31, 2010 @ 11:19 AM
Yet another immigration
Yet another immigration discussion without consideration of a large variable in the equation: The employers who hire illegal immigrants and their addiction to cheap labor. Fine or jail any employer who hires illegals and I imagine we’d see a large reduction in immigrants. But how do we enforce this? How does the anti-immigration crowd reconcile their desire for less with bureaucracy with their desire to enforce an issue as large as this? And if we do start enforcing, is our economy prepared for the prices of everything to rise significantly? What do you think is going to happen to the price of a head of lettuce when all of a sudden the field workers need to be paid minimum wage and overtime for their 12 hour days, as opposed to the pennies on the dollar they are currently paid for their backbreaking labor?
Again, I urge any unemployed American citizen to take up the offer at http://takeourjobs.org/ to work 12 hour days in the scorching San Joaquin valley, living away from their family in camps and getting paid pennies on the dollar. I look forward to the comments on their experiences.
July 31, 2010 @ 11:52 AM
afx114 wrote: backbreaking
[quote=afx114] backbreaking labor?
Again, I urge any unemployed American citizen to take up the offer at http://takeourjobs.org/ to work 12 hour days in the scorching San Joaquin valley, living away from their family in camps and getting paid pennies on the dollar. I look forward to the comments on their experiences.[/quote]
Americans cannot have those jobs because such working conditions are illegal. Only people who have no rights can work under those conditions. Americans would have the right to get an attorney, file a lawsuit, and win a judgment from the farm for violating any number of labor laws. Illegals have no such recourse since they fear being deported.
July 31, 2010 @ 12:08 PM
It’s just another case of
It’s just another case of “nanny state” regulations ruining the country. We need to get back to the good old day were we could legally exploit our own impoverished and put their kids in coal mines with no pesky laws infringing on our ruling classes profits. God knows, the super-wealthy are hurting these days. No wonder americans are so soft.
July 31, 2010 @ 1:17 PM
CONCHO wrote:Americans cannot
[quote=CONCHO]Americans cannot have those jobs because such working conditions are illegal. Only people who have no rights can work under those conditions. Americans would have the right to get an attorney, file a lawsuit, and win a judgment from the farm for violating any number of labor laws. Illegals have no such recourse since they fear being deported.[/quote]
That’s exactly my point. Americans complaining about illegals taking their jobs are unwilling to do said jobs under the conditions and pay rate that the illegals do them. On top of this, Americans opposed to illegal immigration reap the benefits of it daily. All they have to do is look at the receipts from their grocery store, hotel, or oil change shop.
That’s not to say that there aren’t negatives to immigration — clearly there are. But we can’t have a rational discussion about the scourge of illegal immigration unless we also discuss the benefits that we all enjoy and take for granted. It is much easier to demonize a segment of a population than it is to take a deeper look and realize how much we benefit from them.
I think Arraya described it best. Like it or not, illegal immigrants have become a vital organ of our economy, and opponents of illegal immigration need to ask themselves if they’re willing to take on the risk of removing it. And if they are willing to remove said organ, what do they plan to replace it with? As with any replacement organ it must be of the same relative size and perform the same relative functions at the same relative cost. Otherwise, it’s not worth the transplant.
July 31, 2010 @ 4:36 PM
afx114 wrote:CONCHO
[quote=afx114][quote=CONCHO]Americans cannot have those jobs because such working conditions are illegal. Only people who have no rights can work under those conditions. Americans would have the right to get an attorney, file a lawsuit, and win a judgment from the farm for violating any number of labor laws. Illegals have no such recourse since they fear being deported.[/quote]
That’s exactly my point. Americans complaining about illegals taking their jobs are unwilling to do said jobs under the conditions and pay rate that the illegals do them. On top of this, Americans opposed to illegal immigration reap the benefits of it daily. All they have to do is look at the receipts from their grocery store, hotel, or oil change shop.[/quote]
I don’t think you understood what I was trying to say. My point was that you are conflating two separate issues — immigration and worker’s protections and rights. There should be no jobs in this country that do not conform to the nation’s labor laws regarding safety, working hours, and pay. The fact that such jobs exists means that employers are skirting the law and are exploiting illegal immigrants to do so. While it might be true that produce would be more expensive were produce workers treated according to US and state law, that has nothing to do with immigration. Again, Americans cannot work in these positions because they are protected by American labor laws. No farm would ever hire an American, even if they were willing, because an American could inform the authorities of unsafe/illegal work practices. An illegal immigrant is not able to do so because they fear deportation and there is even less work available in Mexico or Guatemala thanks to NAFTA. Perhaps you don’t believe in worker rights or protections and if so then I understand your point.
July 31, 2010 @ 10:22 PM
afx114 wrote:
That’s exactly
[quote=afx114]
That’s exactly my point. Americans complaining about illegals taking their jobs are unwilling to do said jobs under the conditions and pay rate that the illegals do them. On top of this, Americans opposed to illegal immigration reap the benefits of it daily. All they have to do is look at the receipts from their grocery store, hotel, or oil change shop.
That’s not to say that there aren’t negatives to immigration — clearly there are. But we can’t have a rational discussion about the scourge of illegal immigration unless we also discuss the benefits that we all enjoy and take for granted. It is much easier to demonize a segment of a population than it is to take a deeper look and realize how much we benefit from them.
I think Arraya described it best. Like it or not, illegal immigrants have become a vital organ of our economy, and opponents of illegal immigration need to ask themselves if they’re willing to take on the risk of removing it. And if they are willing to remove said organ, what do they plan to replace it with? As with any replacement organ it must be of the same relative size and perform the same relative functions at the same relative cost. Otherwise, it’s not worth the transplant.[/quote]
afx,
You’ll get no disagreement from me about the need to come down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. I would institute very harsh financial penalties initially (first 2-3 times they are caught), and serious jail time/confiscation of private property for offenses beyond that.
Personally, I don’t think the total “benefits” of the cheap labor filter down to the consumer. Corporate profit margins have been on the rise:
“For the last several years, tax cuts and low short-term rates have provided a huge tailwind for Corporate America. As a result of this record stimulus, profit margins are at 35-year highs …”
http://www.thestalwart.com/the_stalwart/2005/05/chart_of_the_da_1.html
While they don’t attibute it to globalization (insourcing of cheap labor, and outsourcing of jobs), I think it’s one of the primary drivers of these higher profit margins.
Still, I’d much rather pay higher prices for quality products that are produced in a way that is environmentally responsible, and respects workers’ rights to a decent, middle-class lifestyle and safe working conditions.
Personally, I think the price we pay for this “globalization” is far greater than the benefits we receive.
August 1, 2010 @ 11:25 AM
I’ve been watching this story
I’ve been watching this story about the French Gourmet in PB:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/25/feds-push-to-seize-restaurant-a-rare-one/
Here is a case of a potentially VERY costly enforcement happening in San Diego. It’s not always about back-breaking lettuce picking in illegal conditions…
Another interesting thing about this case is that what appeared to REALLY piss the Feds off was the repeated SSN fraud.
Two points:
– It’s not just crap jobs that are being taken – e.g. Construction jobs are being taken nowadays – those were previously good middle-class jobs
– the illegal status of these people forces other consequences – e.g. Underground economy, uninsured motorists (possibly leading to more hit and runs?)
We need to have a way to have folks be plugged into the system – I support e-verify and don’t understand why it’s use varies so widely from state to state.
As far as “the people already here” Brian, where would you draw the line? 5 years ago? Yesterday? Say we legalized all the folks who were able to get in by noon tomorrow… What about folks who come in after that? Say 15 years from now will we have another 15 million (or more) to deal with?
August 1, 2010 @ 11:28 AM
Sorry about the
Sorry about the mis-punctuated “it’s” above – I couldn’t figure out how to fix it on this iPad…
August 1, 2010 @ 12:08 PM
KSMountain wrote: Say we
[quote=KSMountain] Say we legalized all the folks who were able to get in by noon tomorrow… What about folks who come in after that? Say 15 years from now will we have another 15 million (or more) to deal with?[/quote]
Again, I’m looking at it from a humanitarian view.
I see the people already here as economic refugees, not migrants. I don’t want to hold them hostage to future immigration and policy.
The unauthorized immigrants who are law-abiding and not criminals and already here have nothing to do with future immigration. Let’s not punish them for fear of future immigration.
Again, remember than those unauthorized immigrants already here are having American children who will eventually sponsor their parents. Legalize them now, or legalize them later.
Unless we arrest millions of them, put them in camps and forcibly deport them, they are part of our society. Let’s integrate them.
August 1, 2010 @ 12:30 PM
Brian, you didn’t answer
Brian, you didn’t answer question.
August 1, 2010 @ 12:12 PM
How about rendering the
How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought
August 1, 2010 @ 12:33 PM
Arraya wrote:How about
[quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Globalization and the Internet are taking us in that direction.
August 1, 2010 @ 12:44 PM
Arraya wrote:How about
[quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Sounds like Utopia. I like the idea of Utopia, maybe, but I don’t think it is likely – even if we all start making our own small changes.
Here’s a question Arraya: if humans are still around in 20000 years, do you think there will still be conflict? Do you think there will still be inequality? Do you think think some will still be more ambitious, or greedy than others? Will there still be criminals? People who find it easier to take than earn?
Looking at the animal kingdom, it seems that conflict is not new, is not unique to humans, and doesn’t “go away” with increased maturity of the system. Do you think that humans are qualitatively different from animals?
August 2, 2010 @ 9:28 AM
KSMountain wrote:Arraya
[quote=KSMountain][quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Sounds like Utopia. I like the idea of Utopia, maybe, but I don’t think it is likely – even if we all start making our own small changes.
Here’s a question Arraya: if humans are still around in 20000 years, do you think there will still be conflict? Do you think there will still be inequality? Do you think think some will still be more ambitious, or greedy than others? Will there still be criminals? People who find it easier to take than earn?
Looking at the animal kingdom, it seems that conflict is not new, is not unique to humans, and doesn’t “go away” with increased maturity of the system. Do you think that humans are qualitatively different from animals?[/quote]
Those are big questions. If we are still around in 20000 years we will probably have figured out how not to create environments that lead to conflict. Einstein figured we were in our “predatory phase” and if we could get past it before doing to much damage, we might have a chance. Which probably inspired him to write this:
http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
Our view of nature as “red in tooth and claw” is mostly a projection of our own cultural prejudices, IMO. We find what we look for in a big inkblot of information(we seem to do that with politicians as well). Genetic determinism certainly is not what we thought a hundred years ago.
Humans are qualitatively different from animals by being self aware or second-order consciousness, as some philosophers would put it. Unfortunately, what makes us special also makes us very dangerous.
August 2, 2010 @ 7:29 PM
Arraya wrote:KSMountain
[quote=Arraya][quote=KSMountain][quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
Sounds like Utopia. I like the idea of Utopia, maybe, but I don’t think it is likely – even if we all start making our own small changes.
Here’s a question Arraya: if humans are still around in 20000 years, do you think there will still be conflict? Do you think there will still be inequality? Do you think think some will still be more ambitious, or greedy than others? Will there still be criminals? People who find it easier to take than earn?
Looking at the animal kingdom, it seems that conflict is not new, is not unique to humans, and doesn’t “go away” with increased maturity of the system. Do you think that humans are qualitatively different from animals?[/quote]
Those are big questions. If we are still around in 20000 years we will probably have figured out how not to create environments that lead to conflict. Einstein figured we were in our “predatory phase” and if we could get past it before doing to much damage, we might have a chance. Which probably inspired him to write this:
http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
Our view of nature as “red in tooth and claw” is mostly a projection of our own cultural prejudices, IMO. We find what we look for in a big inkblot of information(we seem to do that with politicians as well). Genetic determinism certainly is not what we thought a hundred years ago.
Humans are qualitatively different from animals by being self aware or second-order consciousness, as some philosophers would put it. Unfortunately, what makes us special also makes us very dangerous.[/quote]
I read the Einstein paper, thanks. I thought the first half (analysis) was very good. I agreed less with the prescriptive part about planned economies, etc.
I do think nature is *literally* “red in tooth and claw” (nice phrase), and that humans are part of it. I’d like to think that I arrived at that conclusion via observation, not cultural prejudice. Who knows.
Agree about genetic determinism, but the uniqueness of self-awareness to humans is not what we thought a few decades ago either.
When you consider just the major conflicts that are currently in progress around the world, it seems to me quite an ambitious project to think one could get a large proportion of the world to agree on *anything*.
Granted progress does happen. For example the treatment of the disabled in this country and others.
I do agree nations ain’t what they used to be, and are continuing to be “undermined” by global communication of all kinds.
Hmm, maybe this could be summed up by “Do you think we’ll *ever* emerge from the “predatory” phase?”.
There is a certain small percentage of the world with the luxury and inclination to contemplate a post-predatory world, but it seems to me a much larger proportion does not.
Chrissie Hynde: “We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars”.
August 3, 2010 @ 5:46 AM
KSMountain wrote:Chrissie
[quote=KSMountain]Chrissie Hynde: “We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars”.[/quote]
Props for using a Pretenders quote!
September 2, 2010 @ 11:30 AM
Got bed bugs? “If we screen
Got bed bugs? “If we screen legal aliens for contagious diseases, why are we allowing unscreened and contagious illegal aliens to roam the country infecting the citizenry?”
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html
September 2, 2010 @ 12:09 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Got bed bugs?
[quote=Zeitgeist]Got bed bugs? [/quote]
August 1, 2010 @ 5:51 PM
Arraya wrote:How about
[quote=Arraya]How about rendering the concept of nation states obsolete, as well as the understanding that, restoring the fundamental necessities for all humans and awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth and survival, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually, as the key to ending issues such as “illegal immigration”
Just a thought[/quote]
I’d like to soften my previous response to this proposal. I actually agree with the sentiment. I think it’s *highly* unlikely though that you would get enough other sufficiently “enlightened” folks to buy in.
I’ve had the words to “Imagine” and “Us and Them” going through my head since your post. The reality is, people aren’t about to give up “possessions” anytime soon. Once you accept that, you need laws, therefore police and courts and jails, therefore taxation, and pretty soon you’ve got yourself a nation state. The previous system, prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, was Feudalism, right? Was that better? I guess the point of my previous post was that competition is endemic to all life on earth, from plankton to blue whales and redwood trees. In that environment, and given (in my opinion) you will always have unenlightened scoundrels, you need some sort of system to try to mitigate chaos to some extent.
In a world with no possessions, would you even have a right to privacy in your own house/apartment? Or would you have to accept that 100 drunken teenagers might come in at midnight and use your house for a rave party until 5 am. On a work night no less!
August 2, 2010 @ 12:38 AM
Very good posts on this
Very good posts on this topic, KSMountain.
August 2, 2010 @ 7:15 AM
i am willing to give up my
i am willing to give up my possessions for a good nights sleep and to kick out those goddamned rave-party teens.
August 1, 2010 @ 4:03 PM
KSMountain wrote:I’ve been
[quote=KSMountain]I’ve been watching this story about the French Gourmet in PB:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/25/feds-push-to-seize-restaurant-a-rare-one/
Here is a case of a potentially VERY costly enforcement happening in San Diego. It’s not always about back-breaking lettuce picking in illegal conditions…
Another interesting thing about this case is that what appeared to REALLY piss the Feds off was the repeated SSN fraud.
Two points:
– It’s not just crap jobs that are being taken – e.g. Construction jobs are being taken nowadays – those were previously good middle-class jobs
– the illegal status of these people forces other consequences – e.g. Underground economy, uninsured motorists (possibly leading to more hit and runs?)
We need to have a way to have folks be plugged into the system – I support e-verify and don’t understand why it’s use varies so widely from state to state.
[/quote]
I wanna see the “please take our jobs” postings in the construction industry, or in gardening/home care, or in the resturant industry. I have cousins in all three, and they are citizens. I am pretty sure they are not the only Americans who want those jobs.
As for the farm industry, the loss of cheap labor would only nessitate a transition to other forms of harvest. My grandfather grew up harvesting corn by hand, now they drive air conditioned combines with GPS and Stereo sound for your IPOD. . Prices may go up some, but it wont be $4 for a head of lettuce or anything.
August 1, 2010 @ 6:02 PM
From a legal mexican
From a legal mexican immigrant..
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/07/30/simon.arizona.anger.cnn
August 1, 2010 @ 6:34 PM
ucodegen wrote:From a legal
[quote=ucodegen]From a legal mexican immigrant..
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/07/30/simon.arizona.anger.cnn%5B/quote%5D
He’s a Racist! And that whole video was a heartless Racist Screed.
Btw I have a friend who lays tile. He’s a citizen. I guess he competes with the under the table guys in this video…
August 1, 2010 @ 6:44 PM
KSMountain wrote:
He’s a
[quote KSMountain]
He’s a Racist! And that whole video was a heartless Racist Screed.
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO… 😎
[quote KSMountain]
Btw I have a friend who lays tile. He’s a citizen. I guess he competes with the under the table guys in this video…
[/quote]
Correct. I also found the illegals response that because no ‘legal citizens’ were out on the corners looking for jobs that no one wanted them kind of interesting.
Normally we apply for a jobs. Not wait for one to come driving by or asking for handouts(I guess there are some ‘exceptions’ with respect to asking for handouts..).
Personally, I would not want to have one of these people lay tile. I have seen some of their work, and usually it would be .. tear out and redo ..
One thing about using these people for laying tile, is that there is no way to check their work record (previous employers), or previous work history (previous employers or visiting previous job-sites if possible). If I am going to do a large enough job that I would want help, I would want references.
August 1, 2010 @ 6:55 PM
To be clear/consistent, if my
To be clear/consistent, if my friend is working under the table I don’t support that either.
For the social contract that Brian and others extol to work, there has to be a true “contract”. That means obligations on both sides, not just the side that doles out the goodies.
September 2, 2010 @ 12:33 PM
In the last 20 years of
In the last 20 years of watching this I remember only one person saying we should help Mexico solve her problems. LOL
I am pretty sure Mexicans would rather live and prosper in Mexico and not the USA as thats where they grew up.
The fact that no one ever takes this angle says it all.
If you say Mexico can’t solve her problems then you imply that Mexicans are dumber or less capable than Americans.
Counterpoint…the cartels. Of course they live under the gun of the cartels.
But this only shows that if we had real compassion we would have focused our military on the cartels and not Iraq..or at least made them our priority since Mexico is our neighbor.
Anyway…if you still insist on solving Mexico’s problems for her without any effort for Mexico’s part then you probably believe in Big Brother and probably don’t believe in equality. You probably want someone lesser than you to need you. Equality also implies expecting a mutual effort to solve a problem.
You really want hope and change.? Pull out of Iraq (when they can stand on their own feet) start on the Cartels and give Mexicans the hope that they can change their country for the better and don’t need to go to the Norte. When you really care about someone you help or show them how to stand on their own two feet…anything other is, at best, a symbiotic relationship.
Neither side wants the problem to go away…not with all this labor for the big business and not with all these potential voters.
September 2, 2010 @ 12:43 PM
“The global human rights
“The global human rights organization Amnesty International has harsh criticism for the way Mexico treats illegal immigrants on its southern border, calling it a human rights crisis. A recently released video documents the treatment of borders crossers into Mexico. The video shows treatment that includes rape, murder and torture at the hands of gangs and Mexican officials.”
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Is-Article-67-Mexicos-version-of-SB-1070-93605879.html
September 2, 2010 @ 10:49 PM
Feds sue Arizona sheriff in
Feds sue Arizona sheriff in civil rights probe
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13094006
September 2, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
Aecetia wrote:”The global
[quote=Aecetia]”The global human rights organization Amnesty International has harsh criticism for the way Mexico treats illegal immigrants on its southern border, calling it a human rights crisis. A recently released video documents the treatment of borders crossers into Mexico. The video shows treatment that includes rape, murder and torture at the hands of gangs and Mexican officials.”
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Is-Article-67-Mexicos-version-of-SB-1070-93605879.html
[/quote]
And what does it have anything to do with the Arizona law?
September 4, 2010 @ 12:50 PM
Six charged in forced labor
Six charged in forced labor of 400 Thais on US farms
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiBzRlKSv8_0gHkahCx_2iEJ4ucA
The US Justice Department on Thursday announced indictments against six people for luring 400 Thais to the United States and conspiring to force them into working as farm laborers.
A grand jury in Honolulu indicted the six for their alleged scheme “to coerce the labor and services of approximately 400 Thai nationals brought by the defendants to the United States from Thailand from May 2004 through September 2005 to work on farms across the country.”
Officials said Israeli Mordechai Orian, Pranee Tubchumpol, Shane Germann and Sam Wongsesanit of the Los Angeles-based company Global Horizons Manpower conspired with Thai labor recruiters Ratawan Chunharutai and Podjanee Sinchai to carry out the crimes that began with false promises of lucrative jobs.
The Thais, upon arrival in the United States, had their passports taken away and forced to pay thousands of dollars in recruitment fees, which were “financed by debts secured with the workers’ family property and homes.”
The defendants maintained the victims’ labor on farms in Hawaii and the western US state of Washington “by threatening to send them back to Thailand, knowing they would face serious economic harms created by the debts,” said the Justice Department.
If convicted, Orian and Tubchumpol face maximum sentences of 70 years in prison, and Chunharutai faces a maximum sentence of 65 years in prison, officials said.
The others face maximum sentences of five to 10 years in prison.
September 4, 2010 @ 8:20 PM
Interesting to see the vote
Interesting to see the vote go more than 60% for this law and most of the comments go against it. I am absolutely for this law and against all law breakers of any type. We would never say such stupid things for car theives or rapists, etc. Bottom line is that we share a border with a corrupt regime and we have a huge jobs magnet that the republicans want for the CHEAP labor to depress wages and bust Unions and the Democrats want as voters. So both parties have not enforced the laws for years. So most of the people thumbing their noses at the law happen to be South American and primarliy MExicans. That’s not racists, it is a fact. With way more than 10% unemployment, anyone for this cheap labor is racist against poor Americans. This includes your representatives who have not done their jobs. For all of you who are foolish enough to believe we could not send them all back, we could do it in a few months directly with normal law enforcement, or in a few years by throwing a few CEO’s in jail and shutting down the jobs magnet. Thta’s why the feds are against AZ, because they will prove this will work! IF they want to have another amnesty, then they need to offset any increase of new immigration with the amnestied evenly, so if there are 20 million, then they need to shut down immigration for 20 years for assimilation and jobs reasons period. The problem is that if you import 20-50M poor people who need assistance then this drags down the rest of the country as it has already done to CA and you get a lot of the bad with the good, maybe more of the bad! So it is a loser for America pretty much any way you look at it.
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.
September 14, 2010 @ 4:50 PM
steveno wrote:Interesting to
[quote=steveno]Interesting to see the vote go more than 60% for this law and most of the comments go against it. I am absolutely for this law and against all law breakers of any type. We would never say such stupid things for car theives or rapists, etc….[/quote]
Or pot smokers, or file sharers or non-permitted granny flats.
We must believe that anything the government says is bad is all equally bad.
We have no right to question the law.
No matter what it is.
September 14, 2010 @ 4:51 PM
steveno wrote:Interesting to
[quote=steveno]Interesting to see the vote go more than 60% for this law and most of the comments go against it. I am absolutely for this law and against all law breakers of any type. We would never say such stupid things for car theives or rapists, etc. Bottom line is that we share a border with a corrupt regime and we have a huge jobs magnet that the republicans want for the CHEAP labor to depress wages and bust Unions and the Democrats want as voters. So both parties have not enforced the laws for years. So most of the people thumbing their noses at the law happen to be South American and primarliy MExicans. That’s not racists, it is a fact. With way more than 10% unemployment, anyone for this cheap labor is racist against poor Americans. This includes your representatives who have not done their jobs. For all of you who are foolish enough to believe we could not send them all back, we could do it in a few months directly with normal law enforcement, or in a few years by throwing a few CEO’s in jail and shutting down the jobs magnet. Thta’s why the feds are against AZ, because they will prove this will work! IF they want to have another amnesty, then they need to offset any increase of new immigration with the amnestied evenly, so if there are 20 million, then they need to shut down immigration for 20 years for assimilation and jobs reasons period. The problem is that if you import 20-50M poor people who need assistance then this drags down the rest of the country as it has already done to CA and you get a lot of the bad with the good, maybe more of the bad! So it is a loser for America pretty much any way you look at it.
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.[/quote]
Wow, the oxymoron is that if you believe what you say, that H1-B’s don’t cut it compared to your esteemed good old native-american-indian engineering blood, then you shouldn’t feel threatened about H1-B’s. The fact that you are tells me something else…..The irony… Check the engineering school enrollment buddy. Not like our generation are willing (or able) to readily sign up for the job….And yet, folks are wondering why the unemployment rates are so staggering….
September 14, 2010 @ 5:05 PM
steveno wrote:
I see some of
[quote=steveno]
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.[/quote]
The brave new world arrived sooner than you expected. ACM/IBM sponsored International Collegiate Programming Contest – 2010 results
http://cm.baylor.edu/ICPCFinalResults2010
The top U.S. schools – Stanford, Cornell, MIT, Carnegie Mellon… happily sharing spots 14-35 with second-tier Chinese and Russian schools.
UCSD responded to ‘Honorable Mention’ in 2008 by dropping out of contest.
September 14, 2010 @ 6:07 PM
captcha wrote:steveno
[quote=captcha][quote=steveno]
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical. There is no way that anyone from a 3rd world country taking Engineering is going to get trained by the best or work on the top projects in these countries, so the lie is exposed. They do not have comparable universities as of now. Maybe in 10-20 years after taking our manufacturing base, but it will take time. Again, with >>10% uneployment, we should be sending them back or making the big corps pay big for the savings they are getting by abusing the system. The price should be at least $10K per year per H1B. That would help straighten the system out and they should be limited in the amount a company could use, say 10%. I see areas with 30%, and most fo them are doing CAD work…this is certainly not the “best and brightest” area.[/quote]
The brave new world arrived sooner than you expected. ACM/IBM sponsored International Collegiate Programming Contest – 2010 results
http://cm.baylor.edu/ICPCFinalResults2010
The top U.S. schools – Stanford, Cornell, MIT, Carnegie Mellon… happily sharing spots 14-35 with second-tier Chinese and Russian schools.
UCSD responded to ‘Honorable Mention’ in 2008 by dropping out of contest.[/quote]
Hey, I went to one of those schools listed in that survey. NTU has long time been know to be one of the best schools.
Slight hijack.
I think one of the interesting tidbits from the above survey is comparing the international schools to the U.S. schools. In the international schools, the top schools are all public, education mostly paid by the government, where students get in by merit and extrance criteria. If you don’t get in, you pay to go to private…. In the U.S., it’s the reverse..the private schools you pay (dearly to get in) and they also hold all the monopoly…. Tells you the relative priorities of education in this country versus the rest of the world. It’s why I think, unfortunately in this country, you can buy your way into a decent education, and why some people who are poor but otherwise capable might never get a shot at being the best. Pretty screwed up if you ask me….
September 14, 2010 @ 4:29 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39180275/ns/us_news-immigration_a_nation_divided/
A US citizen with US birth certificate, Social Security Card & Texas ID deported to Mexico…lol
Just shows you how hard it is to “prove” you are legally in the country on spot checks.
How many of you carry anything other than Driver’s license for ID every day. And driver’s license does not prove your citizen ship nor legal residency.
September 14, 2010 @ 4:43 PM
steveno:
They want the
steveno:
They want the population dumbed down and it is working pretty well so far. In the above case, the person deported spoke remedial English and signed a document (he probably did not understand what he signed or could not read it). Uneducated people are easier to control.
September 14, 2010 @ 7:53 PM
Great, stirred up some good
Great, stirred up some good stuff with that long diatribe. Agreed, pretty much anything the govt or MSM come up with should be questioned long and hard and not accepted by anyone. school rankings are OPINIONS based on some stupid measures…I have not seen two that agree past the first few schools after that its a total free for all. Agreed, in the 3rd world, school is a privilege and it is typically hard work to get in. The problem is that third world countries are decades or farther behind in most items, and the professors have not worked on the top technologies with few exceptions. they do not have the equipment, capabilities, etc. That’s why they are such good book quoters. I have read many international papers in my field and they are still making basic mistakes that were learned in the US 20 years ago. There are areas like software and electronics where we are probably falling behind, but in anything military…we lead by decades. The major problem is the cheap-labor thinking. Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.
September 14, 2010 @ 8:52 PM
steveno wrote:… Germany
[quote=steveno]… Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.[/quote]
Uhhh…..okay.
The basic concept of Keynesian thought is the use of fiscal policy (government spending) to effect aggregate demand (to improve the economy).
That’s not a controversial statement.
That’s the (overly reduced) definition.
Germany has the government as a whopping half of its economy.
The US has the government as 20% of the economy as a point of comparison.
So you have taken an example of the success of keynesian fundamentals (though I don’t think the Germans would call themselves keynesians) and used it as an example of how we need to be less keynesian and adopt more keynesian policies(????!?!?!?).
Do you get high before posting?
September 14, 2010 @ 9:09 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:steveno
[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=steveno]… Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.[/quote]
Do you get high before posting?[/quote]
People are Keynesian but they don’t know it and won’t admit it.
At least we now know that trickle-down, supply-side economics is all about going on a debt binge, which boosts spending short term, but doesn’t work long term.
September 14, 2010 @ 10:29 PM
briansd1 wrote:
At least we
[quote=briansd1]
At least we now know that trickle-down, supply-side economics is all about going on a debt binge, which boosts spending short term, but doesn’t work long term.[/quote]
We know no such thing.
All we know is that there is no free lunch and that any intervention by government (which is all government ever does) has to be thought out and intelligent.
To quote Christine Kehoe:
“the defining policy document of any government is its budget”.
Honestly brian I kind of wish you weren’t on the same side of the political spectrum as me.
BTW, many economists consider Reaganomics one of the most substantial examples of peacetime keynesian policies in history.
September 14, 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Wrong again Brian. “The
Wrong again Brian. “The former socialist economies have been at the forefront of those moving toward supply-side tax policies. Following the collapse of communism, most of these countries had a combination of personal income and payroll taxes that generated high marginal tax rates. As a result, the incentive to work was weak and tax evasion was massive.”
In January 2001, the Putin administration shifted to a 13 percent flat-rate income tax and also sharply reduced the payroll tax rate with impressive results. Tax compliance increased and the inflation-adjusted revenues from the personal income tax rose more than 20 percent annually during the three years following the adoption of the flat-rate tax.
Source:(http://www.econlib.org)
original URL, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SupplySideEconomics.html.
September 15, 2010 @ 8:04 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:
Honestly
[quote=urbanrealtor]
Honestly brian I kind of wish you weren’t on the same side of the political spectrum as me.[/quote]
I think that I lack the empathy that most liberals share. So I’m not always welcomed. But I’m OK with that.
[quote=urbanrealtor]
BTW, many economists consider Reaganomics one of the most substantial examples of peacetime keynesian policies in history.[/quote]
Sure, we could say that, especially about the military spending part.
Either way, we know that government action is highly effective in affecting economic outcomes. I’m all for calibrating government intervention as appropriate.
The example of Singapore is most interesting. It’s a capitalist society, but it’s run like a communist country. It became rich is one generation. Purchasing power has now surpassed Japan as Japan’s economy stagnated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11lee.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
September 15, 2010 @ 8:14 AM
Its not about empathy.
Its
Its not about empathy.
Its about coherence and sanity.
September 15, 2010 @ 9:17 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:Its not
[quote=urbanrealtor]Its not about empathy.
Its about coherence and sanity.[/quote]
haha…
If the other side can use incoherence and insanity to win, we could use a little of the same to not lose.
September 15, 2010 @ 9:52 AM
Too late.
Too late.
September 15, 2010 @ 10:41 AM
Aecetia wrote:Too late.
Maybe
[quote=Aecetia]Too late.[/quote]
Maybe not. I’m hoping that incoherence and insanity takes over and defines the other side. 😉
September 14, 2010 @ 9:22 PM
steveno wrote:Great, stirred
[quote=steveno]Great, stirred up some good stuff with that long diatribe. Agreed, pretty much anything the govt or MSM come up with should be questioned long and hard and not accepted by anyone. school rankings are OPINIONS based on some stupid measures…I have not seen two that agree past the first few schools after that its a total free for all. Agreed, in the 3rd world, school is a privilege and it is typically hard work to get in. The problem is that third world countries are decades or farther behind in most items, and the professors have not worked on the top technologies with few exceptions. they do not have the equipment, capabilities, etc. That’s why they are such good book quoters. I have read many international papers in my field and they are still making basic mistakes that were learned in the US 20 years ago. There are areas like software and electronics where we are probably falling behind, but in anything military…we lead by decades. The major problem is the cheap-labor thinking. Germany does the opposite and still is one of the strongest exporters today. we need to turn around this stupid Keynes economics experiment that has failed us, treat the other countries as they treat us and put up the same barriers and requirements and build things again, if not just for ourselves, for others as well.[/quote]
I think you got it backwards. I think the reason why U.S. leads in defense research has nothing to do with “cheap labor”. It has everything to do with
1) U.S. is the largest arms producer (we love things that kill)…to the point it’s bankrupting this country
2) Being the nature of defense business it’s limited competition. It’s not a free market, in that you cannot easily hire people who are NOT U.S. citizens to do this work. By that nature, there is a natural market control on it.
I find that ironic you’re mentioned about H1-B and talking about defense companies in the same topic. It’s contradictory, because for really sensitive stuff, you need security clearance which H1-B’s can’t get.
So I’m not sure what your basing your “cheap labor/quality” and defense industry points on. And frankly, over the past decades top talent has migrated away from the defense business and was considered a “last resort consideration”…because well…. frankly relative to other peer industries employing the same skill set..it pays worse and higher risk due to cyclical nature of defense budgets.
Lastly, good luck finding great defense contracting these days. Everything is moving back to VA/Washington area. If in doubt, ask all the SAIC and BAE people….
$10 says you never stepped into a a top seed international university before. And I wonder which industry you work in. Because if you’re in defense, you wouldn’t have tried to make a comparison to H1-B employment (it virtually doesn’t exist in the more important things). And if you’re not in defense, then what’s your basis for claiming that “we’re the best and the best tech is in defense”? Got UAW blood in you?
September 14, 2010 @ 11:22 PM
What I want to know is
What I want to know is this:
I see some of the talk about the H1B’s. I work along side many of them and they are very pliable. A few from MIT, and they are damn dumb. They are definitely not the best and brightest…not even close…very good book readers though, but impractical.
What firm/industry are we talking about, where (here in SD), and what level?
Sorry, but my B.S. meter is going off here…Defense industry/ MIT/ H1-B? It’s just not adding up. The three usually don’t go hand in hand.